Chariots as equid battering rams

[Andreas Johansson]

That example of a British cavalryman smashing into an Persian infantry square - I forget the source. His horse was killed but it made a hole wide enough for the rest of the cavalry to pour through and break up the square. Are there other examples of this?

If I remember, Nosworthy discusses similar examples from the Napoleonic era in Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies.

[Erpingham]

Notice that this requires the infantry using interlocking shields that form a continuous wall and not just infantry trying to stand individually against charging horses (even if the infantry are in formation).

is the suggestion that infantry were unable to use interlocking shield formations prior to the classical era?

These are scythed chariots but the principle holds:

Assuming the principle is


"Looking at war chariots as used by the Sumerians, Egyptian, Hittites, Assyrians, et al. it seems to me that they were designed principally as shock weapons, designed to plough through infantry and fragment their formations."

On what basis?  Are scythed chariots constructed in the same way (scythes apart) to say, Sumerian battlewagons or Egyptian chariots?  Do they have similar crew, armed in a similar way?  If not, why should we assume they operated in the same way? 

[Justin Swanton]

But Abradatas plunged directly through them and hurled himself upon the Egyptian phalanx...

These are scythed chariots...

... in a work of fiction.

Based on what real scythed chariots would do? Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

And this I found:

Proceeding cautiously along, to my horror I perceived my path again blocked up by a dense body of Afghans. Retreat was impossible; so, putting my trust in God, I charged into the midst of them, hoping that the weight of my horse would clear my way for me, and reserving my sword cut for the last struggle. It was well that I did so; for by the time I had knocked over some twenty fellows, I found that they were my own juzailchees. If you ever experienced sudden relief from a hideous nightmare, you may imagine my feelings for the moment. - Swordsmen of the British Empire

Now I thought that might go some way to fulfilling my objection to your original post 3 in this thread, namely that it's a long way from "horses can trample individuals" to "you need 20-deep formed lines to stop horses". However, looking at the original it becomes clear that Eyre's "juzailchees" had got ahead of him, so when he so boldly rode into them and knocked them over, he was probably coming at them from behind (which would help explain why he mistook their identity). I think most of us accept that horses will happily charge into infantry from the rear, and to good effect.

Nothing in the passage suggests the juzailchees were facing away from Eyre, quite the opposite. His decision to charge through them despite the risk implies IMHO that they were facing him and he felt he was in real danger of being cut down.

[Andreas Johansson]

Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

One might be forgiven for thinking that said reason was that non-scythed chariots didn't do enough damage when hitting an enemy formation to justify the effort.

[Justin Swanton]

Notice that this requires the infantry using interlocking shields that form a continuous wall and not just infantry trying to stand individually against charging horses (even if the infantry are in formation).

is the suggestion that infantry were unable to use interlocking shield formations prior to the classical era?

I've seen this image but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it (commentators seem uncertain too). Are the infantry holding their spears with two hands and letting the shields stand up on their own? If so I suspect that would be an easy obstacle for a chariot to roll over. Sumerian perspective is rather odd - showing front and side views all on the same plane. Do each of those shields for example have six bosses or are we looking at six shields each?

These are scythed chariots but the principle holds:

On what basis?  Are scythed chariots constructed in the same way (scythes apart) to say, Sumerian battlewagons or Egyptian chariots?  Do they have similar crew, armed in a similar way?  If not, why should we assume they operated in the same way?

I mean that scythed chariots would be used in exactly the same way as regular chariots just with a rather more devastating effect.

[Justin Swanton]

Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

One might be forgiven for thinking that said reason was that non-scythed chariots didn't do enough damage when hitting an enemy formation to justify the effort.

Or that non-scythed chariots had other features that offset their lack of scythes.

Off the top of my head:

- less dangerous to neighbouring friendly troops (including each other)
- easier to drive through enemy infantry as less infantry are contacted (just those in front of the horses)
- more able to navigate over difficult terrain without their scythes getting fouled.

A bit like the differences between WW2 heavy and medium tanks. Both served their purpose.

[Duncan Head]

But Abradatas plunged directly through them and hurled himself upon the Egyptian phalanx...

These are scythed chariots...

... in a work of fiction.

Based on what real scythed chariots would do? Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

Xenophon never saw a scythed chariot charge against formed infantry, only against peltasts at Cunaxa and perhaps foragers in Anatolia, so he had no firm knowledge of how they would fare. The whole story's an optimistic guess.

Nothing in the passage suggests the juzailchees were facing away from Eyre, quite the opposite. His decision to charge through them despite the risk implies IMHO that they were facing him and he felt he was in real danger of being cut down.

Can't say I agree. In any case, they do not seem to have been resisting him - the juzailchees were not likely to make Eyre's mistake, since a mounted British officer is unlikely to have been an enemy - so the most we can conclude is that horses can charge into and knock over a dense formation of completely unresisting foot, whichever way they're facing.

[Erpingham]

That example of a British cavalryman smashing into an Persian infantry square - I forget the source. His horse was killed but it made a hole wide enough for the rest of the cavalry to pour through and break up the square. Are there other examples of this?

From wikipedia :
On 8 February 1857 at the Battle of Khushab, Persia, Lieutenant Moore who was Adjutant of the [3rd Bombay Cavalry] Regiment, was probably the first in the attack, but his horse, on leaping into the square, fell dead, crushing his rider and breaking his sword. Lieutenant Moore extricated himself, but he would almost certainly have lost his life had not Lieutenant John Grant Malcolmson fought his way to his dismounted comrade and carried him to safety. In this battle Lieutenant Moore also charged an infantry square of 500 Persians at the head of his regiment and jumped his horse over the enemy's bayonets.


At the Battle of García Hernández in 1812, a French square was broken when a dying horse fell into it, making a gap through which KGL dragoons charged.  That's the only Napoleonic one I know, but then I don't know an enormous amount about the period.   

[Andreas Johansson]

On what basis?  Are scythed chariots constructed in the same way (scythes apart) to say, Sumerian battlewagons or Egyptian chariots?  Do they have similar crew, armed in a similar way?  If not, why should we assume they operated in the same way?

Since Sumerian battle-carts and Egyptian chariots are very different in construction (e.g. different numbers and kinds of wheels), traction animals, and crew armament, Justin presumably operates on the assumption that such differences matter very little.

Achaemenid non-scythed chariots, FWIW, are depicted as rather similar to Egyptian ones (and perforce as very different from Sumerian battle-carts), see e.g. the seal of Darius I here (you have to scroll down a bit) and the picture of Ramses II here. Both are light vehicles with two spoked wheels, drawn by pairs of horses, and carrying bow-armed crew, very much unlike the Standard of Ur vehicles.

[Justin Swanton]

Xenophon never saw a scythed chariot charge against formed infantry, only against peltasts at Cunaxa and perhaps foragers in Anatolia, so he had no firm knowledge of how they would fare. The whole story's an optimistic guess.

Can one posit that Xenophon, as one of the Ten Thousand who marched with Cyrus, was in a position to acquire fairly reliable knowledge of what Middle Eastern chariots used to be capable of and were once used for?

Nothing in the passage suggests the juzailchees were facing away from Eyre, quite the opposite. His decision to charge through them despite the risk implies IMHO that they were facing him and he felt he was in real danger of being cut down.

Can't say I agree. In any case, they do not seem to have been resisting him - the juzailchees were not likely to make Eyre's mistake, since a mounted British officer is unlikely to have been an enemy - so the most we can conclude is that horses can charge into and knock over a dense formation of completely unresisting foot, whichever way they're facing.

So if the horses can get past the front rank infantry spears, which is something they did achieve fairly often, then they were down to knocking over a dense formation of infantry who did not have the means of effectively resisting them?

[Justin Swanton]

On what basis?  Are scythed chariots constructed in the same way (scythes apart) to say, Sumerian battlewagons or Egyptian chariots?  Do they have similar crew, armed in a similar way?  If not, why should we assume they operated in the same way?

Since Sumerian battle-carts and Egyptian chariots are very different in construction (e.g. different numbers and kinds of wheels), traction animals, and crew armament, Justin presumably operates on the assumption that such differences matter very little.

Achaemenid non-scythed chariots, FWIW, are depicted as rather similar to Egyptian ones (and perforce as very different from Sumerian battle-carts), see e.g. the seal of Darius I here (you have to scroll down a bit) and the picture of Ramses II here. Both are light vehicles with two spoked wheels, drawn by pairs of horses, and carrying bow-armed crew, very much unlike the Standard of Ur vehicles.

My own take is that the chariot vehicle itself had no effect on the efficacy of the chariot charge, which depended entirely on the horses'/onagers' ability to knock down opposing infantry before they themselves were brought to a halt. Hence the tendency of chariot construction to get lighter as time wore on.

The thick wheels of Assyrian chariots are interesting. Possibly to crush fallen enemies so they wouldn't get up again?

[Andreas Johansson]

Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

One might be forgiven for thinking that said reason was that non-scythed chariots didn't do enough damage when hitting an enemy formation to justify the effort.

Or that non-scythed chariots had other features that offset their lack of scythes.

Off the top of my head:

- less dangerous to neighbouring friendly troops (including each other)
- easier to drive through enemy infantry as less infantry are contacted (just those in front of the horses)
- more able to navigate over difficult terrain without their scythes getting fouled.

A bit like the differences between WW2 heavy and medium tanks. Both served their purpose.

The implication would be that the purpose of non-scythed chariots was something else than that of scythed chariots, namely shock attack. I don't think this helps your case

I say "would be", because unlike heavy and medium tanks, I'm not sure any army used scythed and non-scythed chariots at the same time. Do you have an example? (A single non-scythed chariot for the king doesn't count; that's about prestige, not tactics.)

[Erpingham]

The thick wheels of Assyrian chariots are interesting. Possibly to crush fallen enemies so they wouldn't get up again?

More robust?  More ground clearance?  Gave more of a height advantage to the crew?

[Andreas Johansson]

Can one posit that Xenophon, as one of the Ten Thousand who marched with Cyrus, was in a position to acquire fairly reliable knowledge of what Middle Eastern chariots used to be capable of and were once used for?

Xenophon says that before Cyrus the Elder, all Middle-Eastern chariots were of the Homeric style, as still used by the Libyans. I'd take that as evidence that no, he couldn't, but if you're happy to lump Sumerian and Egyptian vehicles as essentially the same thing, I guess you're happy to include Libyco-Homeric charioteering under the same umbrella too.

[Justin Swanton]

Scythed chariots were scythed for a reason.

One might be forgiven for thinking that said reason was that non-scythed chariots didn't do enough damage when hitting an enemy formation to justify the effort.

Or that non-scythed chariots had other features that offset their lack of scythes.

Off the top of my head:

- less dangerous to neighbouring friendly troops (including each other)
- easier to drive through enemy infantry as less infantry are contacted (just those in front of the horses)
- more able to navigate over difficult terrain without their scythes getting fouled.

A bit like the differences between WW2 heavy and medium tanks. Both served their purpose.

The implication would be that the purpose of non-scythed chariots was something else than that of scythed chariots, namely shock attack. I don't think this helps your case

I say "would be", because unlike heavy and medium tanks, I'm not sure any army used scythed and non-scythed chariots at the same time. Do you have an example? (A single non-scythed chariot for the king doesn't count; that's about prestige, not tactics.)

I think scythed and non-scythed chariots were both used for shock attack - for me the clincher is that the lightest chariot was pulled by at least two horses. No need for that if the chariot is just meant to run around the place whilst its crew lob arrows at the enemy from a safe distance. Non-scythed chariots were better than scythed chariots in other roles: safer, more manoeuvrable especially over difficult terrain. But their principal purpose was still to charge enemy foot or at least threaten to do so (which would fix the foot in place whilst archers decimated them).