Is it true? (History)

[tkioz]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

 

[Rhys95]

Many people claim the Hitler was a vegetarian. I have heard this isn't true but he was advised by doctors to do so because he suffered from chronic flatulence.

 

[Chamale]

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

No, that's not true. People had been riding on horseback long before the Greeks started doing it - that's where the Centaur myth comes from. I'm pretty sure the Egyptians also had horses large enough to ride.

I have a horse-related question myself - about the Conquistadors and the Aztecs. Supposedly, the Aztecs thought a man in metal armour, on a metal-covered horse, was a single monster and not two separate entities. Is this true?

 

[TheIronRuler]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

About chariots, there is plenty of mention in the Bible (Hebrew version).
I leaned it because it's one of the necessary subjects here, along with Hebrew, Literature and Civil studies.
There were horsemen, it was written there, but chariots were much more fearsome and were better at running down fleeing enemies. Most of the battles taken by two sides were on plains, so chariots were extremely effective compared to cavalry. It could carry about three people, one is a driver and two others fighting on top of a moving platform.
When the army was noted, three things were taken into consideration - Armed Men, Cavalry and Chariots. These were the main three forces (though sometimes archers are mentioned seperately).
if you take some of the events in the bible as history (The battles) you can see that there were cavalry at the time.

Roman HAD cavalry, it's a given fact. I'm not too sure about Greeks though.

 

[TheIronRuler]

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

No, that's not true. People had been riding on horseback long before the Greeks started doing it - that's where the Centaur myth comes from. I'm pretty sure the Egyptians also had horses large enough to ride.

I have a horse-related question myself - about the Conquistadors and the Aztecs. Supposedly, the Aztecs thought a man in metal armour, on a metal-covered horse, was a single monster and not two separate entities. Is this true?

Unlikely. They saw them dismounted when they were conducting trade. they didn't have as many horses as men and not all were mounted on horses.
But they may have seen them in the beginning as a single entity, it is possible, but when they were conducting negotiations or trade they were all dismounted.

 

[Chamale]

Hitler didn't have only one ball

Actually, there's some debate about whether this was true. Several records have been advanced that claim Hitler actually did only have one ball. There was an American medic who treated Hitler after he was shot in the groin in World War I, a German doctor who inspected him for venereal disease, and a Soviet doctor who conducted an autopsy when they recovered Hitler's corpse. However, all of these records came to light after World War II, so they may be invented as propaganda.

 

[manythings]

Mao Tse Tung had only one ball.

I have a horse-related question myself - about the Conquistadors and the Aztecs. Supposedly, the Aztecs thought a man in metal armour, on a metal-covered horse, was a single monster and not two separate entities. Is this true?

They'd never seen horse. Most of the domesticated animals on we have originated in the Fertile Crescent, they only had Alpacas in South America. I don't know if they thought they were one entity, that has the distinct sense of bullshit about it, but they were terrified of horses.

 

[tkioz]

Hitler didn't have only one ball

Actually, there's some debate about whether this was true. Several records have been advanced that claim Hitler actually did only have one ball. There was an American medic who treated Hitler after he was shot in the groin in World War I, a German doctor who inspected him for venereal disease, and a Soviet doctor who conducted an autopsy when they recovered Hitler's corpse. However, all of these records came to light after World War II, so they may be invented as propaganda.

True there is some debate, but from what I recall the "one ball" thing started showing up early in the war in London News Papers (strangely enough the same ones that started the "Napoleon was short" stuff), with any base at the time.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

About chariots, there is plenty of mention in the Bible (Hebrew version).
I leaned it because it's one of the necessary subjects here, along with Hebrew, Literature and Civil studies.
There were horsemen, it was written there, but chariots were much more fearsome and were better at running down fleeing enemies. Most of the battles taken by two sides were on plains, so chariots were extremely effective compared to cavalry. It could carry about three people, one is a driver and two others fighting on top of a moving platform.
When the army was noted, three things were taken into consideration - Armed Men, Cavalry and Chariots. These were the main three forces (though sometimes archers are mentioned seperately).
if you take some of the events in the bible as history (The battles) you can see that there were cavalry at the time.

Roman HAD cavalry, it's a given fact. I'm not too sure about Greeks though.

They used chariots because the stirrup hadn't been invented yet, which made cavalry charges fairly ineffective. Roman cavalry was used in the late empire, but it wasn't as effective as medieval cavalry, due to the lack of stirrups.

 

[Flac00]

Yeah, horses have been ridable by people since they were first discovered in Eastern Russia/Poland area.

 

[Lionsfan]

Already answered, but yes Horses have been Rideable[footnote]I don't think this is actually a word[/footnote] since discovery. However without proper saddles to keep soldiers on the horse they would have been fairly ineffective as Calvary.

 

[tkioz]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

About chariots, there is plenty of mention in the Bible (Hebrew version).
I leaned it because it's one of the necessary subjects here, along with Hebrew, Literature and Civil studies.
There were horsemen, it was written there, but chariots were much more fearsome and were better at running down fleeing enemies. Most of the battles taken by two sides were on plains, so chariots were extremely effective compared to cavalry. It could carry about three people, one is a driver and two others fighting on top of a moving platform.
When the army was noted, three things were taken into consideration - Armed Men, Cavalry and Chariots. These were the main three forces (though sometimes archers are mentioned seperately).
if you take some of the events in the bible as history (The battles) you can see that there were cavalry at the time.

Roman HAD cavalry, it's a given fact. I'm not too sure about Greeks though.

They used chariots because the stirrup hadn't been invented yet, which made cavalry charges fairly ineffective. Roman cavalry was used in the late empire, but it wasn't as effective as medieval cavalry, due to the lack of stirrups.

Damn. I'd totally blanked that, and I road a lot when I was younger. I couldn't imagine galloping a horse with only one hand on the rains and no stirrup! It's such a simple device, so simple we assume it's always been there, but it's invention must of been a huge game changer,

 

[qeinar]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

wow.. it's wierd to me you were thinking they made chariots before they were riding the horses. : p

 

[spartan231490]

I thought I'd make a subject about historical information that some people might ask other people to clarify (with sources!).

There are lots of cool little historical myths that people can dispel (example Napoleon wasn't all that short, and Hitler didn't have only one ball), and well I love history.

But mainly because I have a question that despite searching the 'net I couldn't find an answer too. I was reading a (fiction) book and it made note that the reason Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians used Chariots in their early history because horses hadn't been bred big enough to carry a man, is that true?

Ask your own question, or answer someone else's.

Actually, whether or not Napoleon was short is still in debate. There's evidence for both sides.(unless something new came to light since I googled it 6 months ago)

 

[SckizoBoy]

Roman HAD cavalry, it's a given fact. I'm not too sure about Greeks though.

They did (ippiko, or ipikko, can never remember the spelling), it was just rubbish.

They used chariots because the stirrup hadn't been invented yet, which made cavalry charges fairly ineffective. Roman cavalry was used in the late empire, but it wasn't as effective as medieval cavalry, due to the lack of stirrups.

A lack of stirrups was a factor, but not as far as historical context is concerned, because the Parthian, Archaemenid, Macedonian and Numidian cavalry corps were all powerful forces to be contended with. It's all to do with how well acclimatised a nation was with horse riding and the prevalence of horses. For example, Greece is largely mountainous so horses are neither practical, nor common as a result. You'd have to go further north (i.e. to Thessaly) to have more equestrian states.

Actually, whether or not Napoleon was short is still in debate. There's evidence for both sides.(unless something new came to light since I googled it 6 months ago)

Five foot eight, so not short, not tall. Definitely taller than Horatio Nelson by a fair bit (five foot four).

wow.. it's wierd to me you were thinking they made chariots before they were riding the horses. : p

It's to do with comfort. The saddle wasn't invented until something like 1000BC, and riding a horse bareback can become... well unbearable, for both horse and rider. So hitch a couple horses up to a frame and just stand there, much better for all concerned.

OT: Can we get the topic off cavalry/chariots?!

Can anyone tell me once and for all how the Liby-Phoenician infantry were armed at the battle of Cannae?!

 

[spartan231490]

snip

Actually, whether or not Napoleon was short is still in debate. There's evidence for both sides.(unless something new came to light since I googled it 6 months ago)

Five foot eight, so not short, not tall. Definitely taller than Horatio Nelson by a fair bit (five foot four).

snip

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.html

Still debated, but it leans towards 5 feet 6.5 inches.

Another question, was the Roman sword Bronze, and was it actually only 28 inches long?

 

[MikailCaboose]

snip

Actually, whether or not Napoleon was short is still in debate. There's evidence for both sides.(unless something new came to light since I googled it 6 months ago)

Five foot eight, so not short, not tall. Definitely taller than Horatio Nelson by a fair bit (five foot four).

snip

http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/bonapartenapoleon/a/napoleonheight.html

Still debated, but it leans towards 5 feet 6.5 inches.

Another question, was the Roman sword Bronze, and was it actually only 28 inches long?

Well, I can tell you the Roman Gladius was a smaller sword designed primarily for thrusting, much like how zweihanders can be held mid-way along the blade to effectively shorten the blade, but the exact specifics I'm unsure of.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Another question, was the Roman sword Bronze, and was it actually only 28 inches long?

28 inches is about right, though they could be a little longer or shorter. They were definitely made most commonly of steel or iron.