Cruvamendica (Goidilic Cavalry) Description Incorrect

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

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.

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.
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.