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 wetand rockyterrain 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.
Bookmarks