why was the chariot such a great weapon and why the development

>>2463477
I thought it the breeding of larger horses that really made it obsolete?

>>2463477
It really was not. It heavily relies upon flat terrain and it can't change directions very quickly. Alexander was able to neutralize Darius's scythed chariots with relative ease.

>>2463699
That's because chariots were 2700 Years past their expiration date in 330BC.

File: italian lawnmower.jpg (149KB, 1060x770px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1060x770px

>>2463713
I am sure they were bound to make a comeback

>>2463693
This, horseback riders were vastly superior in mobility and cost to chariots.

File: Roman view of Britannia.jpg (1MB, 2204x1492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2204x1492px

>>2463477
Larger horses which meant that four horse meant four independent and dangerous weapons rather than one. That happened a little before the Iron Age, so it was just happenstance that iron came around commonly and the chariot fell out of style.

It was still used on the battlefield, but not as the shock core that it was in the past. Some Celts still used it as the Romans attacked them.

File: roman_talking_shit.png (192KB, 337x200px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 337x200px

>>2464695
>"Can you believe these plebs using chariots?"
>"Gaius, why do you use pleb in a derogatory fashion? You're a pleb yourself."

File: 348957349567.png (13KB, 528x404px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 528x404px

>>2465202

>>2463477

The Chariot allowed soldiers to become shock troops.

Take this hypothetical scenario as an example:

Two armies are engaged in battle, Red vs Blue.

The Red army has deployed more troops to their left wing, which is allowing them to push the blues back.

The Blue army uses chariots to maneuver troops at lightning speed to the right wing, where they jump from their chariots and charge into the Red army.

This gives the Blue army the ability to shock the red army with fresh troops anywhere on the battle line.

File: disdain for plebs.png (104KB, 198x223px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 198x223px

>>2465202

>>2463477
It was a shit weapon, if you're fighting on rough terrain it's useless, and if you're lucky enough to fight on flat terrain, all the enemy has to do is cover the flanks and throw shit at you until your ponies die or gallop away.

Chariots aren't really cavalry, they are transports for solders, like >>2465330 pointed out. The moment they'd engage with the enemy they'd be torn to shreds. When you can breed alpha horses that gallop fast as lighting, have no issues turning or jumping over troublesome land, and that you can train not be scared at the sound of sticks mashing, you have no reason to waste your time building a chariot other than vanity.

>>2465941
>Chariots aren't really cavalry, they are transports for solders, like >>2465330 pointed out.

.t have never studied ancient Egyptian military history and am possibly retarded.

They were not battle taxis, they were most often used as archery platforms.

File: kek_top_helmet.jpg (39KB, 272x309px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 272x309px

>>2465330
>Chariots
>Shocks troops
Thanks, that really gave me a good laugh, you fucking imbecile

>>2463477

When on a flat plain it was able to overrun your opponents easily since you it highly mobile, can station more troop who can kill and also run over any enemy in your way, though it's terrible when there's rocks the size of feet and on hilly terrains where both horse and station can climb or go down properly.