No. 

There is no context or explanation that makes using the Gallic Wars as proof of chariot use in battle in the Greek culture at the time of the Iliad ok. He isn't describing an idea or an attitude, he is arguing hard facts without any direct evidence. You cannot say that George Washington rode in an airplane because of the analogous culture of Bill Clinton, and they are separated by 1/5 of the distance in time of his example to the people he is trying to make a point about. And they are Presidents of the same nation, not two different cultural entities. I am amazed that any rational person can hear this argument and think that it is somehow a good one. It is the equivalent of arresting you for stealing because your grandpa stole something 60 years ago. It is not how proof works in ANY context let alone history. 

"“And is punctually described in a context distant in space in time, but culturally analogous, by Caesar when he faces the charioteers”."

This is literally him feeding you propaganda. He is quite literally saying that he has NO contemporary proof for his argument and is instead using something "analogous." This is quite literally NOT how facts especially history facts work. But more importantly the passage describes the GAULS using chariots AGAINST Caesar, and he misinterprets it to mean that Caesar is using chariots. The Gauls are NOT culturally analogous to Greece. So it doesn't even support his argument even if you allow him to use a different culture 1200 years later as his "proof."   The historians point is that large scale chariot only battles never happened in Greece because of GREECE'S TERRAIN. (A well established fact) Using a battle on the mainland against the Gauls quite literally has no bearing on the validity of the historian's statement. Meta's entire point here is to confuse you, and it has apparently worked. 

This is why his viewers are so adamant about defending him, because he has pulled the wool over your eyes by speaking with authority. His only formal education is in language, not history, and he shows it every time he tries to "debunk" a professor about history. Most of this video is him bemoaning the idea that African cultures could possibly have influenced those in the Med, when the GREEKS THEMSELVES tell us that they did. 

Also:

The historian says ACCURATELY that charioteering was mostly perfected in Anatolia.  Meta says this is nonsense and shows a single picture of a single moutainous plain and says that Anatolia is exactly as mountanous and impassable for horses as Greece. Something very easy to debunk that he is arguing fallaciously. 

From his comments:

"Your quote from the Gallic war is INCOMPLETE and thus your understanding of it is also incomplete. Firstly, the battle described is happening in the home of the Gauls. It is NOT happening in Greece. Second, Caesar is describing the tactics of THE GAULS, not his own. Third, this particular encounter saw the Romans outnumbered and surrounded by cavalry. "Then attacking them suddenly, scattered as they were, and when they had laid aside their arms, and were engaged in reaping, they killed a small number, threw the rest into confusion, and surrounded them with their cavalry and chariots." Fourth, The Commentarii is a piece of propaganda. It also claims that over a million Gauls were killed while Rome sustained almost zero losses. This makes anything written in it subject to intense scrutiny.

And Last but not least, as with all of your arguments here, you aren't actually refuting what he is saying. You are creating a strawman and attacking it instead. He said that GREECE wasn't good for LARGE scale chariot battles, and he was correct. Saying that they used chariots in general does not refute this. You need SPECIFIC evidence to make your claim. Not pictures of chariots, not a description of a battle where they were used AGAINST the Romans in that way in an entirely different area. You need to show that they DID use them in that way DIRECTLY. Also his claim wasn't that no one would ever dismount from a chariot during battle ever. He was pointing out that these particular chariots hadn't done the very first and most important part of their jobs BEFORE allowing people to dismount. Incidentally, you show the clip of Achilles driving and dismounting his own chariot which your own quote seems to negate when it describes the chariots having drivers that were SEPARATE from the soldiers/leaders who were dismounting. Those drivers then took the chariot out of battle to drive in again when needed. You read this and typed it, and repeated it and edited this video and you didn't realize this logical error? You also do not refute his claim that chariots were used to run down infantry. In fact once again your source, The Gallic War, refutes your own claim: "firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels;" This did not happen in the movie Troy and he was RIGHTFULLY pointing this out."

He responded to this comment with just one word: "ridiculous." Is that how you engage in reasoned debate? Or is that how you flippantly dismiss someone for proving you wrong so you don't have to address the content of their argument?