Bicycles in antiquity / middle-ages

>>2938843
>in one hand it would be much cheaper than mantaining a horse

Probably not seeing as a lot of the materials necessary for a decent bicycle would be quite difficult to acquire/manufacture at the time, not the least rubber for the tires.

The existence of rubber in medieval Europe would have a larger effect on Europe than the use of bicycle and their rubber wheels.

>>2938843
In all livelihood bycicles would be more expensive and rare than horses in the middle ages. Imagine some genius builds a few in an age before replaceable parts, and one of those parts breaks.

Bicycles weren't used as a cavalry replacement even when the two existed at the same time (18th century - early 20th) because bycicles need to be light. The key for cavalry is its ability to smash into enemy forces, and someone could knock over a bycicles knight by themselves.

>>2938850
>>2938853
there could be sustitutives for rubber
animal intestines or stuff like that
maybe just have wooden wheels with rope instead of rubber

>>2938869
Congratulations for the most retarded post on /his/ today.

>>2938884

>not having a gorebike

>no one mentioned the lack of roads
Sure, you can do some crazy things with sports bikes and people didn't ride their horses through super dangerous terrain, but still.
Also you might have missed the point that the horse will carry the rider and everything he's wearing/lugging around so he doesn't have to.

>>2938843
I've actually been wondering why bicycles are so recent. Wheels aren't new, chains aren't new, seats aren't new, etc. but somehow bicycles are relatively new. Are there any good explanations for this?

>>2938987
Does it work?

>>2939019
I thought medieval Europeans could still use Roman roads in many cases.