Frankly, this stuff faascinates me.
"A book I read recently about the Bronze Age pointed out that most warfare in that time was carried out via chariot."
Does the book imply the actual fighting occurred on chariots, or were they merely used to transport the fighters to the front, or both? What book is it?
"But there is a lot of dispute about how chariots were used, particularly by the Greeks and the Hittites (the Trojans' neighbors, relatives, and sometime rulers.)"
But who WERE the Trojans? What language did they speak? Why no written tablets were ever found at Troy? Even the Mycenaeans had an alphabet - Linear B script at Crete. (A similiar situation pertins to the Phillistines who had a high culture and but apparently no written records).
The Egyptians were introduced to chariotry during the Hyksos invasions and adopted them themselves. From what I can gather, they used them as mobile archer platforms. But then the Ancient Egyptians were familiar with archery and used Libyan and Nubian bowmen. Apparently they did not view archery as unmanly.
"The Dendra armor is very heavy and doesn't look good for infantry battle (looks like a wearable garbage can). It looks like a plate-armor version of the long corselets that the Middle Eastern chariot warriors (mariyannu) wore."
My guess is this was a lot lighter than later European armor, whose weight has been over-estimated anyway. Later European armor was steel, the Dendera Armor was bronze of some type and may have been significantly lighter. Medieval European armor was of three general types: Parade Armor for show, joisting armor - very heavy and typically what the average person pictures, and field armor - which was a lot lighter so the wearer could move around in it, and used in actual combat. Field armor weighed no more than the average WW2 soldier carried around, including his pack. Since knights practised with this stuff every day, I assume they had less of a problem moving around with it, especially as it was evenly distributed, more or less, over the wearer's body. I also recall reading that ancient Greek armor, unlike Medieval Armor, relied more on the effect of the curvature pf the surface to deflect blows and was, accordingly, thinner.
"here is a theory that the Hittites and Greeks used long lances from chariots"
I find this hard to believe. A Chariot is far less manoeverable than a horse.
"On the other hand, Robert Drews thinks that chariot tactics were pretty much uniform across the region, with emphasis on the bow. (He mentions Odysseus's bow to make the point that early Greeks may not have had the Classical Greek bias agains the bow.)"
If I remember correctly, the Trojan stories present Paris in an unfavorable light because he used the bow. I think the Myceanans may have used throwing spears or javelins tossed from moving chariots, then they dismounted and fought on foot with thrusting spears or swords. And if bows were so important to the Myceanans in warfare, why did he leave his at home? Or did he have several bows? Or were bows more the weapon of the chase than hunting weapons? Or perhaps a combination?
"The interesting part is this: why do the warriors in the Iliad ride chariots into battle and then dismount?"
This would make sense if they were used as transport and the warriors used them to toss spears, a la Roman pila, at each other, then dismounted if they didn't kill their opponent and went at it with thrusting spear and sword.
Unlike the Ancient Egyptians, the Mycenaeans appeared to have been a warrior culture, similar, as you point out to the Medieval Knights. In such societies warfare tends to become ritualized even when the ritual might defeat your objective of total battlefield victory.
"there there are references to "great shields" carried by warriors such as Ajax, like the figure eight or tower shields that are shown in Mycenaean art, "
All the more reason to use a chariot in part as transport.
"On the other hand, there is an emphasis on infantry fighting in the Iliad, which may more reflect tactics of Homer's own time (c. 800-700 BC, the Greek Dark Ages, before hoplite warfare began)."
The interesting thing about the Iliad is that it is replete with so many anachronisms - lingustic as well as social. It makes it quite a puzzle to interpret and decipher.
"But the Iliad may be about a raid "
I believe it was an actual event and represents what must have been more than a mere raid. And thanks for that reference, I'll have to check it out. I never heard of point #2. But it is an interesting idea. Perhaps the "Trojan Horse" was an example of a change in tactics - some new kind of siege weapon.
"Another radical suggestion he makes is that these northern Greeks, together with other barbarians from modern-day Italy and Asia Minor, and maybe a few displaced Mycenaeans from southern Greece or Crete who had turned to raiding, made up the bulk of the so-called "Sea Peoples" who attacked cities in the Eastern Mediterranean about 1200 BC."
I read about this theory before. The Ancient Egyptians refer to them by name and some like the Sherdana are thought to refer to identifiable peoples like the Sardinians - who are even today an odd and unique group.
There is also that suspicious tale about Helen and Menelaeus in Egypt.
"It is noteworthy that the bulk of the "Sea People" mercenaries hired by a Libyan king to help him invade Egypt during the reign of the pharoah Merneptah were "Ekwesh" or "Akhaiwoi", in other words, Achaeans, and that this king may have hired them because of their success against the Trojan charioteers."
Interesting. I hadn't read that. But I did read about the Hittite state records which refer to "Achaiwasha" (Spelling?) and to the king of Wulios(Spelling?) (Ilion)and attacks by these Ackaiwasha from across the sea at Wilios. I even think there was a name there that sounded a lot like Alexander (Paris) as a ruler of Wilios.
You may well be right. The book is The End of the Bronze Age by Robert Drews and it argues that chariots were mostly used as mobile platforms for archery. I don't know whether I agree. Certainly true for Egypt, Canaan, Mitanni, and the Aryans in India, and perhaps for Troy and the Hittites as well.
But the Celts used chariots too; the Irish were fighting from chariots until the early Middle Ages. They sometimes used them as battle-taxis or as platforms for throwing javelins or wielding a lance. The bow, among Celts, was not a weapon for chiefs or braves; they had the same attitude toward the bow as the later Greeks. Drews doesn't seem to be aware of Celtic chariotry.
I agree with you about the warrior culture; it was far closer to medieval Europe than to the ancient Egyptians or classical Greeks or Romans.
As for the Trojans, the reason I think they are connected to the Hittites is their location and references to them in Hittite texts. They probably spoke Phrygian (related to Armenian) or Luwian (a language related to Hittite). Also they appear in Hittite records, as you say. Another thing is that "Dardanians", another Homeric term for Trojans, are recorded as fighting for Hittite King Muwatallis at Kadesh.
It does seem that the Mycenaeans had a lot of contact with western Asia Minor, probably settled there as well. Millawanda (Miletus) was one of these settlements. Apparently the Mycenaeans sought slaves from there. The Hittites, as early as the 15th century BC, were complaining about Mycenaeans encroaching in Asia Minor.
I believe the document you are looking for regarding Hittites and Greeks is called the Madduwattas text. You are right about Paris (aka Alaksandas of Wilusa). He made a treaty with one of the Hittite kings.
Drews is my source for the theory about the Achaeans and Libya, but his views are more than a bit out of the mainstream. OTOH, he may be right about this.
Also it is interesting that you mention Sardinians, because the Mycenaeans and possibly Canaanites were trading with Italy and nearby islands. The horned-helmet guys on the Egyptian reliefs were mostly Shardana, or Sardinian mercenaries who also served the Canaanite city of Ugarit. There are stone statues of warriors from Corsica that show the same type of helmets, armor, and swords as the Egyptian reliefs.
Corsica:
http://www.stonepages.com/corsica/filitosa_5.html
http://www.beloit.edu/~arthist/historyofart/neolithic/images/filitosa3.jpg
http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/weapons/mercenaries.jpg
I agree that it was more than a raid. And as for the Trojan Horse, I think you are right about it being a sige weapon. We don't see much siege warfare in the Bronze Age, but Homer lived at the height of the Assyrian empire, and no doubt he knew about the siege engines they used. But who invented those? When and why did the Assyrians start using them?
More questions than answers. Bronze Age military history is incredibly hard to understand. Egypt is much easier to figure out than anything else, because of all the written and pictorial records, but when you get to the Hittites and Mycenaeans, then you're really flying blind.
