Chariots as equid battering rams

[Patrick Waterson]

As a curiosity, I was reading this report by Mike loades on reconstructing a British chariot and came across this :

Livy, writing of the battle of Sentino in 295BC cites that the Romans "were
terrified by a new method of warfare". The Gauls had arrived in chariots and
"great was the noise of the horses and the wheels and the Roman mounts
were thrown into panic by that fearful din to which they were unaccustomed."

Note the similarity to Caesar's account of fighting British chariots (and, for that matter, Tacitus').  Can our classicists tell us whether Livy's account contains anything more of interest?

Definitely.

Livy X.28.5-10:

"Decius, as a younger man, possessing more vigour of mind, showed more dash; [6] he made use of all the strength he possessed in opening the attack, and as the infantry battle developed too slowly for him, he called on the cavalry. [7] Putting himself at the head of a squadron of exceptionally gallant troopers, he appealed to them as the pick of his soldiers to follow him in charging the enemy, for a twofold glory would be theirs if victory began on the left wing and, in that wing, with the cavalry. Twice they swept aside the Gaulish horse."

So far, just a bit of orientation.  Now the interesting bit, as the Roman cavalry overreach themselves in a third charge.  Here is the bit Mike Loades refers to, with an interesting twist.

"Making a third charge, they were carried too far, and whilst they were now fighting desperately in the midst of the enemy's cavalry they were thrown into consternation by a new style of warfare. Armed men mounted on chariots [essedis] and baggage wagons [carris] came on with a thunderous noise of horses and wheels, and the horses of the Roman cavalry, unaccustomed to that kind of uproar, became uncontrollable through fright; the cavalry, after their victorious charges, were now scattered in frantic terror; horses and men alike were overthrown in their blind flight. Even the standards of the legionaries were thrown into confusion, and many of the front rank men were crushed [obtriti = bruised, trampled, crushed, broken] by the weight of the horses and vehicles [impetu equorum ac vehiculorum] dashing [raptorum = tearing] through the lines."

So whether intentionally or otherwise, the Gallic chariots found themselves performing a shock role in this battle, very much along the lines Justin has suggested.  Livy has two types of vehicle used by the Gauls: 'essedis', typically used by Roman authors for British chariots and scythed chariots, and 'carris', usually meaning carts or carriages of some sort (cf. use of harmata in Greek).  Given the unlikelihood of baggage wagons making a charge on anyone, what we appear to have are two types of Gallic chariot, one perhaps scythed but in any event different, and both engaging in a shock role.  One is reminded of the Galatian lineup at the 'elephant victory' less than two decades later.

[PMBardunias]

and many of the front rank men were crushed [obtriti = bruised, trampled, crushed, broken] by the weight of the horses and vehicles [impetu equorum ac vehiculorum] dashing [raptorum = tearing] through the lines."[/color]

Why single out the front rank as trampled if the chariot blasted through the ranks from front to back? Unless of course the rear ranks high tailed it and split to make room for the chariot to pass, leaving the front ranks unsupported to get run over. The front ranks are the last that can run away. This is what I think is the key to all cavalry charges.  The defeated men waivered. If any type of cavalry hits men in the process of breaking, they can cut through them, if not they cannot cut through them at speed. They have to stop and fight their way through.

I should be clear.  I believe that chariots, definitely scythed chariots, were designed for shock combat. I just think shock combat does not work the way many think. Often the psychological "shock" is what breaks the unit moments before the physical shock occurs.

[Keith]

As an ancients newbie I'd like to thank the various posters for placing so many views and a good deal of evidence online for me to peruse. Also, a couple of excellent links to good reads on this subject.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that Justin's idea that chariots were primarily shock weapons misses the light/heavy divide, a divide similar to that amongst cavalry. Surely it is not too odd to conclude that light chariots (e.g. Egyptian) were intended to act like light cavalry in a skirmishing role, with the added value of chasing off and riding down fleeing enemy, whilst heavier chariots with 4 horses and heavier construction had a shock role, at least in part? No one would say ancient heavy cavalry could ride down formed, disciplined heavy infantry, but that doesn't negate the fact that the shock role was part of their function - if they found some heavy infantry who weren't quite so formed and disciplined (for example, as a result of receiving shooting casualties, or as a result of being poorly trained), they might give a frontal charge a go. Of course, flanks and rear would be the preferred targets.

Bows and javelins carried by the heavier chariots would, it seems to me, be likely to be useful in disrupting enemy infantry to the extent that a charge might become possible. I also find Justin's point about teams of horses making charging in more possible convincing. Paul's point just made about psychological intimidation is, I reckon, also very useful. Any mounted charge is a very chancy and dangerous thing for the chargers - but they seem to have happened

So, heavy chariots obviously have their limitations, but a shock role seems viable, with very similar caveats to heavy cavalry.

Does any of that make sense? Answers on a postcard please.

[PMBardunias]

But horses regularly crashed through formed infantry lines 8 or more deep (that's how mid-Republican Roman armies routinely won their battles). The enemy infantry weren't in open order as they were about to engage the Roman foot. Hence the need for a special formation to stop them. Chariots worked on the same principle. The point about the fulcum is that it specifically required the three front ranks to bunch together in close order, shoulder to shoulder - which made it impossible to knock the men over - whilst the shields overlapped to supply sufficient protection against a 400kg horse hitting at full speed. In one of the videos at the beginning of the thread the man knocked down was killed.

Again, this is simply not how the physics works. If you take a dead horse and throw it at a fulcum and 20mph, it will knock everyone in the 3 ranks over.  Take the same horse and throw it at 8 ranks of men in close order and it will be stopped as each rank it hits is carried into the next and the aggregate bleeds off velocity of the horse. Throw the dead horse into men in opened order, with room to collapse, and the horse will knock over 8 men in order, only partially losing velocity.  Am I throwing or beating a dead horse? The reason a fulcum works is that cavalry does not charge into formed men at speed.  It tries to plough through slowly.  To counter that you need a solid wall in opposition that cannot give ground.  If men, even in close order, shy from the horse, then the horseman can "herd" them back and plough through the line. Obviously the closer the order, the harder it is to shy away.

I have never read an account of cavalry hitting close formed troops at speed where it was not likely that the men broke just prior to contact.  this happens so fast that it would be very hard to describe as a separate action. The closest would be Kirkholm, when the Pole's lances probably outreached the Swedes pikes.

Scythed chariots were meant to plough through formed heavy infantry, not just light troops, hence their use by Darius at Gaugamela against the phalanx. A Persian style shield wall is no 'lighter' than regular heavy infantry in that the men are as close together as heavy foot (they are the Persian version of heavy foot) and the rear ranks not having shields doesn't in any way facilitate the horses' ability to punch through them.

A Persian shield wall is much lighter than a Greek phalanx. Essentially all you have to do is topple one line of shields on kick stands or at worst buried in the ground. Shieldless archers are not likely form up in close support, but to break.  But even this is no easy task, and the whole point of the Persian tactic was to deter cavalry from getting their hands on all those archers.  Most horses will not crash through a line of whicker shields. Presumably a scythed chariot would, or perhaps swerve and knee cap the whole front rank with their scythes.

[PMBardunias]

Take a look at this.  Granted these men are not trying to kill anyone, so they are not going at it as hard as they could, but the protesters are showing the natural human reaction to being charged by a horse.  I have been charged in mock combat and it scared the crap out of me- and it was not that big a horse. If you are in the front rank in front of me, I got your back....Waaaaay back!  good luck not getting run over.

https://youtu.be/_qhUTF4hOp8

[Dangun]

What is the difference between the effectivness of horse archers against chariots and that of  bow-equipped light chariots?

A couple of thoughts.

Economic efficiency - twice as many bows per horse and no expensive, fragile chariot.
Utility - chariots don't like off-road, horses turn faster.

[Dangun]

Chinese accounts give widely different figures.

Some of the generic battle/army descriptions give what looks like a chariot/infantry ratio and we are left to infer, or not, how closely they cooperated.

Given the differences in speed, I think we may be over estimating the ability of the two types to cooperate?

[Justin Swanton]

But horses regularly crashed through formed infantry lines 8 or more deep (that's how mid-Republican Roman armies routinely won their battles). The enemy infantry weren't in open order as they were about to engage the Roman foot. Hence the need for a special formation to stop them. Chariots worked on the same principle. The point about the fulcum is that it specifically required the three front ranks to bunch together in close order, shoulder to shoulder - which made it impossible to knock the men over - whilst the shields overlapped to supply sufficient protection against a 400kg horse hitting at full speed. In one of the videos at the beginning of the thread the man knocked down was killed.

Again, this is simply not how the physics works. If you take a dead horse and throw it at a fulcum and 20mph, it will knock everyone in the 3 ranks over.  Take the same horse and throw it at 8 ranks of men in close order and it will be stopped as each rank it hits is carried into the next and the aggregate bleeds off velocity of the horse. Throw the dead horse into men in opened order, with room to collapse, and the horse will knock over 8 men in order, only partially losing velocity.  Am I throwing or beating a dead horse? The reason a fulcum works is that cavalry does not charge into formed men at speed.  It tries to plough through slowly.  To counter that you need a solid wall in opposition that cannot give ground.  If men, even in close order, shy from the horse, then the horseman can "herd" them back and plough through the line. Obviously the closer the order, the harder it is to shy away.

Our problem is that we don't have a crew of willing volunteers ready to line up and be charged by a horse so we can see what exactly happens. I can only work from the sources that have a number of accounts of cavalry charging through a line of heavy infantry (mid-Republican Rome) and the composition of the fulcum designed specifically to stop this happening. The former tells me horses have no problem knocking down men in intermediate order one after the other.

Perhaps we need to clarify our terms. By 'intermediate order' I mean that the ranks are about three feet apart, permitting the horse to knock down one man before reaching the next. By close order I mean something like a Greek phalanx bunched up for othismos. Open order means about six feet between ranks. It doesn't matter how close together the files are.

If a fulcum discourages a cavalryman from charging it, that can only be because the cavalryman knows he won't get through - it's a physical (near) impossibility. Not just because it looks like a wall. A line of men in intermediate rank order also look like a wall.

One thing we do know for sure is that horses will charge into people at speed - the videos demonstrate that.

I have never read an account of cavalry hitting close formed troops at speed where it was not likely that the men broke just prior to contact.  this happens so fast that it would be very hard to describe as a separate action. The closest would be Kirkholm, when the Pole's lances probably outreached the Swedes pikes.

I'm at work right now but I'll give you the references later from Livy for Roman cavalry charging through Italian infantry.

Scythed chariots were meant to plough through formed heavy infantry, not just light troops, hence their use by Darius at Gaugamela against the phalanx. A Persian style shield wall is no 'lighter' than regular heavy infantry in that the men are as close together as heavy foot (they are the Persian version of heavy foot) and the rear ranks not having shields doesn't in any way facilitate the horses' ability to punch through them.

A Persian shield wall is much lighter than a Greek phalanx. Essentially all you have to do is topple one line of shields on kick stands or at worst buried in the ground. Shieldless archers are not likely form up in close support, but to break.  But even this is no easy task, and the whole point of the Persian tactic was to deter cavalry from getting their hands on all those archers.  Most horses will not crash through a line of whicker shields. Presumably a scythed chariot would, or perhaps swerve and knee cap the whole front rank with their scythes.

Any kind of infantry did not necessarily close up ranks to stop the horses. For this to work you need bodies not shields (besides the one shield in the front) and the bright idea of compacting body against body to create a stable mass the horse can't punch through. Again, there are plenty of examples of horses crashing through a line of shields, wicker and otherwise.

[Patrick Waterson]

But would it?  Assuming we get one of the seemingly very rare cases of one side not chickening out beforehand (I think we may be broadly in agreement that one side usually would), we get horses coming together at speed, but does this actually kill or even maim the horses?  I would imagine it would produce some bruising, but how sure are we about crippling injuries and/or deaths?  The chariot crews themselves are safe from the initial impact and only have to worry about inertia vs safety straps and the inherent strength of chariot frames (if either fails they go headfirst into the rear of a horse - a relatively soft landing, considering, provided there is no follow-up with the rear hooves.) 

I think you have a very optimistic view of the survivability of horses in this situation.  As to the survivability of vehicles when a horse is lost at speed, I direct you to Egyptian art, where chariot crashes (of non-Egyptians) are handled with some animation.

But losing a horse at speed is a different matter to bumping into an enemy chariot team at speed: you get shear forces not present in a direct impact.

and many of the front rank men were crushed [obtriti = bruised, trampled, crushed, broken] by the weight of the horses and vehicles [impetu equorum ac vehiculorum] dashing [raptorum = tearing] through the lines."[/color]

Why single out the front rank as trampled if the chariot blasted through the ranks from front to back?

Because it is not the front rank.  It is the antesignani, which it seems the translator has rendered in misleading fashion.  Perhaps I should have picked up on this: the antesignani ('before the standards') as of 295 BC represented the hastati and principes of a Polybian legion (as in the preceding Livian legion; contrast Caesar's legion in his Civil Wars, where they instead represent just the light troops, the standards having moved forward in the meantime).

This is what I think is the key to all cavalry charges.  The defeated men wavered. If any type of cavalry hits men in the process of breaking, they can cut through them, if not they cannot cut through them at speed. They have to stop and fight their way through.

But they do stop and fight.   The point about the infantry opposition mostly breaking just before impact looks to me to be a good one; this puts the training and tradition as much as the tactics of the infantry at a premium, and may explain why Asiatic armies needed great depth to avoid such breakage and/or ameliorate the consequences of infirmity at the front, whereas formed Greek hoplites appear never to have been frontally charged with success by pre-Macedonian cavalry (Delium I do not count as the Theban cavalry were believed to be precursors of a fresh new army) and even peltasts could open a gap in disciplined fashion to let Persian heavies through, as at Cunaxa.

I should be clear.  I believe that chariots, definitely scythed chariots, were designed for shock combat. I just think shock combat does not work the way many think. Often the psychological "shock" is what breaks the unit moments before the physical shock occurs.

I would agree here.  However the focus of discussion here has tended to be on what happens when such a break does not occur, and then (unless I am somehow misrepresenting general opinion) tending to assume for discussion purposes that such a situation was the infantry norm and arguing from this that shock combat for chariots was unviable.

[Justin Swanton]

Take a look at this.  Granted these men are not trying to kill anyone, so they are not going at it as hard as they could, but the protesters are showing the natural human reaction to being charged by a horse.  I have been charged in mock combat and it scared the crap out of me- and it was not that big a horse. If you are in the front rank in front of me, I got your back....Waaaaay back!  good luck not getting run over.

https://youtu.be/_qhUTF4hOp8

I would suggest that this isn't really a relevant example. The crowds are not trying to stand up to the horses and feel no need to stay where they are. Infantry in a battlefield are in a very different position (excuse the pun). An infantryman knows that if he breaks and runs he will probably be ridden down by the cavalry/chariots and so his best chance is to stand his ground. In any case his orders are to stay put, and the men behind him ensure he obeys that order.

[Justin Swanton]

Because it is not the front rank.  It is the antesignani, which it seems the translator has rendered in misleading fashion.  Perhaps I should have picked up on this: the antesignani ('before the standards') as of 295 BC represented the hastati and principes of a Polybian legion (as in the preceding Livian legion; contrast Caesar's legion in his Civil Wars, where they instead represent just the light troops, the standards having moved forward in the meantime).

Another mistranslation of a crucial word. Fancy that. 

[Patrick Waterson]

What is the difference between the effectivness of horse archers against chariots and that of  bow-equipped light chariots?

Egyptian chariot archers used a more powerful bow, which would penetrate horse (and crew) armour; I am not sure if Indian chariot horses were armoured, but suspect not (figure manufacturers appear to think not, anyway).  Ergo, it would seem that Egyptian chariots would be more effective against their standard (and often protected) opponents while Alexander's horse archers were optimal for dealing with their unarmoured chariot foes.

For what it's worth, my personal view is that Justin's idea that chariots were primarily shock weapons misses the light/heavy divide, a divide similar to that amongst cavalry.

[scribes on postcard] This apparent divide has been considerably eroded in earlier discussions about, for example, Parthians.

Surely it is not too odd to conclude that light chariots (e.g. Egyptian) were intended to act like light cavalry in a skirmishing role, with the added value of chasing off and riding down fleeing enemy, whilst heavier chariots with 4 horses and heavier construction had a shock role, at least in part?

If this were the case, one would expect armies to field two types of chariot as standard: one for skirmishing and one for the decisive blow.  Instead, national armies only ever seem to field one chariot type at any one time - apart from Gauls, who seem to use two types quite happily in the same role.  Our light/heavy distinction may work for size but rapidly bogs down when applied to role.

No one would say ancient heavy cavalry could ride down formed, disciplined heavy infantry, but that doesn't negate the fact that the shock role was part of their function - if they found some heavy infantry who weren't quite so formed and disciplined (for example, as a result of receiving shooting casualties, or as a result of being poorly trained), they might give a frontal charge a go. Of course, flanks and rear would be the preferred targets.

Formed, disciplined heavy infantry appear to have been the exception in the Biblical Near East (formed, yes; disciplined, hmmm ...); even Ashurnasirpal's quirky two-horse cavalry teams seem to have been able to ride down infantry of the ordinary sort, according to his reliefs - that said, this may be a pursuit rather than an actual charge.

Bows and javelins carried by the heavier chariots would, it seems to me, be likely to be useful in disrupting enemy infantry to the extent that a charge might become possible. I also find Justin's point about teams of horses making charging in more possible convincing. Paul's point just made about psychological intimidation is, I reckon, also very useful. Any mounted charge is a very chancy and dangerous thing for the chargers - but they seem to have happened

Bows carried by light chariots would similarly be useful, naturally.  We may be in danger of overrating the 'chancy' and 'dangerous' aspects of a charge: the physics of inertia generally favour mounted chargers, and both sides knew it.  While the missile output of attacking chariots would certainly help to disrupt the defenders, the noise and general vibration of a lot of chariots heading in (irrespective of size) would do at least as much damage, if not more, to morale.  It all stacks up against the target, and at the end of the day two two-horse 'light' chariots have the same missile, morale and shock impact capability as one four-horse heavy chariot.

I had to rethink the traditional light/heavy distinction when I began looking into chariots on the battlefield.  It would be nice if someone could prove that 'light' chariots were intended and used for skirmishing, but the evidence seems to be heading in the other direction. [runs out of postcard space]

[Erpingham]

But losing a horse at speed is a different matter to bumping into an enemy chariot team at speed: you get shear forces not present in a direct impact.

So, not only do the lines meet head on but the drivers ensure that they are perfectly aligned with each other so each horse meets head-to-head?  Even if this were to happen, the two chariots would meet at about 30mph.  And everyone dusts themselves off and walks away?  Here's an experiment we could try.  Have someone stand up in the back of a open topped car and drive into a wall at 30mph.  Any speculation what happens to the passenger?  Sorry, this is a really silly line of reasoning, Patrick.

[Erpingham]

the cavalry, after their victorious charges, were now scattered in frantic terror; horses and men alike were overthrown in their blind flight. Even the standards of the legionaries were thrown into confusion, and many of the front rank men were crushed [obtriti = bruised, trampled, crushed, broken] by the weight of the horses and vehicles [impetu equorum ac vehiculorum] dashing [raptorum = tearing] through the lines.

I would be tempted to reconstruct this as the chariots break the cavalry and drive them back on the infantry.  The infantry are disordered and because of that their lines are broken by the chariots.  Disordered or unformed infantry are the natural prey of chariots and cavalry.

I see no sign here of the Gallic chariots launching a deliberate ramming attack on formed legionaries. Rather this is an exploitation or continuation from their earlier defeat of the cavalry.

[Duncan Head]

Livy X.28.5-10:
"Making a third charge, they were carried too far, and whilst they were now fighting desperately in the midst of the enemy's cavalry they were thrown into consternation by a new style of warfare. Armed men mounted on chariots [essedis] and baggage wagons [carris] came on with a thunderous noise of horses and wheels

So whether intentionally or otherwise, the Gallic chariots found themselves performing a shock role in this battle, very much along the lines Justin has suggested.  Livy has two types of vehicle used by the Gauls: 'essedis', typically used by Roman authors for British chariots and scythed chariots, and 'carris', usually meaning carts or carriages of some sort (cf. use of harmata in Greek).

Ooooh, thanks for that reference, Patrick! Reminds me of Polybios' use of two words in the Telamon description, "hamaxas kai sunoridas" as discussed elsewhere.

Whether this means two vehicle types, or literary "elegant variation", it's apparently not a one-off.