[fatez]

I think Robert Drews' theory is still the best overall. He basically goes back to the change in tactics and new weaponry. Targeting the horses that drew the chariots made a huge difference in terms of changing the equation of warfare. Infantry could finally hold their own against the chariot armies. Iron was not widely used in weapons until the Iron Age II (although it is found in ever increasing quantities throughout the Iron Age I). Drews' book is called The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catostrophe ca. 1200 B.C

Real nice post SunkenCiv and thank you as always...

[SunkenCiv]

The problem with all of the explanations is, there was no hard end to the Bronze Age, and it’s an outmoded notion in the first place. Drews’ book is around here (I think Hoffa’s body is under the same pile, I’m not a great housekeeper), but I’ve never found his these compelling for a few different reasons. Mainly, the use of spears and arrows goes back at least 15,000 years in the Nile basin alone (a Stone Age town was burned to the ground, leaving the building outlines in the form of post holes and hearth stones, plus many thousands of spent arrow- and spearheads), and even a stone head will kill a horse. Chariot warfare was used to enable fast-moving archery attacks (swing in, fire away, make the getaway) which helps illustrate that particular point. Archery, dart-throwing, and slingstones were preferred for a long time in the Near East, by the classical period they were still in use, cheap, and everyone learned how to use all of them as children. The Parthians used them successfully against Iron Age Roman armies more than once.