Why They Lost The Wheel (1973) | Hacker News Reader

Why They Lost The Wheel (1973)

saudiaramcoworld.com

144 pointsantman23 comments

The author also wrote the book "The Camel and the Wheel", also in the 1970s. There's a 2010 interview of him at http://bwog.com/2010/10/09/professor-interviews-just-camels-... .

My first thought on reading the link concerned the iron chariots mentioned in the Bible ("And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."; Judges 1:19.) I figured I was missing something when I saw he was a history professor. The interview clarifies it further in that he knew the same reference, which got him to wonder why the word "wheel" wasn't in medieval Arabic.

Actually regarding Judah's defeat from the inhabitants with the iron chariots, it was because they were afraid of them and not trusting God (see Judges 2:1-3). They did defeat them latter on (Judges 4:3,15)

I'm not sure your point with "Actually"? They were still chariots, with wheels.

I could have quoted Exodus 14:7 - "And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them." That's the other one which which comes quickly to mind. (Well, the other topic; there are several verses which mention those Egyptian chariots.) But the qualifier "chariots of iron" gives an idea that they've been around long enough to need a qualifier. (Chariots are from the Bronze Age.)

FWIW, there are 60 references to chariots in the Bible, of which three use "iron".

The curious thing about chariot warfare is that nobody seems to have a very clear idea of the tactics. The book The Coming of the Greeks offers a picture of the spread of Indo-European languages through a military elite that has mastered chariot tactics, but can't say what they were or how they declined. Homer is pretty shaky on chariot warfare. And when Darius tried to bring back chariots with scythed wheels to defeat Alexander, it just didn't work.

I didn't know that. Thanks for sharing. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/mis... has more details. "Although intermittently appearing on the battle field for six hundred years, the scythed chariot was curiously ineffectual. Their use by the Seleucid king Antiochus III at the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC, can serve as an example. ... Antiochus had expected that they would throw the enemy into confusion, but for Livy it all was a "silly show." Placed in front, the horses were terrified by the shouts and missiles directed at them and bolted wildly, without bit or bridle."

For anyone that found this interesting, the website is a magazine focused on the Arab world. They have over 50 years of articles similar to this on their site. Interestingly, it is completely payed for by Aramco, the oil company.

Old and from a different culture => very enjoyable. I'm happy @antman posted that article today.

The mention of asphalt roads in pioneer-era America was rather anachronistic. Tarmac (or tarmacadam), what much of the world calls asphalt, wasn't created until 1901 (though earlier variants date to 1834). It's a combination of macadam, or crushed gravel, and tar -- bitumen, or the heaviest components of oil (also what's principally present in the Canadian tar sands). Though yes, asphalt was used locally as early as the 6th century BC.

Tarmac is also a topping material for roads. It stabilizes crushed gravel, but doesn't of and by itself provide much in the way of load-bearing capability. For that, substantial earthworks are required. Roman roads required earth removal, a layer of land, gravel and concrete, crushed stone and concrete, and finally a topped layer of dressed cobblestones, as well as drains to either side.

http://spqrlive.com/communities/8/004/007/457/098/images/452... http://spqrlive.com/roads/4536983176

While that makes for an excellent load-bearing surface, it's a bit rough for high-speed travel. That's where tarmac comes in.

For wagon trains, occasional travel over largely unimproved dirt roads was possible, but any amount of water would result in mud, with wheels and wagons sinking into it. Wheel ruts from pioneer crossings from 1840-1869 are still visible today, 150 years later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Trail_Ruts_(Guernsey,_W...

This bit on the first macadam road in the U.S. might be interesting:

http://web.en.rmutt.ac.th/highway/eng-macadam.html

The first macadam surface in the United States was laid on the "Boonsborough Turnpike Road" between Hagerstown and Boonsboro, Maryland. By 1822, this section was the last unimproved gap in the great road leading from Baltimore on the Chesapeake Bay to Wheeling on the Ohio River. Stagecoaches using the road in winter needed 5 to 7 hours of travel to cover 10 miles.

It also details some of the intermediate phases between macadam and full asphalt concrete roadbeds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarmac

> roads are built for wheels and not vice versa. Their decline paralleled that of the wheel; it did not cause it.

Is this true? I remember being told that the Roman roads were built for the legions to march on (even people on foot are faster on a road than a dirt track), and that it was only this established road network that made wheeled transport viable.

"There is one Roman relief showing a camel chariot race, but it is hard to believe that it was not intended as comic relief."

Hey Gaius, did you hear the one about the camel pulling a chariot?

And nice word play by the author of the article.

Africa province (countries around todays Libya) had very different climate in Roman times. There was no need for camels back than.

unfortunately (for Australia at least) the camel is in no danger of disappearing, it is a very serious pest of the inland desert areas. The number of camels which range through inland arid areas is now around the 1 million mark. They are very destructive too, being able to reach much higher and eat tougher plants than any other native animals.

It appears that number was an overestimate, says http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/18/australia... . It's around 300K now, after culling. It looks like it was 600K before culling, says http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-21/feral-camel-culling-re... .

I would seem to me it should be pretty easy to shoot them and eat them.

There's a lot of Australia, and comparatively few Australians

It seems unlikely that you'd get people to eat camels on a large scale if they're only going to be available for a short period while they're being culled.

Yep, like emus*

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

http://www.camelsaust.com.au/

There is indeed an industry for this, but it's no where near as large as it would need to be to eliminate a significant amount of the population.

You also have the problem that the population is spread over such a large area.

Camel carts/wagons actually do exist (http://www.nomadderwhere.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/dsc_...) and are quite popular in India and Pakistan. In fact, I would say that such is the primary way of using a camel as a load-bearing animal in this region. I think the big difference is, in the Middle East, the caravans had to travel very long distances (for instance, Mecca to Constantinople was a profitable route) over very _diverse_ desert terrain, some of which is probably very unsuitable for carts (mountain passes, loose sand).

You should really read the article but...

tl;dr It was 20% cheaper to just have a camel, than to also attach a wheeled cart to it, due to the absence of trees. So the camel beat the wheel for economic reasons alone.

Jerry Pournelle frequently comments that the invention of the horse collar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_collar) was one of the most consequential ones in history. Here we have a similar move from oxen to something more efficient.

That reminds me that Egyptians and Romans rode in chariots rather than on horseback because they didn't have stirrups: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

The Roman legions used saddled cavalry. Chariots were only really used for racing. But yes, Romans rode without stirrups.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com