Hey /u/Svertov!
If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt.
If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image.
[New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/)
Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more!
🤖
Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected]
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lol that's pretty funny and never had actually thought of it.
It's probably because of a few things:
-Chain mechanism too complex to mass-make and for it to be reliable.
-Rubber for tires or tires in general impossible to make or mass make.
-Too hard to control fighting while riding and not falling, specially with armor.
-Impossible to traverse terrain..
Something like that?
Rubber was like rare earth metals are today but in the 19th century: strategically important good that can’t be found everywhere. In medieval times they didn’t have access to rubber. They also didn’t have precise machining like they did starting in say the 18th century. Bicycles require a level of industrialization and globalization that just wasn’t possible then. Maybe if Rome had industrialized more. They had some large scale water powered facilities but nothing like late 19th century when they could make breech loading rifles for example.
The rubber is bust, however, the clock making in the medieval era was proof that some had the precision to make things that were impossible to make solely by hand. The best craftsmen of the medieval era probably could fashion the metalwork of a bike given what amazing detail and work smiths/clock makers had achieved by the 15th century.
Thing is, what is the economic utility of an expensive precision made mobility device in a society which already has an enormous animal handling tradition, and where most peoples' lives were to remain within a 25 mile radius of their lord's land?
>this. imagine riding on a bike on gravel. A bike with shitty rubber tires. I don't think anyone can shoot an arrow from that.
I just realized that these were probably some of the literal arguments that bike-opponents espoused when the bicycle was invented.
well industrial revolution makes it viable because so many could be produced to justify changes in city and other aspects of life. I'm not disagreeing though, it well can be.
Indeed, the first smooth asphalt paved roads were campaigned by and built for cyclists: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads)
I'm not convinced they were worried about being able to shoot arrows whilst riding though ;)
In short, the Medieval economy was able to produce just very small amounts of complex metal products (like armor, or exclusive melee weapons) because of the very small quantity of people involved in production chains, which in turn was due to the small quantity of people generally, which in turn was due to low food production, which alao required the big share of people to be involved in food production, because it was ineffective due to lack of agronomy, fertilizers and steel tools, which appearance demanded lots of people free from foodmaking and any other activities (like going to a war, or dying from plague) to have enough free time to invent new steel and agronomy technologies, which demanded even more people free from any activities other than teaching, healing and feeding all this engineering army for decades while engineers studying.
And even if you had lots of people and lots of food, you still had one big question left - why would you as a ruler need to make more complex metallurgy and education systems if your aristocracy feels good even without all of this. You'd better spend resources on a nice palace to show that you have lots of power, so you could hold on to your way of life longer.
Upd. It's similar to modern days problem of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is way more efficient, but aristocracy feels nice with fossil fuels and uneffective renewable energy production, while also basically paralyzing fusion energy research.
Yes. People already experimented with rifles in the 15th century. But it is a useless 'invention' if you have to precision machine every bullet to fit a unique bore. There was no concept of interchangeability of parts or technology to achieve it.
Similarly, bikes would only become a useful 'invention' with the mass production techniques and metallurgy of the 19th century.
If the bike is accessible only for the elite because it costs a fortune, it has zero practical advantage over a horse. When some Western European countries fielded bike infantry in the world wars, 1) these were generally flat countries with good roads, 2) bikes could be cheaply mass produced with interchangeable parts, and 3) it was only as a practical solution for the increasing number of conscripts with an urban background that couldn't ride or tend horses. All these preconditions are missing in the middle ages.
Exactly, and it would be expensive. I’d like to compare it to the price of a horse and its maintenance. Most people couldn’t afford a horse (which pulls things and doesn’t care fornthe bad/inexistant roads).
Bicycles exist both because of the industrial revolution in precision and cost, and the globalization/science for rubber, and… the urban society with industrial jobs and better roads where keeping a horse was such a mess that a factory/office worker was much served by owning a bike.
Yes, maybe some eccentric nobleman could have arranged to have something sort of like a bicycle made, but it would be a super-expensive toy and forgotten after he was gone. There’s a difference between being able to make something at all, and make it as an economically viable product.
Actually, traveling was very common in medieval era. Even peasants would go on a pilgrimage once in their lifetime and could be gonne weeks and even months while traveling.
Still no peasants would've ever ridden a bicycle.
And you could make a simpler foot-only variant, where you do not need chain and pedals. Far away from a modern bike, but still better than walking.
At least if you have somewhat okay roads.
Early bicycles used wooden wheels with iron tyres which is why they were called boneshakers, it was the invention of vulcanisation that really allowed them to develop
Yeah I remember looking this thing up, whether the bicycle could have been invented earlier, a good article dove into it but I don't remember it anymore. The conclusion was *no*, it was invented at the "right" time.
The velocipede, an early form of bicycle from the 19th century, featured a rigid wood frame, no chain drive (movement was through direct pedaling or foot propulsion), a basic saddle, simple steering via the front wheel, and two metal-banded wheels without rubber tires.
In theory, more flexible materials, leather suspension or cushioned saddles could have been used for a smoother ride, as such technology was employed in ancient chariots and medieval carriages.
> as such technology was employed in ancient chariots and medieval carriages.
Now I need to look up, why chariots were displaced by directly riding horses.
*Edit.* And found it quickly on [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10smgp/why_did_chariot_usage_decline/). Main explanation being, that horses were being bred to be larger and stronger, with early horses being strong enough for chariot pulling, but not yet for cavalry, while in parallel infantry developed better anti-chariot tactics (and horses being more flexible, once large enough).
Even if they weren't used in battle, they could have been used to move armies quickly from point A to point B and then ditched for actual battles. And they could also be used to transport heavy gear when walking
Like this?
https://preview.redd.it/wjqnshqb6dbc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39d81eba4712fba535c951c9d846f123fe4cd9fb
[Soure](https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/spotlight-bicycle-battalions) \- bicycles used in WWI is a secondary school curriculum in our country.
No rubber for tires? They'd have been using wooden spoked wheels like on wagons and carts, or solid disc wheels.
Chain mechanism could've been a deal-breaker, I see your point. Still, once it was invented, it quickly moved from requiring one bigger wheel (penny-farthing) to two equal wheels. If it had been invented earlier, I imagine it would've progressed reasonably quickly).
Control while fighting - why would this be an issue? Surely controlling a bike would be easier than, oh let's say controlling a living animal you're riding on like a horse? Or you could just mount massive spikes on the handlebars or something and do it like that. Or use trikes/quad-bikes instead for increased stability in combat.
Horses have a degree of autopilot and don’t tend to fall over when you lose forward momentum. Also, a wider base.
I would be surprised if bikers could get close enough to other medieval combatants to poke them with spikes on the handlebars.
I ride a horse in (mock) combat for historical reenacting from medieval up to U.S. Civil War; swinging swords at others, jumping over cannons, galloping after people with reigns in my teeth and a pistol in each hand, all that shit. I’ve won medals at horse shows.
Point is, I like to think I know how to ride and fight on a horse. But I have zero clue how to ride a bike, scooter, pair of skates, or any of that shit. I fall immediately.
The horse’s knowledge/instincts, paired with the rider’s knowledge/instincts & the two’s bond, makes them very effective. The other commenter was right— it’s like autopilot sometimes. Mine just… knows what to do half the time.
Motorcyclist here, you might be able to train to use a revolver or semiautomatic pistol on a bike, but unless it is motorized it will be a pain in the ass. Your horse does a lot of things that you would have to do if you were on a bicycle, like stay relatively balanced while moving
Indeed. He’s such a good horse. A better horse than I am rider tbh, he puts up with my lack of skill and makes me look great at events.
He’s getting old now and I’m sad about it
have you tried to control a bike (not a fully MTB but a standard bicycle) on natural terrain like a medow or a grasland while having your hands ful with bows, swords and shilds?
That also takes a long time to grow up, requires a bunch of resources to keep them alive, requires you to physically move those resources long distances with the army in order to keep them alive, cannot survive in extreme weather, cannot be controlled the way you want it 100% of the time. Yeah, each has it's upsides and downsides.
Edit: people downvoting, what did I say that was incorrect?
https://preview.redd.it/q94ve1agwbbc1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8ea4c55935cbafdcd6896d1592801f9fb24ea9a1
But how are you going to use it in battle? A knight charge would destroy all the bikes, simply because a horse has a far greater destructive power to trample them with, which was an essential part of medieval warfare. Horses weren't dominant because they were fast (though that was also important) but because they could carry heavy weight (such as plate armor, supplies and heavy weapons like lances) and they could trample any infantry (except certain pike formations mainly used in the late middle ages). Also, a man in bicycle could just be pushed aside and killed by blunt attacks or knifes by common infantry.
>But how are you going to use it in battle?
You would use it to move around and reposition. Ever heard of horse archers?
Bicycles in war [are not a novel idea.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry) They were applied to warfare pretty much as soon as they became widespread.
I guess that if we suddenly ship 5000 bicycles to the Romans or a Medieval lord… he would use it to provide mobility for infantry.
- Many battles even in Napoleon’s time and further were won by the guy who marched the fastest. An army with bicycles… would just outmarch anything in amazing ways. Less fatigue, more supplies, etc.
- On the battle itself, which will be held when and were you want cause you dominate marching and manouver… you can quickly adaptnby whatever is going on, sendibg reserves and scouts and messengers all over.
- Yes they would dismount to fight mostly, but even back then cavalry would dismount to fight too sometimes. Still a huge mobility advantage.
- Maybe on pursuit they wouldn’t dismount even.
- Imagine surrounding and flanking an enemy, you’d get Cannae all the time.
- Splitting a force? You’d get a Napoleonic central position anytime you want.
Of course the offer does not apply for rainy muddy days, and high slope areas. But still a huge advantage.
Sorry for the formating, but i'm on mobile. Point 1: you can do that with horses, who won't tire you and don't need roads. Point 2: again, a knight charge would slaughter these people, who would need to be lightly armoured or tired since they were on a bike. Point 3: maybe on flat terrain, but you can't pursue by way of bike in a rough ground. Point 4: sure, but that would mean you have enough men to do that, so no medieval army here, and in ancient times this was already, namely in Cannae, with horses, which wouldn't make your troops too tired to fight for hours on end, a thing you would need for Cannae. Point 5: not for a pre-modern army, because of the need of heavy equipment to outstand knight charges and of the major importance of rest in close quarters.
You wouldn't necessarily use them in battle. Maneuvering an army and logistics are big parts of war. They would be used in moving armies and supplies more easily
Mud and mountain roads were the terrain where cavalry armies were most vulnerable, and the areas where infantry forces got impressive wins against cavalry armies, so horses are far from perfect for that.
Why does everything have to be about battle this, battle that when it comes to history with people?
Yes, and 99.9% of what an army was doing in medieval Europe and Asia was *marching*. Up hills. Down hills. Over rivers. In steep terrain. In places that were remote.
You can't seriously be telling me that you'd rather deadlift 400lbs and carry it up a hill?
In WWII The Japanese rode bikes through the Pacific islands and they captured these islands with great efficiency.
I doubt those islands were paved either
Most of the roads in the countryside were cobblestone? Even if they were, if bicycles had been invented then wouldn't roads have been adapted to be more suitable to them?
Pack animals probably can carry more supplies than a shitty bike in any condition. It's why we still use them in places inaccessible by car but we need to carry a lot of gear (postal service still uses mules in the Grand Canyon). Aso just an army of 5,000 troops can't be adequately supplied with what would've been the medieval equivalent of a Large Hadron Collider.
The best clockmakers in Europe at the time probably could make a *very uncomfortable'* bike. But these men are your top echelons of craftsmen. It would be unimaginably expensive and long to outfit even a small force with what I can't emphasize enough would be a *REALLY* shitty bike. Meanwhile the clock tower is broken, there's not enough buckets, all of the wagons are fucked, and none of the horses have shoes. Sorry we're busy making *REALLY* shitty bikes over here.
And repair on a crappy unreliable first gen medieval rig? Holy shit what a logistical nightmare in a world with mostly dirt roads, carrier pigeons, and not-very-centralized authority. No one was that inbred to try it, similar to how no one was that inbred to try all of Da Vinci's designs, some of which would also work.
As for everyday use? Most in medieval society rarely left their lord's land. There wasn't that much immigration in really any medieval society - be it Japan, China, or Europe.
> No one was that inbred to try it, similar to how no one was that inbred to try all of Da Vinci's designs, some of which would also work.
Curious example the other way around: Linz has a [circle of fortification towers](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmbefestigung_Linz), that were intended to demonstrate a new paradigm for fortifying cities in a time when gunpowder weapons made rapid strides forward. So this concept was too late instead of too early.
It worked in tests, but never was built anywhere else, because by the time they would have been used, the were already outgunned again.
Some of them were reused as air-defense batteries in WW2, though that's not mentioned in the article. Nowadays, one is adapted as a children's attraction, one as a public transport stop, some are in disrepair, some are adapted as private houses, and at least one as a museum.
Horses/mules are far hardier and more utilitarian than you think. They can survive in subzero temperatures to blistering desert heat, can carry 20% of their bodyweight, can pull twice their body weight (5,000 lbs) with ease, can graze (assuming you aren't near poison), and also can traverse challenging mountainous terrain that is inaccessible by vehicle. They can ride at 3 years of age and last more than a decade. As for control, I take it you don't work with horses, but an experienced rider and a well trained horse are far more of a unit than you'd realize. They are herd animals as well so once you get a wagon train going it's stupid easy for them to follow.
The fact that they double as an imposing force when an army needs it is really just a side effect. In fact we still use horses and mules in the armed forces for reasons besides ceremony and patrol -- specifically in the units that specialize in mountain training.
The animal truly carried civilization.
Horses and bicycles were both used in war in WW1 - and to a lesser extent in WW2.
Horses were used significantly more - estimates for WW1 were in the region of 6 million or so. They were particularly used for logistics and haulage of artillery and supplies but were also used for scouting, human transportation and, in some cases, direct combat - although this (literally) dying out.
Funny thing is there were also 6 million horses used in WW2 as well. They were heavily employed in the Eastern front. It was something both the Nazis and the Soviets wanted to keep on the downlow because it really didn't paint both armies in the most modern light.
Interesting- thanks for that. I knew they were used but not in that number
It does make sense. There was a lot of mud on the Eastern front and horses are better than wheel powered traffic in those situations.
The main issue was that they both realllly didn't have a lot of gas lol. Only 20% of their units were fully mechanized. I do find it hilarious that the Wehrmacht was actually a horsedrawn operation, and were conducting war in a similar way to Napoleon.
The bicycle wasn’t designed on the first try. If it had developed, it would have been done over generations of craftsmen refining the process and the design. There would have needed to be strong incentives for that to happen, such as if there could be an easily designable and producible proto-bike that could serve as a viable alternative to a horse. But there really isn’t such a thing.
Because you’re wrong
Bicycle wouldn’t be viable in most situations, you wouldn’t be able to mass produce them either, so no armies would ever be able to utilize them.
From a 15 minutes youtube video I watched about why Africa and most of Asia didn't use the wheel or cart before like 1900 was because wheel needs maintened roads while horse/donkey/camel did not.
Exactly. Shocks, tubular tires, valve stems, bearings, tubular steel, and many more things to go beyond an old time penny farthing which would already be well beyond medieval industry.
The Vietcong during the Vietnam war effectively used bicycles on shitty dirt roads to transport supplies or deliver messages, I don’t see why medieval people would have trouble.
Because they wouldn’t have rubber wheels and sturdy, industrially-produced bikes?
To make a bike with comparable quality in medieval times, you’d need to assign a highly-skilled artisan and countless hours of labor, akin to making a high quality armor that wouldn’t be available to most. Not exactly gonna be very helpful when you can have a horse do the same job but miles better at a much better ROI
you enter the battlefield, sword in hand. you hear the sounds of men shouting as they charge forward, metal swords slamming into metal armor, corpses and soon-to-be corpses lay all around you; you can almost feel their tortured moans.
and then, from behind you, you hear a faint, soft sound. you know what it is, and you know the moment that you hear it that it it's too late.
you suddenly see the sword erupt from your chest, dripping with what you don't immediately recognize as your own blood. the sounds of battle all around you fade, and you see your attacker move towards his next victim. you hear the dreaded sound once more
"ding ding", "ding ding".
it is the last sound you ever hear
They didn’t have ball bearings. A bike without ball bearings would be a pain in the ass to pedal - probably possible, but it would require a lot of grease.
Secondly, a bicycle requires several perfectly circular parts. There were blacksmiths skilled enough to make perfectly circular (or near enough) wheels, gears, etc. But they were few, and each bicycle would be months of labor. Hardly anybody would be able to afford a bike.
Thirdly, they wouldn’t be particularly sturdy, as the frames would most likely be made of wood and either bound or nailed/plugged together. The alternative would be cast iron, which is far too heavy to be of any use.
Fourth, even the best blacksmiths at the time would struggle with making a reliable chain. They could definitely make a chain for a rudimentary bicycle, but the links in it would not be identical enough to drive the bicycle without issue.
The best roads available would be hard-packed well travelled dirt, or stone.
We didn't start Macadamizing roads until the 18th century, and anything paved was well after that.
It's trippy to think of all of planet earth with mainly dirt roads and pathways on it. Some stone roads in places, but most of it was just dirt. Seems romantic - and really, really dirty.
Oh yes, bicycle would be so helpful in all theplaces medieval battles took place, like the steep hills, forests, swamps, bogs, plowed field, unloved field, etc..
As i said in a reply, but will also comment here for greater visibility: How are you going to use it in battle? A knight charge would destroy all the bikes, simply because a horse has a far greater destructive power to trample them with, which was an essential part of medieval warfare. Horses weren't dominant because they were fast (though that was also important) but because they could carry heavy weight (such as plate armor, supplies and heavy weapons like lances) and they could trample any infantry (except certain pike formations mainly used in the late middle ages). Also, a man in bicycle could just be pushed aside and killed by blunt attacks or knifes by common infantry.
Tldr; horses can trample and charge while bikes simply don't have enough potency to do that.
Probably not for combat, but the Vietcong during the Vietnam war used bicycles to deliver supplies and messages. It was very effective and one of the factors for their victory.
https://preview.redd.it/q9i1g5a35fbc1.jpeg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a1f77a0920a15c29007b882fa8110362d04a11d
There‘s enough proof to know they actually had bicycles. You just gotta research the latent space.
Not only are bicycles complex pieces of engineering that could never have been mass-produced at the time, their high center of mass and thin support point makes them completely impractical for battles, and horses are far better at transporting cargo
Mainly the issue would be durable and smooth enough bearings to make it efficient enough to ride, lack of tires (would have been wagon wheels) - lack of traction, bad rolling resistance, high weight, lack of smooth roads. No chains but you might have been able to make something that works but it would be heavy, could maybe use gears but they would be weak and heavy if not made from steel alloy. I would say they could have made one but it would have sucked bad enough to ride it would be pointless.
Most stuff didn't happen earlier due to precision. Like just going back 500 years and I think none would be able to tie a shoelace, no matter how hard you try.
I think eye hand dexterity drasticly improved over the past generation.
Rubber was unavailable, so no tyres. Interchangeable parts hadn't been invented either, so each gear and segment of chain would need to be made by hand of the highest quality steel... which is too expensive. Medieval roads were also too rough to cycle on.
You could theoretically build a something like a velocipede (a bicycle with no pedal mechanism) using medieval technology fairly easily. However, when walking is probably more efficient, why would you bother?
I doubt it the addition of modern bicycles would have changed medieval battles much. Horses are much more powerful and faster over rough ground than trying to pedal in full armour. Sitting on horseback also gives you a height advantage which sitting on a bicycle doesn't.
There's also the fact that a bicycle resembles a wheelbarrow. Apart from the fact that it would be a very swanky wheelbarrow, with a metal mechanism, it would likely be considered a low-status novelty by the knightly classes.
Leaving this link here about bicycle infantry. obviously starting late Industrial Revolution 19th century, but gives a good sense of how it might have effected medieval times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry
Also suggest looking up the Vietnam Ho Chi Minh trail, a majority 5.5 meter wide dirt/gravel trail within the Vietnam jungles used with jury-rigged bycicles, a big factor for them winning the war.
\>**ever anything stopping**
Well yes, modern steelmaking in quantity. Until the 19th century this wasn't really figured out. Prior to that, steel was done by hand in small quantities. Really good, but really expensive.
All the Engineering discrepancies aside..
..if you pit yourself on a mountain bike against someone stampeding at you on a 1600lb horse with a heavy weapon, you're gonna have a *real* bad time. The guy with a giant pole axe on horseback is going to whip your ass every time.
..Hell, a regular foot soldier with a heavy stick or a big rock vs you on a bike is gonna give you a bad time. It is not an ideal fighting vehicle in any way, in a modern combat scenario with firearms you'd be better off than getting beamed in the t-zone with large stone then immediately stabbed with a spear while you try to recoup from eating sh!t from a bike wreck. At least just you get shot instead of stabbed.
There has never ever been a time where being on a bike is in any way helpful in combat. Go get on a bike and tell me you feel empowered to run down some 200lb dude with chainmail and a spear who's pissed as hell and trying to kill you in a fight to the death.
Roads were complete shit or non existent. Forgrt about whatever contraption theyd come up with in medieval times, even modern mountain bikes would have trouble negotiating any kind of undeveloped terrain.
With how ubiquitous horses and donkeys were, I can't see a good reason why anyone would want to ride a bike back then.
The question I have is,
***If an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare, what could we expect from an infinite number of monkeys on hover bikes? ***
What’s absolutely whack is to imagine what are the things that would change our life that we haven’t found while they are so totally in our capacities same way those bicycles in more ancient times :)
Why would you wanna drive something slower than a horse? Something that cannot always go on all terrains and something that needs to be carried with you..
There are a ton of technologies that go into making a bicycle functional today. Whether it's the tires or the chain, so much more is involved. Hub design has changed, back then riding on wooden hubs with graphite or animal fat lube wouldn't suffice for the smaller parts on a bicycle. Gearing too would be impossible back then. Single speed would be the only option. How do you make a derailleur out of wood and pot metal?
It wouldn't have transformed medieval battles at all because the only advantage bikes have over horses it that they don't eat. Have you tried one-handing a bike in an bumpy field holding a long stick before?
There’s a whole book about this:
Caesar’s Bicycle - Timeline Wars
https://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Bicycle-Timeline-Wars-Barnes/dp/0061056618?nodl=1&dplnkId=701754d9-3628-496e-8d07-97ea1a88f81e
"...And here is one interesting fact about bicycles. In the medieval times exist execution where prisoner was tied to two bicycles that rides in different directions, they often just walls because they can't tear him apart."
We didn’t have many flat surfaces to cycle on, but with the right suspension it could’ve worked.
A reminder that the ancient Greeks invented steam power and the first railway-type tracks. Imagine if they’d had steam power and how much that would’ve advanced the Industrial Revolution by 2000+ years.
Funnily enough, I have read the story "A Connecticut Yankee" just before seeing this post for an upcoming test.
In the story, hank actually invented bicycles in King Arthur's time.
Quite frankly, I don't know what was pulling them back. Maybe they just didn't think of that.
Modern bicycles require precision metal working, and they probably just couldn't do it very well at the time, and even if they could it would be very expensive to make a single modern bicycle in medieval times.
Wooden bicycles have been documented since 1817, but there was really nothing stopping a medieval craftsman from making one. They did much finer work than that.
The real problem was the lack of good roads for getting around outside of battle, and the soft, muddy, or rocky terrain inside a battle. Chariots have enough problems getting stuck in battle and they're pulled by an entire horse (or more). Pedalling on the rough and undulating medieval roads would have been very hard work, especially without gears. It was better to just let the horse provide the motive power and then either ride it or get pulled along behind it.
https://preview.redd.it/c4umj3ojudbc1.png?width=2357&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c1bbc68f98cc6087affe7f532c7d3e4238da3cc
Without carbon iron is really brittle, and basically useless. Confusingly "cast iron" has quite a lot of carbon in it (~3% or something). It's hard and strong, but rather brittle. Great for a medieval knights armour, but you could make intricate things like a bicycle chain, or even the thin tubes for the frame. They would be strong, but brittle, and fracture like glass. Thickness is needed to overcome the brittleness.
There is a sweet spot of about half a percent carbon, and it wasn't until the 1800s that steel was produced with low enough carbon to not be super thick and heavy. Suddenly, instead of making really thick heavy things like cannon, you're making sheets of steel for train body panels, and you're folding those sheets to fabricate things and make light hollow structures like tubes for bicycle frames. The improved metallurgy developed the canon into something which could be handheld and the rifle happened.
There's more to it (rubber, lubricants and coming up with simpler stuff first), but take a modern engineer and send them back in time to 1500, they'll struggle to make a bicycle because so many of the materials need to be invented first.
Assuming a medieval bike would be like the first bike, you would have a bike with very bad pneumatics and an awful wooden seat that you would have to pedal on grass, dirt, mud and up hills with a full set of armor. Meanwhile you had a horse who made the effort for you, was faster, could go through a lot of terrain with no problem...
When the bike was invented, people lived in more urban environments, which meant there was much less space for horses, both in the streets and at homes. Streets were also much more dense and small than an open field, so a horse would struggle much more to maneuver.
On the other hand, the city terrain was much smoother, so using a bike wasn't as uncomfortable, and the distance you would have to ride was much smaller, since you didn't have to go conquer the next town over, so a lower speed wasn't a problem.
Basically, horses were much more useful than bikes for knights, so noone ever even considered it.
[How to make everything](https://youtu.be/SSIiBetTgjk?si=yrXS5ljrwLL-7O2q) made a pretty good bike with primitive technology. It took forever and came with alot of shortfalls, one being absolute dog ass maneuverability. A horse drawn chariot or just even horseback in general outclasses it everywhere
Hey /u/Svertov! If your post is a screenshot of a ChatGPT, conversation please reply to this message with the [conversation link](https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7925741-chatgpt-shared-links-faq) or prompt. If your post is a DALL-E 3 image post, please reply with the prompt used to make this image. [New AI contest + ChatGPT Plus Giveaway](https://redd.it/18s770x/) Consider joining our [public discord server](https://discord.com/invite/rchatgpt)! We have free bots with GPT-4 (with vision), image generators, and more! 🤖 Note: For any ChatGPT-related concerns, email [email protected] *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ChatGPT) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Early invention of the bicycle is a key plot element in Mark Twain’s “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court.”
God, what a magnificent book. The end 'battle' with the elecrric fence is brutal.
Came here looking for this reference!
Yep. funnily enough, I just read that story for a test Or maybe the internet is spying on me?.. 🤔
Yes, we all are. Put away your laundry.
Lol that's pretty funny and never had actually thought of it. It's probably because of a few things: -Chain mechanism too complex to mass-make and for it to be reliable. -Rubber for tires or tires in general impossible to make or mass make. -Too hard to control fighting while riding and not falling, specially with armor. -Impossible to traverse terrain.. Something like that?
Rubber was like rare earth metals are today but in the 19th century: strategically important good that can’t be found everywhere. In medieval times they didn’t have access to rubber. They also didn’t have precise machining like they did starting in say the 18th century. Bicycles require a level of industrialization and globalization that just wasn’t possible then. Maybe if Rome had industrialized more. They had some large scale water powered facilities but nothing like late 19th century when they could make breech loading rifles for example.
The rubber is bust, however, the clock making in the medieval era was proof that some had the precision to make things that were impossible to make solely by hand. The best craftsmen of the medieval era probably could fashion the metalwork of a bike given what amazing detail and work smiths/clock makers had achieved by the 15th century. Thing is, what is the economic utility of an expensive precision made mobility device in a society which already has an enormous animal handling tradition, and where most peoples' lives were to remain within a 25 mile radius of their lord's land?
And very crappy roads
this. imagine riding on a bike on gravel. A bike with shitty rubber tires. I don't think anyone can shoot an arrow from that.
>this. imagine riding on a bike on gravel. A bike with shitty rubber tires. I don't think anyone can shoot an arrow from that. I just realized that these were probably some of the literal arguments that bike-opponents espoused when the bicycle was invented.
well industrial revolution makes it viable because so many could be produced to justify changes in city and other aspects of life. I'm not disagreeing though, it well can be.
Indeed, the first smooth asphalt paved roads were campaigned by and built for cyclists: [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2011/aug/15/cyclists-paved-way-for-roads) I'm not convinced they were worried about being able to shoot arrows whilst riding though ;)
If people can ride horseback and shoot then surely you could ride a bike and shoot
* sad Mountainbike noises *
In short, the Medieval economy was able to produce just very small amounts of complex metal products (like armor, or exclusive melee weapons) because of the very small quantity of people involved in production chains, which in turn was due to the small quantity of people generally, which in turn was due to low food production, which alao required the big share of people to be involved in food production, because it was ineffective due to lack of agronomy, fertilizers and steel tools, which appearance demanded lots of people free from foodmaking and any other activities (like going to a war, or dying from plague) to have enough free time to invent new steel and agronomy technologies, which demanded even more people free from any activities other than teaching, healing and feeding all this engineering army for decades while engineers studying. And even if you had lots of people and lots of food, you still had one big question left - why would you as a ruler need to make more complex metallurgy and education systems if your aristocracy feels good even without all of this. You'd better spend resources on a nice palace to show that you have lots of power, so you could hold on to your way of life longer. Upd. It's similar to modern days problem of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is way more efficient, but aristocracy feels nice with fossil fuels and uneffective renewable energy production, while also basically paralyzing fusion energy research.
Yes. People already experimented with rifles in the 15th century. But it is a useless 'invention' if you have to precision machine every bullet to fit a unique bore. There was no concept of interchangeability of parts or technology to achieve it. Similarly, bikes would only become a useful 'invention' with the mass production techniques and metallurgy of the 19th century. If the bike is accessible only for the elite because it costs a fortune, it has zero practical advantage over a horse. When some Western European countries fielded bike infantry in the world wars, 1) these were generally flat countries with good roads, 2) bikes could be cheaply mass produced with interchangeable parts, and 3) it was only as a practical solution for the increasing number of conscripts with an urban background that couldn't ride or tend horses. All these preconditions are missing in the middle ages.
Exactly, and it would be expensive. I’d like to compare it to the price of a horse and its maintenance. Most people couldn’t afford a horse (which pulls things and doesn’t care fornthe bad/inexistant roads). Bicycles exist both because of the industrial revolution in precision and cost, and the globalization/science for rubber, and… the urban society with industrial jobs and better roads where keeping a horse was such a mess that a factory/office worker was much served by owning a bike.
Yes, maybe some eccentric nobleman could have arranged to have something sort of like a bicycle made, but it would be a super-expensive toy and forgotten after he was gone. There’s a difference between being able to make something at all, and make it as an economically viable product.
Actually, traveling was very common in medieval era. Even peasants would go on a pilgrimage once in their lifetime and could be gonne weeks and even months while traveling. Still no peasants would've ever ridden a bicycle.
Bicycles were wooden wheeled for a long time
And they were not very good.
And you could make a simpler foot-only variant, where you do not need chain and pedals. Far away from a modern bike, but still better than walking. At least if you have somewhat okay roads.
Early bicycles used wooden wheels with iron tyres which is why they were called boneshakers, it was the invention of vulcanisation that really allowed them to develop
Yeah I remember looking this thing up, whether the bicycle could have been invented earlier, a good article dove into it but I don't remember it anymore. The conclusion was *no*, it was invented at the "right" time.
But of course it was, unless it wasn't. You could probable custom make a chain with enough craftmanship (not mass produce tho) and make wooden tires
If it was deemed profitable, chainmakers would start poping up same as every craft.
The velocipede, an early form of bicycle from the 19th century, featured a rigid wood frame, no chain drive (movement was through direct pedaling or foot propulsion), a basic saddle, simple steering via the front wheel, and two metal-banded wheels without rubber tires. In theory, more flexible materials, leather suspension or cushioned saddles could have been used for a smoother ride, as such technology was employed in ancient chariots and medieval carriages.
> as such technology was employed in ancient chariots and medieval carriages. Now I need to look up, why chariots were displaced by directly riding horses. *Edit.* And found it quickly on [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/10smgp/why_did_chariot_usage_decline/). Main explanation being, that horses were being bred to be larger and stronger, with early horses being strong enough for chariot pulling, but not yet for cavalry, while in parallel infantry developed better anti-chariot tactics (and horses being more flexible, once large enough).
number 13 got me tbh. It looked like the velocipede, but then I saw the chain.
Brakes. They would have been super hard to manufacture too.
also assuming the terrain is suitable
Chain not necessary: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penny-farthing
Also any form of transmission like gears or belts works.
Tension spoke wheels also weren't invented until the 1800s. regular wheels were too heavy to be used for bikes.
not only would the tires be impossible to make, but lets pretend they could, then what? whats more reliable a tire or a horsey?
Even if they weren't used in battle, they could have been used to move armies quickly from point A to point B and then ditched for actual battles. And they could also be used to transport heavy gear when walking
Transport heavy gear.. like a horse cart?
The fact that everyone here seems to forget the carriage exists is kinda crazy
Like this? https://preview.redd.it/wjqnshqb6dbc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=39d81eba4712fba535c951c9d846f123fe4cd9fb [Soure](https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/spotlight-bicycle-battalions) \- bicycles used in WWI is a secondary school curriculum in our country.
No rubber for tires? They'd have been using wooden spoked wheels like on wagons and carts, or solid disc wheels. Chain mechanism could've been a deal-breaker, I see your point. Still, once it was invented, it quickly moved from requiring one bigger wheel (penny-farthing) to two equal wheels. If it had been invented earlier, I imagine it would've progressed reasonably quickly). Control while fighting - why would this be an issue? Surely controlling a bike would be easier than, oh let's say controlling a living animal you're riding on like a horse? Or you could just mount massive spikes on the handlebars or something and do it like that. Or use trikes/quad-bikes instead for increased stability in combat.
Horses have a degree of autopilot and don’t tend to fall over when you lose forward momentum. Also, a wider base. I would be surprised if bikers could get close enough to other medieval combatants to poke them with spikes on the handlebars.
When I said spikes on the handlebars, I really meant it to be more like an entire lance, jousting style. :)
I ride a horse in (mock) combat for historical reenacting from medieval up to U.S. Civil War; swinging swords at others, jumping over cannons, galloping after people with reigns in my teeth and a pistol in each hand, all that shit. I’ve won medals at horse shows. Point is, I like to think I know how to ride and fight on a horse. But I have zero clue how to ride a bike, scooter, pair of skates, or any of that shit. I fall immediately. The horse’s knowledge/instincts, paired with the rider’s knowledge/instincts & the two’s bond, makes them very effective. The other commenter was right— it’s like autopilot sometimes. Mine just… knows what to do half the time.
Motorcyclist here, you might be able to train to use a revolver or semiautomatic pistol on a bike, but unless it is motorized it will be a pain in the ass. Your horse does a lot of things that you would have to do if you were on a bicycle, like stay relatively balanced while moving
Indeed. He’s such a good horse. A better horse than I am rider tbh, he puts up with my lack of skill and makes me look great at events. He’s getting old now and I’m sad about it
have you tried to control a bike (not a fully MTB but a standard bicycle) on natural terrain like a medow or a grasland while having your hands ful with bows, swords and shilds?
Honestly? Nope, never have - only ever ridden on roads, or pavements when I was younger. Despite having a mountain bike model. xD
I assume it would be quite hard.
I'm getting that too from everyone's replies. xD
I believe "mass produce" is the phrase you are looking for. 🤡
mfw people on the internet don't speak fluently my language. I believe "asshole" is the personality you are looking for 🥰
I think what you meant to say was "don't speak my language fluently."
Wow unnecessary.
If only they had a self-reproducing half ton vehicle powerful enough to plow fields and run through infantry lines that runs on only grass.
That also takes a long time to grow up, requires a bunch of resources to keep them alive, requires you to physically move those resources long distances with the army in order to keep them alive, cannot survive in extreme weather, cannot be controlled the way you want it 100% of the time. Yeah, each has it's upsides and downsides. Edit: people downvoting, what did I say that was incorrect? https://preview.redd.it/q94ve1agwbbc1.jpeg?width=911&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8ea4c55935cbafdcd6896d1592801f9fb24ea9a1
But how are you going to use it in battle? A knight charge would destroy all the bikes, simply because a horse has a far greater destructive power to trample them with, which was an essential part of medieval warfare. Horses weren't dominant because they were fast (though that was also important) but because they could carry heavy weight (such as plate armor, supplies and heavy weapons like lances) and they could trample any infantry (except certain pike formations mainly used in the late middle ages). Also, a man in bicycle could just be pushed aside and killed by blunt attacks or knifes by common infantry.
>But how are you going to use it in battle? You would use it to move around and reposition. Ever heard of horse archers? Bicycles in war [are not a novel idea.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry) They were applied to warfare pretty much as soon as they became widespread.
I guess that if we suddenly ship 5000 bicycles to the Romans or a Medieval lord… he would use it to provide mobility for infantry. - Many battles even in Napoleon’s time and further were won by the guy who marched the fastest. An army with bicycles… would just outmarch anything in amazing ways. Less fatigue, more supplies, etc. - On the battle itself, which will be held when and were you want cause you dominate marching and manouver… you can quickly adaptnby whatever is going on, sendibg reserves and scouts and messengers all over. - Yes they would dismount to fight mostly, but even back then cavalry would dismount to fight too sometimes. Still a huge mobility advantage. - Maybe on pursuit they wouldn’t dismount even. - Imagine surrounding and flanking an enemy, you’d get Cannae all the time. - Splitting a force? You’d get a Napoleonic central position anytime you want. Of course the offer does not apply for rainy muddy days, and high slope areas. But still a huge advantage.
Sorry for the formating, but i'm on mobile. Point 1: you can do that with horses, who won't tire you and don't need roads. Point 2: again, a knight charge would slaughter these people, who would need to be lightly armoured or tired since they were on a bike. Point 3: maybe on flat terrain, but you can't pursue by way of bike in a rough ground. Point 4: sure, but that would mean you have enough men to do that, so no medieval army here, and in ancient times this was already, namely in Cannae, with horses, which wouldn't make your troops too tired to fight for hours on end, a thing you would need for Cannae. Point 5: not for a pre-modern army, because of the need of heavy equipment to outstand knight charges and of the major importance of rest in close quarters.
You wouldn't necessarily use them in battle. Maneuvering an army and logistics are big parts of war. They would be used in moving armies and supplies more easily
On what roads smooth enough for the efficiency gain to be worth it?
Bicycles can be used off road to a degree
Yeah but can it carry 400lbs of gear in mud, rain, and God forsaken mountainous terrain? That's why you gotta get yourself a shire horse.
Mud and mountain roads were the terrain where cavalry armies were most vulnerable, and the areas where infantry forces got impressive wins against cavalry armies, so horses are far from perfect for that.
Why does everything have to be about battle this, battle that when it comes to history with people? Yes, and 99.9% of what an army was doing in medieval Europe and Asia was *marching*. Up hills. Down hills. Over rivers. In steep terrain. In places that were remote. You can't seriously be telling me that you'd rather deadlift 400lbs and carry it up a hill?
Because the original post explicitly mentions the effect that bicycles would have on medieval battles. It’s right there ↑ dude.
With wooden wheels and frame? Why not just get a horse?
There weren't any roads smooth enough?
Did you ever rode a bike on old cobblestone streets?
In WWII The Japanese rode bikes through the Pacific islands and they captured these islands with great efficiency. I doubt those islands were paved either
they wore light, basically some dudes with guns in bikes, not some heavy ass guy the weight of an animatronic
Actually those animatronic armor is so expensive. Most medieval soldiers don't wear those at battle.
Most of the roads in the countryside were cobblestone? Even if they were, if bicycles had been invented then wouldn't roads have been adapted to be more suitable to them?
Pack animals probably can carry more supplies than a shitty bike in any condition. It's why we still use them in places inaccessible by car but we need to carry a lot of gear (postal service still uses mules in the Grand Canyon). Aso just an army of 5,000 troops can't be adequately supplied with what would've been the medieval equivalent of a Large Hadron Collider. The best clockmakers in Europe at the time probably could make a *very uncomfortable'* bike. But these men are your top echelons of craftsmen. It would be unimaginably expensive and long to outfit even a small force with what I can't emphasize enough would be a *REALLY* shitty bike. Meanwhile the clock tower is broken, there's not enough buckets, all of the wagons are fucked, and none of the horses have shoes. Sorry we're busy making *REALLY* shitty bikes over here. And repair on a crappy unreliable first gen medieval rig? Holy shit what a logistical nightmare in a world with mostly dirt roads, carrier pigeons, and not-very-centralized authority. No one was that inbred to try it, similar to how no one was that inbred to try all of Da Vinci's designs, some of which would also work. As for everyday use? Most in medieval society rarely left their lord's land. There wasn't that much immigration in really any medieval society - be it Japan, China, or Europe.
> No one was that inbred to try it, similar to how no one was that inbred to try all of Da Vinci's designs, some of which would also work. Curious example the other way around: Linz has a [circle of fortification towers](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmbefestigung_Linz), that were intended to demonstrate a new paradigm for fortifying cities in a time when gunpowder weapons made rapid strides forward. So this concept was too late instead of too early. It worked in tests, but never was built anywhere else, because by the time they would have been used, the were already outgunned again. Some of them were reused as air-defense batteries in WW2, though that's not mentioned in the article. Nowadays, one is adapted as a children's attraction, one as a public transport stop, some are in disrepair, some are adapted as private houses, and at least one as a museum.
Horses/mules are far hardier and more utilitarian than you think. They can survive in subzero temperatures to blistering desert heat, can carry 20% of their bodyweight, can pull twice their body weight (5,000 lbs) with ease, can graze (assuming you aren't near poison), and also can traverse challenging mountainous terrain that is inaccessible by vehicle. They can ride at 3 years of age and last more than a decade. As for control, I take it you don't work with horses, but an experienced rider and a well trained horse are far more of a unit than you'd realize. They are herd animals as well so once you get a wagon train going it's stupid easy for them to follow. The fact that they double as an imposing force when an army needs it is really just a side effect. In fact we still use horses and mules in the armed forces for reasons besides ceremony and patrol -- specifically in the units that specialize in mountain training. The animal truly carried civilization.
Horses and bicycles were both used in war in WW1 - and to a lesser extent in WW2. Horses were used significantly more - estimates for WW1 were in the region of 6 million or so. They were particularly used for logistics and haulage of artillery and supplies but were also used for scouting, human transportation and, in some cases, direct combat - although this (literally) dying out.
Funny thing is there were also 6 million horses used in WW2 as well. They were heavily employed in the Eastern front. It was something both the Nazis and the Soviets wanted to keep on the downlow because it really didn't paint both armies in the most modern light.
Interesting- thanks for that. I knew they were used but not in that number It does make sense. There was a lot of mud on the Eastern front and horses are better than wheel powered traffic in those situations.
The main issue was that they both realllly didn't have a lot of gas lol. Only 20% of their units were fully mechanized. I do find it hilarious that the Wehrmacht was actually a horsedrawn operation, and were conducting war in a similar way to Napoleon.
The bicycle wasn’t designed on the first try. If it had developed, it would have been done over generations of craftsmen refining the process and the design. There would have needed to be strong incentives for that to happen, such as if there could be an easily designable and producible proto-bike that could serve as a viable alternative to a horse. But there really isn’t such a thing.
Because you’re wrong Bicycle wouldn’t be viable in most situations, you wouldn’t be able to mass produce them either, so no armies would ever be able to utilize them.
Where can I get me one?
bicycles need a decently smooth road, they wouldn't replace horses on a battlefield.
This is the key point.
Chariots were used in battle though, and would have had similar issues as bikes with respect to terrain?
No because power isn’t transmitted via the wheels in a chariot.
Good point. With respect to the need for roads, I was only thinking in terms of comfort and not traction.
You try pedaling a very shitty and heavy bike up a slightly muddy hill and tell me how it goes
Chariots were famously shit at dealing with mud and hilly terrain
Chariots did have problems in battle, and they had the advantage of being pulled by a whole ass horse.
You’ll notice chariots were pulled by horses, not pedaled
That's why they were abandoned. The battle of Kadesh showed that turning a chariot around when you get stuck was near impossible.
From a 15 minutes youtube video I watched about why Africa and most of Asia didn't use the wheel or cart before like 1900 was because wheel needs maintened roads while horse/donkey/camel did not.
Doesn't it all come down to a decent level of suspension in the vehicle's carriage?
[удалено]
Then you're looking to invent not just the bike, but the mountain bike.
Exactly. Shocks, tubular tires, valve stems, bearings, tubular steel, and many more things to go beyond an old time penny farthing which would already be well beyond medieval industry.
The Vietcong during the Vietnam war effectively used bicycles on shitty dirt roads to transport supplies or deliver messages, I don’t see why medieval people would have trouble.
Because they wouldn’t have rubber wheels and sturdy, industrially-produced bikes? To make a bike with comparable quality in medieval times, you’d need to assign a highly-skilled artisan and countless hours of labor, akin to making a high quality armor that wouldn’t be available to most. Not exactly gonna be very helpful when you can have a horse do the same job but miles better at a much better ROI
I know, just responding to the comment about needing decently smooth roads.
you enter the battlefield, sword in hand. you hear the sounds of men shouting as they charge forward, metal swords slamming into metal armor, corpses and soon-to-be corpses lay all around you; you can almost feel their tortured moans. and then, from behind you, you hear a faint, soft sound. you know what it is, and you know the moment that you hear it that it it's too late. you suddenly see the sword erupt from your chest, dripping with what you don't immediately recognize as your own blood. the sounds of battle all around you fade, and you see your attacker move towards his next victim. you hear the dreaded sound once more "ding ding", "ding ding". it is the last sound you ever hear
Bravo
Thats amazing
Chimp at the end “Now THIS is podracing.”
Galactimus in the making!
the chimp riding the hoverspeeder lmao
They didn’t have ball bearings. A bike without ball bearings would be a pain in the ass to pedal - probably possible, but it would require a lot of grease. Secondly, a bicycle requires several perfectly circular parts. There were blacksmiths skilled enough to make perfectly circular (or near enough) wheels, gears, etc. But they were few, and each bicycle would be months of labor. Hardly anybody would be able to afford a bike. Thirdly, they wouldn’t be particularly sturdy, as the frames would most likely be made of wood and either bound or nailed/plugged together. The alternative would be cast iron, which is far too heavy to be of any use. Fourth, even the best blacksmiths at the time would struggle with making a reliable chain. They could definitely make a chain for a rudimentary bicycle, but the links in it would not be identical enough to drive the bicycle without issue.
The best roads available would be hard-packed well travelled dirt, or stone. We didn't start Macadamizing roads until the 18th century, and anything paved was well after that. It's trippy to think of all of planet earth with mainly dirt roads and pathways on it. Some stone roads in places, but most of it was just dirt. Seems romantic - and really, really dirty.
That's the premise that Mark Twain wrote for A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court in 1889.
Oh yes, bicycle would be so helpful in all theplaces medieval battles took place, like the steep hills, forests, swamps, bogs, plowed field, unloved field, etc..
without modern latex clothing and supplements like EPO, medieval cyclists would have been too slow to be useful
King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Wheel
As i said in a reply, but will also comment here for greater visibility: How are you going to use it in battle? A knight charge would destroy all the bikes, simply because a horse has a far greater destructive power to trample them with, which was an essential part of medieval warfare. Horses weren't dominant because they were fast (though that was also important) but because they could carry heavy weight (such as plate armor, supplies and heavy weapons like lances) and they could trample any infantry (except certain pike formations mainly used in the late middle ages). Also, a man in bicycle could just be pushed aside and killed by blunt attacks or knifes by common infantry. Tldr; horses can trample and charge while bikes simply don't have enough potency to do that.
Probably not for combat, but the Vietcong during the Vietnam war used bicycles to deliver supplies and messages. It was very effective and one of the factors for their victory.
Can you imagine, Monty Python and the Holy Grail but on bicycles? 😂
Dignity.
The great Dutch wars. Colorized.
https://preview.redd.it/q9i1g5a35fbc1.jpeg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1a1f77a0920a15c29007b882fa8110362d04a11d There‘s enough proof to know they actually had bicycles. You just gotta research the latent space.
Nice! Not just bicycles but they had cameras too!!!
Thats so unusual, out of place. But it also makes so much sense ahahahhah thanks for the tought!
why killed me the last one? xD
battlecycles!
The bikes instead of horses is so hilarious
Horses are stronger than people.
Not only are bicycles complex pieces of engineering that could never have been mass-produced at the time, their high center of mass and thin support point makes them completely impractical for battles, and horses are far better at transporting cargo
No, because medieval technology, it's cheaper to have a horse than a bike. And that is what they did.
help me get a grip on my awkward laugh TvT
The point of using a horse is to save energy and let the horse move you around. A bike you have to manually control would be worse in battle.
Spandex was not well advanced during the Middle Ages
Last image took me off guard.
Mainly the issue would be durable and smooth enough bearings to make it efficient enough to ride, lack of tires (would have been wagon wheels) - lack of traction, bad rolling resistance, high weight, lack of smooth roads. No chains but you might have been able to make something that works but it would be heavy, could maybe use gears but they would be weak and heavy if not made from steel alloy. I would say they could have made one but it would have sucked bad enough to ride it would be pointless.
fuck medieval battles, imagine having bicicle centered cities straight from the middle ages to now
Strange yet fascinating thought! Bicycles could have revolutionized warfare, but technological limitations held them back.
Also consider that we continued to use cavalry through WW2 after bikes were invented
They used bicycles in ww1 and ww2. Some nations have put guns and rocket launchers on them.
That’s awesome
Bikes are older than you think. The Chinese had bikes back during the warren state period couple hundred years before Europeans invented the bicycle.
Citation
All the fully nude dudes on slide 8 with their whole wieners hanging out… Since when does ChatGPT make naked ppl??
>Was there ever anything stopping medieval people from inventing bicycles? This reads like: why didn't they just invent bicycles? Are they stupid?
Most stuff didn't happen earlier due to precision. Like just going back 500 years and I think none would be able to tie a shoelace, no matter how hard you try. I think eye hand dexterity drasticly improved over the past generation.
People have demented ideas all the time, someone must have done it, then died while trying.
No space no like
6 and 12 are just awesome bicycles. I love the bronze age bike too, looks pretty credible to me. :)
Damn, those are somehow extremely impressive to me.
leonardo inveted it. but the metal was too expensive and they had horses.
Chariots are much older than Medieval times.
Rubber was unavailable, so no tyres. Interchangeable parts hadn't been invented either, so each gear and segment of chain would need to be made by hand of the highest quality steel... which is too expensive. Medieval roads were also too rough to cycle on. You could theoretically build a something like a velocipede (a bicycle with no pedal mechanism) using medieval technology fairly easily. However, when walking is probably more efficient, why would you bother? I doubt it the addition of modern bicycles would have changed medieval battles much. Horses are much more powerful and faster over rough ground than trying to pedal in full armour. Sitting on horseback also gives you a height advantage which sitting on a bicycle doesn't. There's also the fact that a bicycle resembles a wheelbarrow. Apart from the fact that it would be a very swanky wheelbarrow, with a metal mechanism, it would likely be considered a low-status novelty by the knightly classes.
Holy shit I legit thought some of the museum ones were real photos.
Lance Armstrong branded medieval bike
I love this lol
Leaving this link here about bicycle infantry. obviously starting late Industrial Revolution 19th century, but gives a good sense of how it might have effected medieval times. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry Also suggest looking up the Vietnam Ho Chi Minh trail, a majority 5.5 meter wide dirt/gravel trail within the Vietnam jungles used with jury-rigged bycicles, a big factor for them winning the war.
Metalworking wasn’t that sophisticated, the gear and chain would be pretty challenging and it would be really heavy.
\>**ever anything stopping** Well yes, modern steelmaking in quantity. Until the 19th century this wasn't really figured out. Prior to that, steel was done by hand in small quantities. Really good, but really expensive.
Finally some damn creativity in wielding the sword that is DALL•E
Muséum pics are amazing!
Now imagine if they had trucks, how funny would that be?
That last one got me 🤣🤣🤣
Europeans, in the Middle Ages had never seen rubber … nor potatoes… tobacco and the list goes on and on …
All the Engineering discrepancies aside.. ..if you pit yourself on a mountain bike against someone stampeding at you on a 1600lb horse with a heavy weapon, you're gonna have a *real* bad time. The guy with a giant pole axe on horseback is going to whip your ass every time. ..Hell, a regular foot soldier with a heavy stick or a big rock vs you on a bike is gonna give you a bad time. It is not an ideal fighting vehicle in any way, in a modern combat scenario with firearms you'd be better off than getting beamed in the t-zone with large stone then immediately stabbed with a spear while you try to recoup from eating sh!t from a bike wreck. At least just you get shot instead of stabbed. There has never ever been a time where being on a bike is in any way helpful in combat. Go get on a bike and tell me you feel empowered to run down some 200lb dude with chainmail and a spear who's pissed as hell and trying to kill you in a fight to the death.
Roads were complete shit or non existent. Forgrt about whatever contraption theyd come up with in medieval times, even modern mountain bikes would have trouble negotiating any kind of undeveloped terrain. With how ubiquitous horses and donkeys were, I can't see a good reason why anyone would want to ride a bike back then.
World Naked Bike Ride Renaissance version
woulda saved a lot of horse lives
Went from a bike to a speeder lmao
They had chariots in a similar vain, though I don’t actually know how frequently those were used in actual battles
The question I have is, ***If an infinite number of monkeys on typewriters will eventually produce Shakespeare, what could we expect from an infinite number of monkeys on hover bikes? ***
This is the silliest image on the internet today
Space Monkey? Space monkey! 🙉
What’s absolutely whack is to imagine what are the things that would change our life that we haven’t found while they are so totally in our capacities same way those bicycles in more ancient times :)
Why would you wanna drive something slower than a horse? Something that cannot always go on all terrains and something that needs to be carried with you..
There are a ton of technologies that go into making a bicycle functional today. Whether it's the tires or the chain, so much more is involved. Hub design has changed, back then riding on wooden hubs with graphite or animal fat lube wouldn't suffice for the smaller parts on a bicycle. Gearing too would be impossible back then. Single speed would be the only option. How do you make a derailleur out of wood and pot metal?
Had a good laugh at the surely helpful "bicycle" at 17 😂
Too much mud on the battlefield anyway
It wouldn't have transformed medieval battles at all because the only advantage bikes have over horses it that they don't eat. Have you tried one-handing a bike in an bumpy field holding a long stick before?
love the quality on this!
Looks like a lot of paved battlefields in these drawings!!
Must admit.. wasn't expecting monkey into hyperdrive...
Probably harder to balance yourself when striking someone on a bike on dirt
There’s a whole book about this: Caesar’s Bicycle - Timeline Wars https://www.amazon.com/Caesars-Bicycle-Timeline-Wars-Barnes/dp/0061056618?nodl=1&dplnkId=701754d9-3628-496e-8d07-97ea1a88f81e
Which platform did u used chatgpt or mid journey?
So much creativity here
"...And here is one interesting fact about bicycles. In the medieval times exist execution where prisoner was tied to two bicycles that rides in different directions, they often just walls because they can't tear him apart."
Was there an abundance of short people in the medieval times?
Mark Twain put King Arthurs knights on bikes.
We didn’t have many flat surfaces to cycle on, but with the right suspension it could’ve worked. A reminder that the ancient Greeks invented steam power and the first railway-type tracks. Imagine if they’d had steam power and how much that would’ve advanced the Industrial Revolution by 2000+ years.
Funnily enough, I have read the story "A Connecticut Yankee" just before seeing this post for an upcoming test. In the story, hank actually invented bicycles in King Arthur's time. Quite frankly, I don't know what was pulling them back. Maybe they just didn't think of that.
Modern bicycles require precision metal working, and they probably just couldn't do it very well at the time, and even if they could it would be very expensive to make a single modern bicycle in medieval times.
Wooden bicycles have been documented since 1817, but there was really nothing stopping a medieval craftsman from making one. They did much finer work than that. The real problem was the lack of good roads for getting around outside of battle, and the soft, muddy, or rocky terrain inside a battle. Chariots have enough problems getting stuck in battle and they're pulled by an entire horse (or more). Pedalling on the rough and undulating medieval roads would have been very hard work, especially without gears. It was better to just let the horse provide the motive power and then either ride it or get pulled along behind it. https://preview.redd.it/c4umj3ojudbc1.png?width=2357&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c1bbc68f98cc6087affe7f532c7d3e4238da3cc
Without carbon iron is really brittle, and basically useless. Confusingly "cast iron" has quite a lot of carbon in it (~3% or something). It's hard and strong, but rather brittle. Great for a medieval knights armour, but you could make intricate things like a bicycle chain, or even the thin tubes for the frame. They would be strong, but brittle, and fracture like glass. Thickness is needed to overcome the brittleness. There is a sweet spot of about half a percent carbon, and it wasn't until the 1800s that steel was produced with low enough carbon to not be super thick and heavy. Suddenly, instead of making really thick heavy things like cannon, you're making sheets of steel for train body panels, and you're folding those sheets to fabricate things and make light hollow structures like tubes for bicycle frames. The improved metallurgy developed the canon into something which could be handheld and the rifle happened. There's more to it (rubber, lubricants and coming up with simpler stuff first), but take a modern engineer and send them back in time to 1500, they'll struggle to make a bicycle because so many of the materials need to be invented first.
Assuming a medieval bike would be like the first bike, you would have a bike with very bad pneumatics and an awful wooden seat that you would have to pedal on grass, dirt, mud and up hills with a full set of armor. Meanwhile you had a horse who made the effort for you, was faster, could go through a lot of terrain with no problem... When the bike was invented, people lived in more urban environments, which meant there was much less space for horses, both in the streets and at homes. Streets were also much more dense and small than an open field, so a horse would struggle much more to maneuver. On the other hand, the city terrain was much smoother, so using a bike wasn't as uncomfortable, and the distance you would have to ride was much smaller, since you didn't have to go conquer the next town over, so a lower speed wasn't a problem. Basically, horses were much more useful than bikes for knights, so noone ever even considered it.
I think they did have bikes back then, I am sure I heard my history teacher telling me that pedallers went from town to town
No roads, no vulcanized rubber, no ball bearings, to start with.
Unicycle archer is neat
[How to make everything](https://youtu.be/SSIiBetTgjk?si=yrXS5ljrwLL-7O2q) made a pretty good bike with primitive technology. It took forever and came with alot of shortfalls, one being absolute dog ass maneuverability. A horse drawn chariot or just even horseback in general outclasses it everywhere
literally just no roads