Egyptians with Medieval Technology
- Thread starter LoneWolf23
- Start date
Tonguez
A suffusion of yellow
The Grackle said:
Actually the weak spot on a chariot isn't the drivers its the ruddy great target out fromnt pulling the contraption - the standard tactic was to shoot the horse which resulted in the chariot flipping and the passengers being thrown/crushed etc etc
Horse and rider is an inherently smaller target
Last edited:
More on Chariots
Another thing to note about chariots is that they are great, clumsy beasts. In rough terrain they are just about useless. In any kind of terrain they have lousy maneuverability. They are also a great waste of resources. A single horseman is a lot more maneuverable, capable, and cheaper. Even a pair of horsemen is a better military investment that a single two-horse chariot.
BTW, the four horse chariot was a development of Roman chariot racing.
In short, while the chariot may look all cool and stuff like that, on the battlefield cavalry - even without stirrups - works a lot better. And in war what matters is winning. You can always show off in the triumphal parade.
Another thing to note about chariots is that they are great, clumsy beasts. In rough terrain they are just about useless. In any kind of terrain they have lousy maneuverability. They are also a great waste of resources. A single horseman is a lot more maneuverable, capable, and cheaper. Even a pair of horsemen is a better military investment that a single two-horse chariot.
BTW, the four horse chariot was a development of Roman chariot racing.
In short, while the chariot may look all cool and stuff like that, on the battlefield cavalry - even without stirrups - works a lot better. And in war what matters is winning. You can always show off in the triumphal parade.
Rabelais
First Post
Well it's magic afterall...
Since the horses are such great targets, take them out of the equation. If I were an enterprising young mage with a GREAT governement contract to improve the Chariot, I'd try to make horseless chariots.
"Your Majesty, if it pleases you, I've taken to calling them Dune Buggies"
Since the horses are such great targets, take them out of the equation. If I were an enterprising young mage with a GREAT governement contract to improve the Chariot, I'd try to make horseless chariots.
"Your Majesty, if it pleases you, I've taken to calling them Dune Buggies"
What About the Neighbors?
Okay, if the ancient Egyptians are going to have medieval technology, what about the neighbors? Social and technological changes do not occur in a vacuum. If one power develops, say, a 14th century level of tech, then the others will have something close to, if not better than, that.
Of course, what neighbors we're thinking of depends on the historical period. New Kingdom Egypt had very different neighbors than Old Kingdom or even pre-Dynastic Egypt. Heck, Egypt herself went through a lot of changes in the 3,000 or so years between the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt and the start of the Christian Era.
And how does the tech develop in the first place. All advances depend upon previous advances. You cannot smelt iron until you can make a fire hot enough. Casting iron take a fire even hotter.
Which ties into the specific ancient Egyptian historical period. Early Old Kingdom Egypt was a neolithic society. Copper tools was the best they could do, bronze would come later, and through trade with her Asian neighbors. While it is possible for a neolithic society to develop iron smelting, it's not easily done. (A source of iron ore also helps.) So the earlier you want the Egyptians to have medieval tech, the harder it's going to be to justify it.
One possible solution is to have it introduced by an outside agency. In the realm of alternate history a favorite is the precipitous introduction of parties from the future. In S. M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time it's very late 20th century Americans on the island of Nantucket and the U. S. Coast Guard training ship, Eagle. In Eric Flint's Shards universe (1632, 1633, etc.) a mining town is transported back in time and space to Central Germany in (that's right
)1632.
Or, you could use the ever popular Alien Space Bats (ASBs). A critter first 'invoked' by the crew at [soc.history.what-if] to "explain" alternate histories so implausible only outside intervention could justify them. While originally intended to be derogatory, some have started using ASBs in a more serious manner. Eric Flint for example, with his shards of extraterrestrial origin mucking with folks and locales.
So now you have more things to think about.
Okay, if the ancient Egyptians are going to have medieval technology, what about the neighbors? Social and technological changes do not occur in a vacuum. If one power develops, say, a 14th century level of tech, then the others will have something close to, if not better than, that.
Of course, what neighbors we're thinking of depends on the historical period. New Kingdom Egypt had very different neighbors than Old Kingdom or even pre-Dynastic Egypt. Heck, Egypt herself went through a lot of changes in the 3,000 or so years between the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt and the start of the Christian Era.
And how does the tech develop in the first place. All advances depend upon previous advances. You cannot smelt iron until you can make a fire hot enough. Casting iron take a fire even hotter.
Which ties into the specific ancient Egyptian historical period. Early Old Kingdom Egypt was a neolithic society. Copper tools was the best they could do, bronze would come later, and through trade with her Asian neighbors. While it is possible for a neolithic society to develop iron smelting, it's not easily done. (A source of iron ore also helps.) So the earlier you want the Egyptians to have medieval tech, the harder it's going to be to justify it.
One possible solution is to have it introduced by an outside agency. In the realm of alternate history a favorite is the precipitous introduction of parties from the future. In S. M. Stirling's Island in the Sea of Time it's very late 20th century Americans on the island of Nantucket and the U. S. Coast Guard training ship, Eagle. In Eric Flint's Shards universe (1632, 1633, etc.) a mining town is transported back in time and space to Central Germany in (that's right
)1632.Or, you could use the ever popular Alien Space Bats (ASBs). A critter first 'invoked' by the crew at [soc.history.what-if] to "explain" alternate histories so implausible only outside intervention could justify them. While originally intended to be derogatory, some have started using ASBs in a more serious manner. Eric Flint for example, with his shards of extraterrestrial origin mucking with folks and locales.
So now you have more things to think about.
Rabelais
First Post
In addition
Yes, Egypt was a theocracy, but more to the point the Pharaoh was himself a god. If you really want to add some spice, give your Pharaohs divine ranks.
The concept of the divinity of the Egyptian rulers began early in the development of the Old Kingdom. The rulers Scorpion and Narmer, approximately 3050-3000B.C.E, were depicted in inscriptions as larger than those around them, suggesting that they were gods among men. Myths supported the divinity of the “Good King” and his responsibility for maintaining order. Osiris had been the rightful ruler of Egypt, his wicked brother Seth slew him, and dismembered his body. His son Horus, sought revenge against Seth for the murder of his father. Horus defeated Seth, and became the rightful king. “Thus every king of Egypt was the earthly embodiment of Horus. He overcame Seth (evil, disorder, and chaos) and preserved ma’at. (Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture William H. Stiebing jr. p. 116)”
The concept of Ma’at is the justification for political stability in Egypt. Ma’at represents the cardinal virtues of stable rulership, truth, order, balance, harmony, wisdom and justice (Stiebing, p114). The king ruled through this concept, and in counterbalance, the concept is maintained through him in return. The divine kings (Nisut Bity, or “King of Upper and Lower Egypt”) were the personification of Ma’at and in that capacity maintained a sort of “common law” approach to their decrees. On page 116, Stiebing states that “He was expected to uphold ma’at. His legal decisions followed traditional concepts of personal rights, fairness and justice designed to maintain the status quo.” The king maintained the natural order, and kept the forces of chaos at bay (Stiebing p.117).
There's more, but the rest of my paper has to do with the Akkadians and the rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur.
Yes, Egypt was a theocracy, but more to the point the Pharaoh was himself a god. If you really want to add some spice, give your Pharaohs divine ranks.
The concept of the divinity of the Egyptian rulers began early in the development of the Old Kingdom. The rulers Scorpion and Narmer, approximately 3050-3000B.C.E, were depicted in inscriptions as larger than those around them, suggesting that they were gods among men. Myths supported the divinity of the “Good King” and his responsibility for maintaining order. Osiris had been the rightful ruler of Egypt, his wicked brother Seth slew him, and dismembered his body. His son Horus, sought revenge against Seth for the murder of his father. Horus defeated Seth, and became the rightful king. “Thus every king of Egypt was the earthly embodiment of Horus. He overcame Seth (evil, disorder, and chaos) and preserved ma’at. (Ancient Near Eastern History and Culture William H. Stiebing jr. p. 116)”
The concept of Ma’at is the justification for political stability in Egypt. Ma’at represents the cardinal virtues of stable rulership, truth, order, balance, harmony, wisdom and justice (Stiebing, p114). The king ruled through this concept, and in counterbalance, the concept is maintained through him in return. The divine kings (Nisut Bity, or “King of Upper and Lower Egypt”) were the personification of Ma’at and in that capacity maintained a sort of “common law” approach to their decrees. On page 116, Stiebing states that “He was expected to uphold ma’at. His legal decisions followed traditional concepts of personal rights, fairness and justice designed to maintain the status quo.” The king maintained the natural order, and kept the forces of chaos at bay (Stiebing p.117).
There's more, but the rest of my paper has to do with the Akkadians and the rulers of the Third Dynasty of Ur.
Last edited:
Rabelais said:
Okay, have you ever ridden in a car with bad shocks, on a bad road?. Now, remove the seats and make driver and passenger stand up. Give it really lousy handling characteristics. To put it bluntly, chariots sucked. Clumsy, uncomfortable, as great a danger to their crew as to the enemy (if not more so). Once you get to know chariots you'll understand why most cultures dropped the whole idea once they got the hang of riding horses. Except for ceremonial purposes in some cases.
Oh, and without the horses your chariots will need an extra pair of wheels.. Or something to keep the front end from plowing into the ground.
Credit the ancients with some smarts, people. Given a medieval level of technology chariots will be relegated to parades, museums, and storybooks. They'll have better things to use.
Last edited:
Rabelais said:
Any possibility of getting a copy of that paper? A .doc or .txt file for instance. And your sources. I'm interested in that place and time.
You can reach me at: mythusmage@mythusmage.com.
And (in a further attempt to hijack this thread
), what do you think of Sargon of Akkad's daughter (sorry, I've spaced the name)?
The Grackle
First Post
Tonguez said:
Shoot a Horse!! That's Barbaric!!
Actually the Pcs did alot of that. Barbarians.
Ahhhh, but they're so cool. D&D has enough implausible stuff in it that medieval chariots are hardly gonna stand out as ridiculous. (this is egyptian styled after all) As for AlienSpaceBats what if they didn't have horses, but had let's say, raptors. Or, better yet, ogres!Mythusmage said:
Then maybe some people wouldn't be so keen on shooting them all the time.
Barbarians
QuentinGeorge
Legend
I think the real-life Egyptians themselves had given up on Chariots by the Ptolemaic era, hadn't they?
