Cruvamendica (Goidilic Cavalry) Description Incorrect

[Riastradh]

The Historical discription for these units seems to be incorrect. Specifically this passage,

"Historically, the Goidilic tribes adopted ponies as mounts in favor of heavier horses and chariots, generally (some chariots and larger horses were used) because the ground of Ireland was too wet or rocky for a chariot or horse to move over swiftly."

This is untrue as the irish were famous for their chariots and charioteers. In fact many of the stories of ancient irish heroes such as Cuchulainn specifically speak of their awesome chariot skills. The Irish were still using some chariots when they were raiding roman britain(200-500AD), transporting them across the sea in small boats called curraghs. It's thought that the gaels didn't begin to phase out chariots till they realized from contact with the saxons that cavalry was cheaper and more manuverable to use. The Irish didn't full phase them out till around the 7th century.

Also the celts were famous for their chariot making skills and had possibly the most advanced and finely crafted chariots in the world. The Celtic chariot was drawn by a team of two horses, and measures approximately 2 m (6.56 ft) in width and 4 m (13 ft) in length. The one-piece iron rims for chariot wheels were probably a Celtic invention. Apart from the iron wheel rims and iron fittings of the hub, it was constructed from wood and wicker-work. In some instances, iron rings reinforced the joints. Another Celtic innovation was the free-hanging axle, suspended from the platform with rope. This resulted in a much more comfortable ride on bumpy terrain. There is evidence from French coins of a leather 'suspension' system for the central box, and a complex system of knotted cords for its attachment; this has informed recent working reconstructions by archaeologists.

According to Julius Caesar the Briton celts were the greatest charioteers in the world, capable of doing things in chariots other civilizations would not even try or think possible. So why the downplay?

[Celtic_Punk]

You just said that Irish aren't celts... and had nothing to do with Celtic warrior culture!! would you like to retract that statement earlier?

Also I wouldn't say that the Goidlic cavalry is incorrect. they DEFINITELY had light cavalry like that, there is solid evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be in the game. And chariots in Eire would have been so similar to other celtic chariots that there's no real reason to warrant another unit space taken up by a unique unit.

I'd like to see you attempt to extensively field chariots all over our island... Even with the roads we have today it'd be a hellish sight. (with the way they wind all over the place and turn into half a lane)

I am quite happy with the number of unique units from Eire, and was a little surprised that they were actually in there when i first played EB.

Which I have yet to thank the EB team for... THANKS GUYS! :)

[bovi]

As far as I can see, the description says that chariots and larger horses were used, however smaller mounts were more usual (and then the chariots were drawn by smaller mounts too, according to a post I found by Anthony in our internal forum). What is your problem here? Would you rather it said cavalry was hardly used, and if so why? Do you contest that the terrain could be favourable to smaller horses?

I also don't see why you bring Briton chariots into this, as what you appear to question is the proportion of use of chariots versus small cavalry in Ireland.

[lobf]

You just said that Irish aren't celts... and had nothing to do with Celtic warrior culture!! would you like to retract that statement earlier?

Also I wouldn't say that the Goidlic cavalry is incorrect. they DEFINITELY had light cavalry like that, there is solid evidence, otherwise it wouldn't be in the game. And chariots in Eire would have been so similar to other celtic chariots that there's no real reason to warrant another unit space taken up by a unique unit.

I'd like to see you attempt to extensively field chariots all over our island... Even with the roads we have today it'd be a hellish sight. (with the way they wind all over the place and turn into half a lane)

I am quite happy with the number of unique units from Eire, and was a little surprised that they were actually in there when i first played EB.

Which I have yet to thank the EB team for... THANKS GUYS! :)

I'm sure you're using sources and not just conjecture and opinion, so I'd love to hear where you learned all your history!

[Celtic_Punk]

thats like asking the EB team that question dude... Im just supporting them. They've done their research. I'm willing to trust them. Plus I've got experience in my own island as well. Logically smaller horses, and cavalry not chariots, are better suited to the constant rain many marshes, and terrain of Eire.

Have you ever been there lobf?

[saxonbattlemask]

celtic punk is right i live in ireland i know

[lobf]

thats like asking the EB team that question dude... Im just supporting them. They've done their research. I'm willing to trust them. Plus I've got experience in my own island as well. Logically smaller horses, and cavalry not chariots, are better suited to the constant rain many marshes, and terrain of Eire.

Have you ever been there lobf?

...Yes, it would be like asking them that same thing. I don't understand your point. It's not like the team hasn't been wrong in the past. And what experience on your island prepares you to answer a question about the types of horses they used there thousands of years ago? I mean, I'm not even saying you're necessarily wrong, just that you don't know what you're saying. Stop dropping "facts" without reason. ("They said it first" is not a reason.)

And yeah, I've been to Ireland. My grandpa was raised there and I still have family there. What's this got to do with anything?


celtic punk is right i live in ireland i know

Thank you, professor Ireland.

[Celtic_Punk]

how many different celtic peoples used light skirmisher cavalry?

why would Eire be any different? plus the fact that theres smaller horses there than other places in comparison.
(well anything under 14 hands is considered a pony, correct?)

Especially in a place where the preferred chariots get bogged down in the mud and rain and thus slaughtered .
Jesus... I dont mean have you been there on vacation. and just happend to be there the one weekend it didn't rain. (which never ever ever happens lol)

here we'll play a little game, you can be Bodaccia invading ireland, and I can be the dirty useless fenian that pulls you off your bogged down chariot and slays you because you decided riding a horse in that climate is stupid.

do me a favour lobf, keep mum

[Tellos Athenaios]

Have you ever been there lobf?


And yeah, I've been to Ireland. My grandpa was raised there and I still have family there. What's this got to do with anything?

Perhaps...


Logically smaller horses, and cavalry not chariots, are better suited to the constant rain many marshes, and terrain of Eire.

Or is that too obvious? Mind you I've never been to Ireland, but having been to something called a
'wetland' (which is where local muncipality used to keep horses) I can assure you that such terrain isn't very suited to the larger breeds. And that's not even a bog, yet.

[lobf]

Perhaps...


Or is that too obvious? Mind you I've never been to Ireland, but having been to something called a
'wetland' (which is where local muncipality used to keep horses) I can assure you that such terrain isn't very suited to the larger breeds. And that's not even a bog, yet.

Like I said, I'm not even stating he's wrong. I'm opposed to throwing out opinions like facts because they sound right. Or because you're from Ireland. Let's have some expert testimony about the kinds of horses from the era. Until then, I wouldn't consider this question addressed.

Edit- As if Ireland is a giant swamp.

[Taliferno]

There is clear archaeological evidence that calvary (or at least horse riding/mounted Infantry) was used in Ireland during this time period as horse riding bits and trappings account for about a quarter of all metal la tene finds in Ireland. There is little evidence in the archaeological context for chariots though, and if it wasn't for the Irish early christian myths placing great emphasis on the use of chariots, most archaeologists would probably agree that no chariots were used at all in Ireland, other than the odd imported prestige piece from Britain.

[lobf]

how many different celtic peoples used light skirmisher cavalry?

why would Eire be any different? plus the fact that theres smaller horses there than other places in comparison.
(well anything under 14 hands is considered a pony, correct?)

Especially in a place where the preferred chariots get bogged down in the mud and rain and thus slaughtered .
Jesus... I dont mean have you been there on vacation. and just happend to be there the one weekend it didn't rain. (which never ever ever happens lol)

here we'll play a little game, you can be Bodaccia invading ireland, and I can be the dirty useless fenian that pulls you off your bogged down chariot and slays you because you decided riding a horse in that climate is stupid.

do me a favour lobf, keep mum

1. Everyone used light skirmisher cavalry. Not necessarily exclusively.

2. Taliferno makes me wonder where you base the use of Chariots off of.

3. Like I said, Ireland isn't a giant swamp.

Again, CP, let's simply bring this tiff to a close by ending the conjecture. Give me sources and I'll "keep mum."

[Celtic_Punk]

Edit- As if Ireland is a giant swamp.

It gets close mate. i wouldn't doubt if the whole island has at one time been just one massive marsh at one point or another. and yeah i'm not denying that you can use a chariot there. but to be honest, you'd be hoping your enemies attack on the ODD sunny day with dry firm ground. even when its sunny the ground is either muggy or soft. its not even the best place for cavalry, which is why we were never known for a mounted warrior culture... except when foolish christian monks made things up.
(which they did all the bloody time, you gotta sift through alot of bull when it comes to that stuff. specifically attire and the fact that there aparently were mounds of gold there... You can probably find that the first case of the infamous leprechaun came from some monk talking about alot of gold owned by some midget gael.)

The best instance of christian monks making things up about ireland is saying that "St. Patrick removed the blight of snakes from Ireland when they converted to Catholicism" pfffft as if snakes ever existed on ireland. We hardly can!

[lobf]

It gets close mate. i wouldn't doubt if the whole island has at one time been just one massive marsh at one point or another.

But you wouldn't really know. I mean, nobody can really know, but you haven't even checked, have you?


and yeah i'm not denying that you can use a chariot there. but to be honest, you'd be hoping your enemies attack on the ODD sunny day with dry firm ground. even when its sunny the ground is either muggy or soft. its not even the best place for cavalry, which is why we were never known for a mounted warrior culture... except when foolish christian monks made things up.
(which they did all the bloody time, you gotta sift through alot of bull when it comes to that stuff. specifically attire and the fact that there aparently were mounds of gold there... You can probably find that the first case of the infamous leprechaun came from some monk talking about alot of gold owned by some midget gael.)

Okay.


The best instance of christian monks making things up about ireland is saying that "St. Patrick removed the blight of snakes from Ireland when they converted to Catholicism" pfffft as if snakes ever existed on ireland. We hardly can!

But, again, you wouldn't really know because you haven't done any research. So here we are again: Stop postulating for a while. Even if you were right about any of these issues, it may as well be a guess.

[Celtic_Punk]

I do know about that St. Paddy's bs. I did do my research, long long ago. snakes did not exist on Ireland when st.paddy was around. He never played the pied piper, and took our snakes away. I was merely trying to point out that there are alot of misconceptions about the history of ireland due to the rampant fantasies of christian monks who wrote a load of hogwosh. You can find this out by going to the many "history of ireland" sites around there, such as the one in Armagh on the site of Emain Macha. I have done some research. Apparently you've done none.

[Taliferno]

Just to make something clear, although there is little archaeological evidence of chariots in Ireland there is to much to ignore in the early christian/medieval laws and myths to say that they were never used. I believe (I don't have my books in front of me) that one of the names for an Irish caste was 'chariot rider', for example. Its just my personal opinion that the use of chariots has been overstated in the tales, and that calvary was much more common.

As to the climate of Iron Age Ireland, it was a bit wetter and colder than modern day Ireland. The biggest difference though was that it was covered in forests.

[Celtic_Punk]

That too, there are many accounts of Ireland have huge tracks of forests. This makes chariot riding a wee bit tough due to their tendency to handle like a cruise missile.

You say i'm not qualified to make a theory? how many people got somewhere from dead reckoning? If i were to pick between cavalry and chariots in ireland. I'd pick cavalry. Why would they choose otherwise? it makes no sense. Chariots would have been used for ceremonies more often than battle. purely because the conditions are piss poor. If you've ever spent more than 30 days straight in ireland you would understand that.

Just because we're irish doesnt mean we are stupid... Why would we use chariots more than cavalry?

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

Just to make something clear, although there is little archaeological evidence of chariots in Ireland there is to much to ignore in the early christian/medieval laws and myths to say that they were never used. I believe (I don't have my books in front of me) that one of the names for an Irish caste was 'chariot rider', for example. Its just my personal opinion that the use of chariots has been overstated in the tales, and that calvary was much more common.

Yeah! Tales and legends sometime overstate the use of things. In my home country, Thailand there are many tales, legends and folk lores about kings, nobles and lords used extensively of chariots in warfare and duel which actually really nearly impossible to practice in ancient Thailand coz the dense of forest and soft soil of the delta and river banks. However, chariots exist in using even today(Only for few cremonies and some tradition practices) in Thailand just overstate the usage in that tales and legends. :charge:

PS. 1.Sorry for not having reference and link coz those tales and legends are primary source in Thai if some of you interesting them I will try to find some link later(BTW These stuff will be out of the topic of EB time frame).
2.I'm just want to support the idea that MYTHS like tale, folk lore, legend and saga sometime overstate stuff. You need archaelogical information to proof the fact.
3.I do believe Bovi and Celtic punk post the right points.:coffeenews:

[oudysseos]

Lobf, Celtic Punk, cut it out and grow up. You can disagree with each other and still be polite. CP, to be fair, you are just spouting opinions and assertions. Cite some sources. I actually live in Ireland and if I saw archaeological evidence of chariots I wouldn't dismiss it just 'cos it 'doesn't make sense'. Lobf, there's no need to be such a gowk.

I mean it kids. I'll turn this car right around.

[Celtic_Punk]

I've said my piece and I think I've made my point. And more than one person has agreed with me. I think I've made my mark on the world here. G'day to you sir!


... Still if you wanna debate.. ill face you in... Pankration!!!!!

[bovi]

... Still if you wanna debate.. ill face you in... Pankration!!!!!
Way to make people take you seriously :dizzy2:.

[Celtic_Punk]

tryin to lighten the mood here. which is desperately needs. I think this issue has been addressed however. It should be locked to avoid futher frustrations and whathave you's

[oudysseos]

By the way, CP, Ireland has, according to Wikipedia, 12k square kilometers of bog, a great deal of which however is man-made, either from forest clearances dating back to the bronze age or more recent attempts by Bord na Mona (not including my back yard which is a big fecking swamp). The island is ca. 85k square kilometers, which makes me guesstimate that in the EB period as much as 10 percent of the land may have been bog. This doesn't seem to preclude chariot combat on the face of it, no matter what might make sense to you or me. And indeed Riastradh was right to an extent: there are numerous literary references to chariots in Ireland, even if one leaves out the Tain. Also there are some carved reliefs, mostly on crosses, such as Clonmacnoise and the Ahenny High Cross. So I don't think that you can dismiss Irish chariots so quickly. Of course, all of the evidence for Irish chariots comes from a much later period than EB.



Róda, cis lir-side? n i, a .u. .i. slighi 7 ród 7 lamraite 7 tograide 7 bothar. caide int slige? n i, discuet da carput sech in aile, doronad fri imairecc da carpat .i. carpat rig 7 carrpat espuic ara ndichet cechtar nai sech araile. Ród: docuet carpat 7 da oeneoch de imbi, doronad fri echraite mendoto a medon (CIH iii 893. 22-25).

[Roads, how many are there? Not hard: five, that is the highway, the road, the byroad, the winding road and the cow path. What is a highway? Not hard: two chariots can pass on it. It is made for the meeting of two chariots, that is the chariot of a king and the chariot of a bishop, that they can pass by each other. Road: a chariot and two riders can pass on it. It is made for riding on a road within a territory.]

BLA CARBAT AENACH .i. Slan donti beires in carbat isin naenach; slan do ce bristir in carbat isinn ænach 7 narabg tre borblachas, 7 mad ed on is fiach fo aicned a fatha air; 7 slan d'fir in carbait ce foglaid in carbat risium 7 na raib fis crine na etallais na haicbeile, 7 da raib is fiach fa aicned a fatha air (CIH i 283.28).

[Exceptions regarding chariots at yearly gatherings. This is, who brings a chariot to a gathering is exempt from compensation. He is exempt from paying compensation even if the chariot is broken at the gathering, provided the damage is not due to unreasonable use of force. If this is the case, he is liable to the full compensation. The owner of the chariot is also exempt from compensation if the chariot damages anyone, provided he had no knowledge of it being in bad repair, its looseness or its dangerousness. If he had knowledge of it, he has to pay compensation according to the damage inflicted.]

Facts are nice.

Oh, and I'm wondering, Riastradh- in this thread you characterize the Irish as famous for their chariots and in the next paragraph say that the Celts were great chariot-makers. But in another thread you claim that the Irish had nothing to do with Celts. WTF?

[Zradha Pahlavan]

Also the celts were famous for their chariot making skills and had possibly the most advanced and finely crafted chariots in the world.

I'm actually not sure that their chariots were that great when compared to others used in history. In the time period of EB they were the only chariots still used for military purposes, other than the occasional scythed chariot, which weren't that useful except for their scythes.

But if you go back before EB, the Celtic chariotry is really outclassed. The Hittites and Assyrians fielded heavy three-man chariots that were far more capable in a charge or a sustained melee than the chariots of later times. And of course there were the famous light chariots used as archery platforms, though their usefulness probably came more from the archer's skill than the chariot itself. But back to the point, chariot building was practically an art form in the mid-east before the average cavalryman took over. The Hittite chariots were particularly well regarded for their fine construction, though the Egyptian vehicles were much lighter by comparison.

[bovi]

I think this issue has been addressed however. It should be locked to avoid futher frustrations and whathave you's
I think we have yet to hear back from the original poster. Anyway, thank you for the vote of confidence by accepting EB's word as law for some reason, but perhaps jumping in the face of newcomers isn't the right way to get input to our project. This query has none of the antagonism that certain others have had, and it brings arguments supported by stories. I'm just not certain what exactly is the objective yet.

[lobf]

Lobf, Celtic Punk, cut it out and grow up. You can disagree with each other and still be polite. CP, to be fair, you are just spouting opinions and assertions. Cite some sources. I actually live in Ireland and if I saw archaeological evidence of chariots I wouldn't dismiss it just 'cos it 'doesn't make sense'. Lobf, there's no need to be such a gowk.

I mean it kids. I'll turn this car right around.

That's how I argue when I'm drunk at 3 a.m. after fighting with my girlfriend.


I've said my piece and I think I've made my point. And more than one person has agreed with me. I think I've made my mark on the world here. G'day to you sir!


... Still if you wanna debate.. ill face you in... Pankration!!!!!

:wall:
Seriously, dude? More than one person has agreed with you? How is that relevant to the veracity of your statements? I'm sure I could get someone here to agree that the Jooz run the banks, but that doesn't make it right.

Just stop pretending to know things that you can only guess.

[Ibrahim]

That's how I argue when I'm drunk at 3 a.m. after fighting with my girlfriend.

no excuse:no:

@CP: manners man. jumping at junior members is no way of acting here. just my 2cents.:no:

in any event, why hasn't the OP of this answered to the questions directed at him in particular? Riastradh here only posted twice, and then just stopped. something is wrong here.:no:

[The Persian Cataphract]

According to Julius Caesar the Briton celts were the greatest charioteers in the world, capable of doing things in chariots other civilizations would not even try or think possible. So why the downplay?

There is no downplaying anywhere, just common prudence: Chariotry in warfare were declining since the fall of the Assyrian hegemony, and the ascendancy of the era of the Tetrarchy. Assyriologists have in particular reserved a unique fascination for the Mitanni heavy chariotry (Mariyannu) which in many ways marked the crest of Near Eastern military technology, especially as far as horse-bardings are concerned (Besides the battle of Kadesh between the Egyptian and Hittite kingdoms).

These times were from several centuries from that of Julius Caesar's contemporary world modestly speaking. Where was Julius Caesar in all of his life and why does he make laudatory reference to Briton chariotry when conventional cavalry had in essence replaced chariotry in the rest of the world? The Indians too used chariots, but eventually relegated as symbols of military status. If you cannot spot one critical flaw with using Julius Caesar's narration as a yard-stick reference, then one must dispute your judgement. Chariots fell out of use in militaria because in comparison to cavalry it just wasn't as effective.

[Riastradh]

Ok dont have much time for this reply so I will try to explain a bit more til I get home from work. First the part that is incorrect about the description is that chariots weren't used much in favor of light cavalry. While Light cavarly was used, so were chariots. A lot of Irish Legends speak specifically of them. My main goal is that it should be acknowledged that the Irish fielded chariots quite often, not that they appeared rarely.

The Reason why I included the part about celtic/british chariots is mainly concerning the casse chariots in comparison to others such as the pontic ones in EB. Casse chariots in game have very limited use and in antiquity, Caesar himself says they were a very powerful force to be reckoned with.

Also, to those siting that people should know what Ireland's terrain/geogreaphy is like and such, I am very well aware of the land of Eire. I was born and raised in Killarney, Co. Kerry Ireland. While I currently live in States, I still go back every year to visit my cousins in Dundalk, Co. Louth.

Will explain more later tonight.

[Celtic_Punk]

The fact is Chariots are much more poetical than light cavalry rushing up throwing javalins then retreating. legends are to inspire people to do brave things. i can hardly call light cavalry brave... maybe ballsy but not brave. well in comparison to rushing a gap with a chariot. but the fact remain aswell, its almost impossible to widely field chariots on the island.

[Taliferno]

Ok dont have much time for this reply so I will try to explain a bit more til I get home from work. First the part that is incorrect about the description is that chariots weren't used much in favor of light cavalry. While Light cavarly was used, so were chariots. A lot of Irish Legends speak specifically of them. My main goal is that it should be acknowledged that the Irish fielded chariots quite often, not that they appeared rarely.

The Reason why I included the part about celtic/british chariots is mainly concerning the casse chariots in comparison to others such as the pontic ones in EB. Casse chariots in game have very limited use and in antiquity, Caesar himself says they were a very powerful force to be reckoned with.

Also, to those siting that people should know what Ireland's terrain/geogreaphy is like and such, I am very well aware of the land of Eire. I was born and raised in Killarney, Co. Kerry Ireland. While I currently live in States, I still go back every year to visit my cousins in Dundalk, Co. Louth.

Will explain more later tonight.

As soon as any chariot is discovered let me know. At the moment all there is are a couple of wooden yokes which are just as likely to have been used for ox driven carts for agrigculture as a War chariot. There is a single terret (a device for holding the reins of a chariot) found in County Antrim that was apparently imported from North Britain. Compare this single find to the 140 terrets found in Britain.
To put it simply there is not enough archaeological evidence to say that War chariots were a common feature in Ireland. In Rome Total War terms they would probably be represented as a family bodyguard, and since there is no Irish faction, there is no need for a chariot unit.

[lobf]

but the fact remain aswell, its almost impossible to widely field chariots on the island.

:wall:

[blitzkrieg80]

come on, Homer writes about the use of chariots when in-fact, they were not in fashion concerning Greek warfare during the historical timeline, but somehow Irish legend is so much more historically accurate!? :inquisitive: should i then believe that Beowulf can swim with 30 mailshirts in tow?

[Atilius]

... should i then believe that Beowulf can swim with 30 mailshirts in tow?In spite of the fact that Beowulf has a horny monster, the monster's mommy, and a dragon, that was the only thing that ever made me think "Oh come on, no way!".

[Riastradh]

Here is a link to an article for you to read concerning a bit more historical fact concerning Irish chariots than most of you are aware of.

http://homepage.eircom.net/~archaeology/chariot.htm
and this
http://www.uwm.edu/Dept/celtic/ekeltoi/volumes/vol5/5_1/karl_5_1.html

and some more info for you including references of the fact that Irish, Gaulish, and Brittish war chariots were fitted with scythes and spikes.
http://www.libraryireland.com/SocialHistoryAncientIreland/III-XXIV-2.php#194z

It is historical Fact that the Irish did have war chariots. I never said the were widely fielded, as only the more wealthy warriors/nobles/chieftains could afford to have one. However, they did appear much more often than "rarely". That doesn't mean there were a ton of people in chariots every battle, it means that the Irish did use war chariots and they were not simply a rarity, but instead were apart of Irish warrior culture. Chariots to the Irish(and probably many cultures) were very likely similar to a shirt of mail/scale, they had them and used them, but only the wealthier people could afford to own them.

[bovi]

There is no place that the description says chariots were used "rarely", it says some chariots and larger horses were used. Riastradh, could you please be specific and rewrite the sentence to what you think it should say, so we can take this with an understanding of exactly what you mean? A suggestion from my understanding of your position so far:

"Historically, while chariots and larger horses were used to some degree, the Goidilic tribes largely adopted ponies as mounts, generally because some parts of the ground of Ireland was too wet or rocky for a chariot or horse to move over swiftly. They would try to lure the heavier cavalry into this terrain when possible for advantage."

I'm sure this is not a precise understanding.

[Riastradh]

Hello Bovi, my main problem with the description is the reasoning of why more light cavalry were used in a battle than chariots. The ground is not really much more wet and rocky than the rest of the British Isles and chariots were used with deadly effectiveness and speed in Britain and such. A more proper description I think would be,

"Historically, while the Gaelic tribes did use chariots and larger horses, they fielded larger quantities of ponies due to Chariots being a great deal more expensive and requiring much greater skill to use effectively. These ponies were swift and strong, excellent for hit-and-run attacks and charging an enemy's flank."

Not a huge change, but a bit more accurate. Again I am not meaning to insult anyone or anything like that. I appreciate what you guys do and I am just trying to shed some light on the Irish chariot thing.

[oudysseos]

Chariots definitely play an important role in medieval Irish literature, which has led earlier scholars to indiscriminately use Irish literature as what Kenneth Jackson called "a window on the Iron Age" (Jackson 1964), a position no longer sustainable today (McCone 1990). Since we can not assume that the chariots described in the Irish literature actually describe Iron Age chariots (see also Greene 1972: 70-1), we must look at them independently.

Chariots are mentioned in almost all kinds of medieval Irish literature.

From some of the above-mentioned sources, the Irish linguist David Greene (1972) reconstructed the chariots as he saw them described in the Irish literature (see Fig. 11), still the only scholarly illustration available for the chariots described in Irish medieval literature (but see Karl and Stifter n.d.). Even though Greene called his (1972) paper "The chariot as described in the Irish literature", thereby implying that his reconstruction was based on the textual evidence, due to the scarcity of archaeological evidence for chariots in Ireland [this is from the e-keltoi article linked by Riastradh]

I'm not having a go at you, Riastradh, just pointing out that the evidence for Chariots in Ireland in 272 bce is not incontrovertible. We have to ask, for example, how the monks/scribes knew about the use of chariots from 1000 years before their own time, or if they were using Caesar as their source for the use of chariots. This kind of literary evidence needs a lot of interpreting. To use your own forum name as an example, one doesn't believe that Cuchullain could make his liver leap out of his mouth during his warp-spasm just 'cos the Tain says he could- so why accept the Tain at face value on chariots?

So throwing out "historical facts" is a bit much. There is almost no archaeological evidence that chariots were a part of Irish warrior culture (whatever that is). Even in Britain, where there are 20 or so chariot burials, it is not clear how often chariots were used in a true military sense as opposed to prestige displays. May I remind you that Roman generals rode in chariots during their triumphs? Yet we don't claim that the Romans fought from chariots.

You need to present a lot more solid evidence for your positions. Unfortunately, and this is frustrating for everyone, there isn't any. You just can't know for sure exactly what was going on in Ireland before 600 ce.

[bovi]

Thank you. Your suggestion doesn't say anything of why ponies were chosen instead of larger horse breeds for mounts and charioteering (whatever the proper word might be). It says ponies are swift and strong, but wouldn't larger horses be better at both of these if there were no other conditions in play? Similarly, I can see no isolated reason why ponies would be better at hit-and-run attacks and attacking flanks. If anything, the increased weight of the larger horse would be better for that in "normal" conditions.

[Riastradh]

Concerning the Tain and other such text of "Medieval Irish Literature" I have copied and pasted this part of a wikipedia article. I know they aren't always exactly right, but this piece is pretty spot on.


The Táin Bó Cúailnge has survived in two main recensions. The first consists of a partial text in the Lebor na hUidre (the "Book of the Dun Cow"), a late 11th/early 12th century manuscript compiled in the monastery at Clonmacnoise, and another partial text of the same version in the 14th century manuscript called the Yellow Book of Lecan. These two sources overlap, and a complete text can be reconstructed by combining them. This recension is a compilation of two or more earlier versions, indicated by the number of duplicated episodes and references to "other versions" in the text. Many of the episodes are superb, written in the characteristic terse prose of the best Old Irish literature, but others are cryptic summaries, and the whole is rather disjointed. Parts of this recension can be dated from linguistic evidence to the 8th century, and some of the verse passages may be even older.

The second recension is found in the 12th century manuscript known as the Book of Leinster. This appears to have been a syncretic exercise by a scribe who brought together the Lebor na hUidre materials and unknown sources for the Yellow Book of Lecan materials to create a coherent version of the epic. While the result is a satisfactory narrative whole, the language has been modernised into a much more florid style, with all of the spareness of expression of the earlier recension lost in the process.

The Book of Leinster version ends with a colophon in Latin which says:

“ But I who have written this story, or rather this fable, give no credence to the various incidents related in it. For some things in it are the deceptions of demons, other poetic figments; some are probable, others improbable; while still others are intended for the delectation of foolish men. ”

An incomplete third recension is known from fragments in a number of later manuscripts.

There is reason to suspect that the Táin had a considerable oral history before any of it was committed to writing: for example, the poem Conailla Medb michuru ("Medb enjoined illegal contracts") by Luccreth moccu Chiara, dated to c. 600, tells the story of Fergus' exile with Ailill and Medb, which the poet describes as sen-eolas ("old knowledge"). Two further 7th century poems also allude to elements of the story: in Verba Scáthaige ("Words of Scáthach"), the warrior-woman Scáthach prophesies Cúchulainn's combats at the ford; and Ro-mbáe laithi rordu rind ("We had a great day of plying spear-points"), attributed to Cúchulainn himself, refers to an incident in the Boyhood Deeds section of the Táin.

The Tain's stories as well as other such texts were first written down by now Christian Irish monks, who as christians, probably embelished/twisted/demonized some of the much older traditionally oral stories these texts almost positively stem from. If you research gaelic warfare you will come across articles that claim the Irish used chariots as far as the late 6th-early 7th century. I'm not saying this is necessarily true, here is an article that seems to back it somewhat.
http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/pictish-chariot.html

Specifically,
The Last recorded use of chariots in a celtic battle was by the Dal Riadans at the battle of Moin Dairi Lothair in 563 AD.
The Dal Riadans were an Irish people from County Antrim area who settled part of western Scotland.

[Riastradh]

I'm sorry Bovi I forgot to address that. In a country of dense forests, bogs and broken ground, the Irish ponys offered more mobility than both chariots and larger horse breeds, and more speed than the Larger horses would have been capable of, making them a better choice for the hit-and-run attacks they would be used for.

Also it is thought that the Connemara Pony of today quite possibly decended from the older pre 12th century Irish Hobby of whom the Hobilars got their name from. Robert the Bruce used the Hobby himself in his guerilla warfare and mounted raids against Edward I of England, covering 60 to 70 miles a day. Here is a small description of a Connemara pony who are known to be quite powerful.

Connemaras are strong and sturdy with a short back and sloped, muscular croup. The hindquarters are powerful. The shoulder is sloped and long. Their legs have short, strong cannons and hard feet and a good stride length. The breed has a fine head with small ears and usually a slightly dished profile set on a well-arched neck. The Connemara is considered hardy and agile, with good jumping ability. The Connemara has a lively but eager and trainable temperament, tends to be long-lived and is described as intelligent.

[oudysseos]

Yes, but does a mention of Irish chariots in 563 ad warrant Irish chariots as an EB unit in 272 bc?

[Riastradh]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the Dal Riadans had them earlier than 500 AD and didn't start using them after the rest of the world quit doing so. I think it's also a pretty safe assumption that if one Irish kingdom/people used chariots for warfare, that others did as well. Especially when Irish texts tell us they did so. The surviving written texts of the Tain may have been written down in the 12th century, but scholars and achaeologists almost universally agree that they were originally part of the much older Irish Oral tradition.

Now I did use the word assumption, however, it is a logical assumption using the info we have. That's what a lot of current "History" is, logical assumptions based on relevant information available.

[lobf]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the Dal Riadans had them earlier than 500 AD and didn't start using them after the rest of the world quit doing so. I think it's also a pretty safe assumption that if one Irish kingdom/people used chariots for warfare, that others did as well. Especially when Irish texts tell us they did so. The surviving written texts of the Tain may have been written down in the 12th century, but scholars and achaeologists almost universally agree that they were originally part of the much older Irish Oral tradition.

Now I did use the word assumption, however, it is a logical assumption using the info we have. That's what a lot of current "History" is, logical assumptions based on relevant information available.

But this seems to be the issue. What archaeologists agree with this?

[Riastradh]

A great many from all over the world. Do even the smallest bit of research on the Tain and other such early medieval Irish texts and you will discover this for yourself. Are you asking me to actually name archaeologists who believe this?

[blitzkrieg80]

In spite of the fact that Beowulf has a horny monster, the monster's mommy, and a dragon, that was the only thing that ever made me think "Oh come on, no way!".
it's actually my favorite part, hehe... probably why i bring it up too much... Hygelac is killed during the raid in Friesland and Beowulf even has to retreat (strategic withdrawal? I... AM... ANOREXIC MODEL [WOULD DIE IN A REAL WINTER] WITH THE HEAD OF A SHORT GUY!) interesting stuff.

we don't have a proto-'longboat' in the game, despite Norse literature, and similar validity of base principle and development...

Riastradh, evidence beyond 'appeals to authority' is needed. we could all claim similarly that archaeologists and scientists agree with our information without citing specific instances. in fact, having someone agree with you doesn't mean much in fields where contradicting theories are commonplace, the very discussion and means of how truth is approached.

how is it that -some- of Irish literature is true, but other parts not so? by your own logic, then 'Celtic invaders' had more impact than you've suggested elsewise by your own treatment, or if not, those authors then are like any other and made use of artistic licence?

the point isn't that you're wrong, because you could easily be right, but your logic is flawed.

[Power2the1]

The Goidilic Cavalry and chariots issue, I feel, is a valid one, but where archaeological findings do not fill in the gaps, its great to know that other means can be used. Brythonic cavalry is still a bit of a mystery, and images of them come only from a handful of British coins showing these horsemen

Concerning chariots in Eire, what do we know for sure?

The chariots referred to in Irish literature may not the fast moving, agile, lightweight chariots we know from the Celtic coinage and battles with Romans and Greeks.
-Wheels found at Doogarymore date to the 4-5th century B.C. and were heavy, cumbersome, and not what are found on a war chariot.
-In Limerick, specifically Lough Gur, two hollow bronze mounts are known and may have been chariot yoke mounts. A bronze British made terret (terrets are loops that the reins would pass through) could be from a chariot.
-A few wooden horse yokes have been discovered as well

The wooden tracks that have been discovered in Eire are strong proof that some kinf of wheeled transport could have been used in Eire in the Iron Age and really it seems almost certain that carts and probably chariots were used. Also, it seems like just about everyone settled Eire in some fashion.

-Sections of the Votadini appear to settle in northwest Eire.
-The Barreki and Lagini tribes were of Brigantine origin.
-Sections of the Corionototae, know in Eire as the Coriondi, settled in along the south east.
-The Dumnonii are found north of Dublin, but also in southwest Scotland and Cornwall.
-From Gaul the Veneti and Venelli probably had colonies in southern Eire where they were known as the Venii. We all know the Veneti and Armorican Gauls were great seafarers with large fleets for mercantile pursuits as well as war.
-Even the Fir Bolg invasions could equate to the Belgae

Basically, we know its certain that the Celtic folk movements in the 4th and 3rd centuries B.C. took the Celts and their La Tene masterpieces, among the best metalwork in Europe, all over the 'known world' into Italy, Greece, Galatia, Iberia, Britain, and everywhere in between. Really, is it a big stretch to think that the Belgic/Gallic/Brythonic invaders/settlers could not have introduced a war chariot (not cart) to Eire assuming the indigenous population did not use them previously? I do not believe that just because a chariot hasn't been found in Ireland that it should automatically be ruled out as a possibility, despite only legends/stories specifically mentioning chariots.

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the Dal Riadans had them earlier than 500 AD and didn't start using them after the rest of the world quit doing so. I think it's also a pretty safe assumption that if one Irish kingdom/people used chariots for warfare, that others did as well. Especially when Irish texts tell us they did so. The surviving written texts of the Tain may have been written down in the 12th century, but scholars and achaeologists almost universally agree that they were originally part of the much older Irish Oral tradition.

Now I did use the word assumption, however, it is a logical assumption using the info we have. That's what a lot of current "History" is, logical assumptions based on relevant information available.

Umm... IMHO ancient ppl wouldn't idiot enough to use chariot extensively if the landscape not suitable to use like Ireland. Most tales, legends, sagas and epics add fantasy and you believe that monks and scribes not just added their fantasy to the story.
As Bovi and many ppl said you need more concrete fact or archelogical information than just your assumption.:coffeenews:

PS. Even the modern vehicles like tank or ATV will be moving with difficulty through bog, march and muddy surface so how about the ancient chariot of EB timeframe? Just simple logical answer if you ask me.

[bovi]

As Bovi and many ppl said you need more concrete fact or archelogical information than just your assumption.:coffeenews:
I didn't say that actually. My role here has been to try to get a precise understanding of what he tries to achieve.

So far I've gathered that this is the difference, based on his suggested sentence and what he's said elsewhere in the thread, chopped into related points and marked blue where there is some change.

Original description
1. Goidilic tribes used some chariots.
2. Goidilic tribes used some large horses.
3. Smaller horses were adopted in favour of larger ones.
4. Reasons for favouring smaller horses rely on the terrain and climate in Ireland.
5. Larger horses and chariots couldn't move as swiftly as smaller mounts in wet and rocky terrain.

Riastradh's suggestion
1. Goidilic tribes used some chariots.
2. Goidilic tribes used some large horses.
3. Smaller horses were more widely used than larger ones.
4. Reasons for favouring smaller horses rely on the terrain and climate in Ireland as well as chariots being more expensive.
5. Larger horses and chariots couldn't move as swiftly as smaller mounts in wet and rocky terrain as well as dense forests and broken ground.
6. Ponies were superior when charging an enemy's flank, and were often used in hit-and-run attacks.

So in the end, the issue is not the proportion of use of chariots and (small) cavalry, but rather adding some information about them, as far as I can see.

[Gatalos de Sauromatae]

Oopppss...
This is my mistake to not get all the points clearly.:jawdrop:
Sorry to Bovi here.

[Elmetiacos]

We'll probably never know the truth of the Irish chariots, since the pagan Irish cremated their dead rather than leaving helpful chariot burials to be excavated like the Britons. I think they did, but it's only an opinion. Doogarymore is no use, because Ireland was still in the Hallstatt era at this date, so you'd expect nothing but big, heavy four wheelers.

[lobf]

A great many from all over the world. Do even the smallest bit of research on the Tain and other such early medieval Irish texts and you will discover this for yourself. Are you asking me to actually name archaeologists who believe this?

...

This is what we were just talking about. The Tain is not necessarily a window to the Iron age, and there's no archaeological evidence to suggest their use. You claimed that it's almost universally believed by archaeologists. Can you prove that somehow? I just have a hard time believing that archaeologists would almost universally be willing to accept something as fact when there's little/no evidence for it.

[oudysseos]

Yes, Riastradh, I am afraid that you are going to have to do better and throw out some names that support your claims.


while almost no such parts [of chariots] are known from the Irish archaeological record


we can not assume that the chariots described in the Irish literature actually describe Iron Age chariots


These are quotes from the sources you yourself linked. And even if the Tain and other 12th century Irish sources are part of an older Oral tradition (big if, actually), what's to say that the Oral tradition is an irreproachable source of detail about Ireland in the 3rd century bce? That just doesn't necessarily follow, particularly without archaeological evidence to back it up. There are any number of ways that the oral tradition would have been influenced and mutated in the 1500 years that separate its recording and your claims about Irish Warrior Culture. For example, Homer was around for more than a thousand years before the very earliest recorded references to episodes from the Tain, and chariot-driving heroes figure prominently in the Iliad. If even only the story of Achilles dragging Hector by the heels reached Ireland as a travellers tail, a monk hunched over his desk in some damp, cold scriptorium might have thrown a chariot or two into the folk-tale he was recording just to enlighten the tedium. Or maybe the clan chief who commissioned the bards recitation wanted chariots.

I think that bovis post is very telling: the changes that you seem to think are necessary to the unit description are actually very minor and really are already mostly encompassed by what has already been written. So where's the beef?

P.S. Concerning bogs: as I posted before, Ireland, with 85,000 square kilometers, has ca. 12,000 square kilometers of bogland. Great Britain, with 244,000 square kilometers, has ca. 16,000 square kilometers of bogland. Those are current figures, including in both countries a fair amount of man-made boglands. Also, some land that was wet in 300 BCE will have been drained for farming and so on. Even so, it seems fairly clear that Ireland is indeed soggier than Britain, especially considering that at least 2/3 of British boglands are north of the Highland line, leaving the south even drier relative to Ireland. This may explain why once you leave the safety of the M50, Ireland seems infested by hairy-backed muck savages.

[Celtic_Punk]

This may explain why once you leave the safety of the M50, Ireland seems infested by hairy-backed muck savages.

Hahaha ~D Shame thats how our "sister" island sees us that way. We are the bogmen!

[oudysseos]

Actually, that's a fairly common term applied by us suave, debonair Dublin jackeens to everyone else in Ireland. If you're not from Dublin, so the thinking goes, you must be a bogger, otherwise known as a culchie. Culchies who come live in Dublin are called dulchies. Yes, these terms are considered fairly offensive.

[Elmetiacos]

...Homer was around for more than a thousand years before the very earliest recorded references to episodes from the Tain, and chariot-driving heroes figure prominently in the Iliad. If even only the story of Achilles dragging Hector by the heels reached Ireland as a travellers tail, a monk hunched over his desk in some damp, cold scriptorium might have thrown a chariot or two into the folk-tale he was recording just to enlighten the tedium. Or maybe the clan chief who commissioned the bards recitation wanted chariots.
This is one theory I've heard before and it seems a rather weak one. A monk might insert a few lines about some hero in a chariot, but there is an extensive collection of chariot related words in the Táin and other sources - it stretches credibility to suggest they are all just nonsense words made up by a monk to make things more Homeric.

[Elmetiacos]

Here's some words to do with chariots and whether they suggest proper Celtic light, two-wheeled ones like excavated British chariots or heavy, four wheeled carts, taken from eDIL:

carpat means a chariot. It also means a cart or wagon. Which came first?
á - is another word for a chariot. An ara is a charioteer and araidecht is chariot driving.
There are two Irish words for horse; capall is a draught horse, ech is a riding horse. A chariot is drawn by the ech, not the capall, which suggests it's not just a cart for transportation.
cethairríad means a four-wheeled chariot, or possibly a four horsed chariot. Does this mean by default all others are two-wheelers?
cis is part of a chariot, which is glossed in the Táin as meaning the same as fonnad.
clangdírech is another word for a chariot.
clár means any flat thing made of wood, and is used to refer to part of a chariot (in modern Irish it's used for the table of contents in book)
crett is translated as frame, body or trunk.
dériad is translated at "two horse chariot" but why not "two wheeled chariot"?
faitse means the right or the south side, or the charioteer's side, as opposed to the fochla, the north or warrior's side. It's hard to get two men side by side in a British chariot because of its size, the charioteer and the warrior are positioned diagonally, but they could still have customary sides.
féthan is given as "some attachment of a spear shaft, scabbard or chariot pole, generally made of metal"
fidgrind - yet another word for a chariot.
focharpart is some other part of a frame of a chariot.
fogaimen is a rug which goes in the chariot; same as a forgemen which goes with a fortche.
fonnad is a word which has a really long entry in eDIL. What it means seems to be the iron tyres that go round the wheels. This ties in with British chariots.
frithbacán is a hook used to stop a chariot when not in use. Is that significant?
noíglinne is a frame of a chariot - the first element suggest nine of something.
síthbe means a chariot pole.
tarbchlár (bull(hide)-clár) is another panel-like part of a chariot
ucht is translated as "front panel of a chariot" - a British chariot doesn't seem to have one.

[Riastradh]

Ok first some of you misunderstand what I'm trying to say about works such as the Tain. I never said the Tain consisted of stories that were 100% historical fact. What I AM saying is the Tain IS without a doubt thought to be much older oral tradition that was actually put to paper by christian monks in the medieval period and warped a bit to demonize/twist the original pagan ways, to make christians look better than savage pagans.

Now, "Oral Tradition" doesn't mean Historical events. It means that these heroic stories were passed down through the generations by mouth, much as the Illiad is thought to be. Legends and myths are often based at least somewhat on historical fact, then embelished to be more heroic/grand/etc. If the Irish were keeping stories of champions who had war chariots for centuries and we know their neighbors used war chariots, then is it really such a stretch to believe that war chariots were actually used by the ancient Irish? It doesn't mean that they had magical weapons, the ability to cleave the tops off mountains, and sorcery. There are other stories that involve characters in the Tain that are dated centuries earlier than the Tain was written down.

If you read an ancient tale about a warrior who always rode a black horse and defeated many enemies with his magic sword, would you think that there was never such a warrior? Or would you instead believe there was a warrior who had a higher quality weapon who had killed men in combat? Again most legends are based partially on fact that is then embelished/exaggerated to be more spectacular.

Now, concerning Ireland's terrain, it's recorded that Irish warriors of the Dal Riada used war chariots in Scotland and many parts of Scotland are very similar to the terrain in Ireland. Concerning bogs, many bogs that exist today are man-made for many different reasons, such as deforestation and current figures do not necessarily reflect what figures would have been like in the Iron Age. Concerning the comment regarding the usage of tanks on the terrain in question, tanks weigh many tons and chariot very likely wouldn't weigh more than a 150 kilos. That's not a very good comparison, instead why not ask if wagons or coaches were ever used in this terrain? We know they were and they are still used today.

Finally, on the differences in the description.
Original description
1. Goidilic tribes used some chariots.
2. Goidilic tribes used some large horses.
3. Smaller horses were adopted in favour of larger ones.
4. Reasons for favouring smaller horses rely on the terrain and climate in Ireland.
5. Larger horses and chariots couldn't move as swiftly as smaller mounts in wet and rocky terrain.

Riastradh's suggestion
1. Goidilic tribes used some chariots.
2. Goidilic tribes used some large horses.
3. Smaller horses were more widely used than larger ones.
4. Reasons for favouring smaller horses rely on the mobility and cost in comparison to chariots and speed, mobility and cost in comparison to larger breeds.
5. Larger horses couldn't move as swiftly and chariots couldn't maneuver as well as smaller mounts in addition to smaller horses being better suited for use in dense forests and broken ground.
6. Ponies were superior when charging an enemy's flank, and were often used in hit-and-run attacks

Hope this clears things up a bit more.

[blitzkrieg80]

Elmetiacos, that is an awesome example to support chariotry in Irish literature using language ~:thumb: very interesting and new to me, too!

[Riastradh]

I too would like to compliment Elmetiacos on that wonderful info provided about vocabulary concerning chariots.

[oudysseos]

Elmetiacos, again I'll defer to your superior linguistic knowledge, but my comment about monks and chariots was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

However, I would still take the Tain with a large grain of salt as a source of accurate historical information, even if one were to concede its debt to a much older oral tradition. What I mean by that is, I don't suppose for a minute that the 12th century compiler from the Book of Leinster made up the story out of whole cloth. Clearly there was a known collection of stories: but the situation is very different from that of the Iliad and the Odyssey. According to Thomas Kinsella, Frank O'Connor and Cecile O'Rahilly, the language of the Book of Leinster version of the Tain is consistently 12th century Irish, unlike the Iliad, whose language reveals centuries of oral tradition and mixes otherwise widely divergent linguistic elements. The Tain is as if Homer took the elements of the story handed down to him and rewrote them in his own current idiom.

The Yellow Book of Lecan's somewhat older and more authentic version of the Tain is

...the work of many hands and in places is little more than the mangled remains of miscellaneous scribal activities. There are major inconsistencies and repetitions among the incidents. On occasion the narrative withers away into cryptic notes and summaries. Extraneous matter is added, varying from simple glosses and comments to wholesale indiscriminate interpolations from other sources, in some cases over erased passages of the original; Frank O'Connor, in The Backward Look, his short history of Irish literature, says that, as a result, 'the Cattle Raid has been rendered practically unintelligible' (from Thomas Kinsella's introduction to the Tain).

The extent to which legends and myths are based on fact is grounds for lots of enjoyable speculation, but one ought to be careful.


Frank O'Connor suggested that the earliest layer of the story, incompletely preserved in the rosc passages, constitutes the remains of an ancient ironic anti-feminist poem. T.F. O'Rahilly believed that the Ulster stories describe the historical circumstances of the invasion of Ulster by Ui Neill invaders from Leinster (not Connacht), the idea of Medb as queen of Connacht - 'Medb' was in fact the tutelary goddess of Temair, or Tara, in Leinster- being amistake on the part of writers who were unaware that the Irish tribes did not have queens. (Kinsella, ibid.)

So if you thought that you knew something about a historical queen of Connacht, you would probably be wrong.

What does this have to do with chariots? All I'm saying is, that the Dal Riada chariots are 6 or 7 hundred years later than the EB time period. In the same amount of time, Roman military practice changed out of recognition. Can one safely assume that the Irish remained static for that long? Riastradh, if your main goal is that it should be acknowledged that the Irish fielded chariots in the EB time period quite often, not that they appeared rarely, I think that you still have a long way to go.

[bovi]

6. Ponies were superior when charging an enemy's flank
Why?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why?

Yes, I'd like to know this as well.

[Elmetiacos]

I've got hold of the Annals of Tigernach http://www.archive.org/stream/annalsoftigernac00stokuoft/annalsoftigernac00stokuoft_djvu.txt and I can't find any mention of chariots at Moin Dairi Lothair... is there another source?

[Taliferno]

I've got hold of the Annals of Tigernach http://www.archive.org/stream/annalsoftigernac00stokuoft/annalsoftigernac00stokuoft_djvu.txt and I can't find any mention of chariots at Moin Dairi Lothair... is there another source?

The annals of Ulster is another source, with a pretty garbled account of it. Again, no mention of chariots.

"The battle of Móin Daire Lothair won over the Cruithin by the Uí Néill of the North. Baetán son of Cenn with two branches of the Cruithin(?) fight it against the Cruithin. Cenél nEógain and Cenél Conaill were hired, being given the Lee and Ard Eolarg as recompense.

1] Weapons press forward, men press forward
2] In the great bog of Daire Lothair,
3] A cause of strife discomfited
4] Around the king of the Cruithin, Aed Brecc.
1] The battle of all the Cruithin is fought,
2] They burn Eilne;
3] The battle of Gabar Liphi is fought,
4] And the battle of Cúil Dreimne.
1] Hostages are taken away after conflict,
2] Away west, with a human harvest(?)
3] By Forgus, Domnall. Ainmire,
4] And Nainnid son of Daui.
1] Mac Erca's two sons returned
2] In the same manner;
3] The king Ainmire came back
4] With the possessions of Sétna.
1] Splendidly moves
2] Baetán's steed upon the host;
3] Well satisfied is Baetán of the yellow hair,
4] It will carry its little load(?) upon it."

EDIT
just read that St Adomnán of Iona mentions it (and the chariot) in the Vita Columbae. The chariots aren't actually used in battle, but, according to Adomnán, the king [B]escapes[B] from the battle in a chariot.

[kekailoa]

I think that this thread has gotten a little off topic, and because of CP's extremely nationalistic bias, it wasn't really answering the question for a while. Kudoes to Bovi for getting it back on track.

And I agree about the pony flanking issue. Getting hit by a pony is not quite the same as getting hit by a Shire.

[Elmetiacos]

The annals of Ulster is another source, with a pretty garbled account of it. Again, no mention of chariots...
just read that St Adomnán of Iona mentions it (and the chariot) in the Vita Columbae. The chariots aren't actually used in battle, but, according to Adomnán, the king escapes[B] from the battle in a chariot.
Ah, got it - http://www.ucc.ie/celt/published/L201040/index.html My Latin is worse than my Irish, but I think the relevant passage is Sed et de rege Cruithniorum, qui Echodius Laib vocitabatur, quemadmodum victus, [B]currui insidens evaserit, similiter Sanctus prophetizavit. Still, it's a bit of a leap from one of the Lives saying that a Pictish king, as the Saint had foretold, escaped in a chariot (or something like) to saying that this was a battle fought with chariots... it's funny how when you start digging deep, a lot of history is a game of Chinese whispers.

[ziegenpeter]

I don't intend to interfere much, but you shouldn't forget that Irelend 2300 years ago may have looked much different from nowadays.
If this wasn't mentioned before...

[Celtic_Punk]

yes it was mentioned, and yes it was different. More muggy and rainy (if you thought that was even possible haha)

[lobf]

yes it was mentioned, and yes it was different. More muggy and rainy (if you thought that was even possible haha)

I'd like to know how you know this, too.

[oudysseos]

Hey, Riastradh (and anyone else), I thought that if you're into the Tain and chariots and stuff you might like this mod http://www.chamber-of-records.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2007
Gods and Fighting Men (for the Alexander expansion I'm afraid) but all about Ireland! It's a hoot! And beautifully done, too.

[Celtic_Punk]

Try Arthurian Total war aswell. Its all about the isles. I'm not sure about chariot activity in it. I'm sure there is a bunch but I only got so far in it before I was annihilated by the Munster(mash)'s and Connacht... BASTARDS! Oh the life of the Ui Neils was a hairy one.