All true, but this is many 100s of years after the "end" of the bronze age, and I have read that loss of access to tin sources was a big factor in the collapse of the bronze age material culture of the near east and Mediterranean. I would have thought that the lack of new bronze being made, and the effects of time, would have seen bronze armor gone.
And yet here I am reading up on the Macedonian forces, and while they largely didn't use metal body armor per these sources, when they did, it was usually bronze ("muscle cuirras", greaves, helmet, some other possible pieces). Per same, there's indication from art and artifacts that they could make iron in large enough plates to make the same sorts of armor, but it would have been the province of the extremely elite or wealthy.
I do recall that good bronze is better than bad iron.
What's your thought on the idea of cloth and heavy hide armors in common use, bronze armor for those who can afford it, and good iron / early steel in use for elite and exotic armors?
Again, you're correct, and I was confused -- I did a lot of research on the pre-Roman peoples of Britain and Ireland for a friend's RPG project, and it continues to blur my mental timeline of the chariot even all these years later.
I think some sources may overstate the impact/importance of the stirrup...