[hermitcrab]

A chariot probably works fine on an open plain. But it isn't very efficient use of men and horse if you have 2 horses, 2 people and a chariot to give just one archer with extra mobility.

It may have also been a class/cultural thing. A man on horseback is actively riding the horse, a man in a 2+ person chariot is having someone else do the hard work.

[paleotrope]

Refusing the give fight to a chariot oriented army versus a non-chariot based army would seem to also be a big factor.

If you don't have chariots and they do, just fight where the chariots can't.

[bee_rider]

You probably look very kingly fighting from a chariot. Raised up platform, but also standing.

[hotspot_one]

You get an archer with extra mobility AND the ability to focus on hitting his target while someone else does the steering AND armor AND a bigger carrying capacity (more quivers of arrows, ...)

yes, I know the stories of the amazing accuracy of horseback archers (mongol, native american, ...). Just saying that the 2-man thing may be more efficient than you give it credit for.

[hermitcrab]

Personally, I think I would rather face N Persian chariots, than 2N Mongols on horseback. I wonder if anyone has done a comparative test?

[bee_rider]

I think they are separated by around 1500 years, so I’m sure the Mongolian army would be scarier. But the Alexander-era Persians wouldn’t have that choice, right? For example stirrups and advances in composite bows (they’ve existed for a long time, but were high tech things, so I’m sure every culture iterated on the idea and 1500 years of iterations add up) probably made Mongolian horse archers a lot better than the options they had.