Cruvamendica (Goidilic Cavalry) Description Incorrect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Celtic_Punk

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

---

:wall:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

... 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!".

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/ekelt.../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/Social...XIV-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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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/...h-chariot.html

Specifically,

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atilius

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatalos de Sauromatae

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

...

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.

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

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oudysseos

...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.

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.

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.

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

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