Why use chariots when they could just ride horses?

>>670007
more stable fighting platform, especially to throw shit or shoot shit is my guess.
Also, maybe more protection? thats just a guess however.

>>670007
Chariots came before horseriding so it doesn't have to answer to why Chariot when you can horseride, but the other way round.

>>670036
well...why ride a horse when you can use a chariot then?

>>670007
Horses were too small

As soon as horses got big enough to carry men, they stopped using chariots

>>670044
Mongols had tiny horses yet they rode them

Also, at the point where the chariot was at its height spurs haven't really been invented yet and saddle tech is very dependant by culture, so horse riding is not always the best.

It's also easier to train a guy to hold on the reins and steer than it is to have a horseback rider who can do all the stuff in cavalry formations, be an effective fighter while riding etc.

File: small horses.png (98KB, 632x388px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 632x388px

>>670007
Truth is that we still don't really know.

There was certainly something against actually riding horses in the fertile crescent, Egypt and ancient Greece. No clue what the rest of Europe was doing at the time.

Something which has been suggested is that they didn't have the right saddles to ride on a horse in armor and shoot a bow, however native Americans appear to be able to shoot bows while riding without a saddle. Though they do not wear armor like the ancients did.

>>670038

Not him, but think about it. A chariot usually requires 2-4 horses, and several people to man the chariot; if you're using the old 3 man chariot archetype, you've got one driver, one bowmen, and one spearman.

If you're using direct horseback riding, you can have 3 riders, all of whom have both bows and spears, which gives you more versatility and more firepower.

Pretty much everywhere, as soon as the capabilities were developed to fight on horseback, chariots disappeared.

>>670047
Mongols were tiny.

>>670047

Mongols had appropriately sized horses for riding.

Not over-sized for pulling farm equipment or kicking peasants to death.

File: italian heavy cavalry.jpg (177KB, 1280x920px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1280x920px

>>670096

File: Three_mounted_Comanche_warriors_-_1892.jpg (117KB, 1024x605px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x605px

>>670102

File: 788D_Beowulf_Grendel_Photo_Nick_Wall.jpg (3MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3008x1960px

>>670105
>yfw ponies conquered China

File: Battle_of_Khalkhin_Gol-Mongolian_cavalry.jpg (370KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 800x600px

>>670107

>>670007

Because the horses that Mediterranean bronze age people had access to were relatively small and weak. People weren't riding them in battle because a Chariot was just way more fast and effective. Plenty of cultures used small, slow horses in battles as cavalry, mostly in Asia. However, these were not only different kinds of horses (Mongol horses for instance are unusually fast and tough for their size, like the Mongols themselves), but they were fighting different kinds of battles. In the fast paced large scale battles of charioteers and runners, a guy on a slow horse would just be a target for the guys on faster chariots. This is one of those things that's mostly about context.

>>670007
>when they could just ride horses?
Asked and answered