What is the point of 16 ranks in a pike phalanx?

[Patrick Waterson]

The concept now has a basic design, which makes discussion easier.  It resembles a locomotive 'pilot', often referred to in the USA as a 'cowcatcher' after one of its principal 19th century functions.

Eliminating the chariot makes things much easier.  If I understand correctly, the concept now involves just the 'pilot', which is attached to the horse's harness by two shafts and runs on two wheels, one on each side.  Do I understand correctly that these wheels are not steerable?  Also, do they share a common axle or are they independently attached to hubs on the exterior of the 'pilot'?

Assuming the device will be used principally on Mediterranean battlefields, which tend to throw up a fairly large amount of dust, the wheels would have to be as far back as possible to avoid channelling dust up the inside of the 'pilot' and into the faces of the horse(s) and rider(s).  The problem is that the further back the wheels are, the more likely the front end is to dip and catch the ground with dire consequences.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a classical engineer managed to hit upon a workable design, and that it was fielded in some numbers against a Hellenistic army (say the Romans tried it against Pyrrhus in place of those silly anti-elephant oxcarts at Asculum).  How effective might it have been?

Are the horses used to elephants?  Answer: no.  End of invention as soon as elephants are deployed against it (see Lucian's 'elephant victory' for a cunning counter to massed cavalry and chariots).

"Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other's spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims." - Lucian, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

So - let us further assume for the sake of argument that the elephants are busy dealing with the Roman cavalry, and the 'pilots' are deployed exclusively against the phalanx on the second day of Asculum (they would be unusable on the first day because of the varied terrain).  The horse teams are all lined up and the fabricae (army engineers) are busy attaching the 'pilots' - how long does this take, incidentally?  Enemy archers, screening ahead of the phalanx, are beginning to take an interest and shafts start to whistle and drop on the teams and horses as they assemble the devices, disrupting everything.  Some friendly light infantry will be needed to keep enemy archers away and occupied while the devices are assembled in relative safety.  Of course, this means the friendly light infantry will be on the wrong side of the 'pilots' when they start moving ...

Finally, and hopefully before the rapidly-advancing phalanx can arrive, the devices are ready.  The signal is given and they all start off - hopefully not so close that they start bumping into each other.  What interval between them is needed to avoid collisions?  The horses and riders have presumably trained intensively with these counter-intuitive and clumsy loads, and can reach a trot in a straight line.  As the line advances, it will encounter minor irregularities of terrain unless the army's engineers have also levelled the ground in advance (unlikely as Pyrrhus' choice of ground on the second day of Asculum seems to have caught the Roman army by surprise).  These little irregularities cause bumps, and bumps cause the 'pilots' to change direction slightly.  It will not be long before the devices start fouling each other, which means there will be gaps in the line (even chariots cannot advance 'shoulder to shoulder' for this reason).  By the time the line of 'pilots' reaches the phalanx, there will be sufficient gaps caused by accidents and minor deflections of course that many of the phalangites will be able to avoid the devices altogether.  Assume, though, that some 'pilots' smash into parts of the pike formation like Cyrus' scythed chariots at Thymbra in 546 BC.  If we have a two-horse team plus a 'pilot' the likely frontage is about 8-9 feet (about 2.5-2.8 metres).  The 'pilot' should thus encounter 25-30 pike points, each pike weighing about 22 pounds (10 kg).  The 25-30 men add about 3,750-4,500 pounds (about  1,700-2,000 kg) of inertia to their weapons' 550-660 pounds (250-300 kg).  This makes about two tons (slightly over two tonnes) of stopping-power.

As discussed when the question of pikes penetrating legionary shields arose, movement adds kinetic force to impact.  The faster the 'pilot' is moving, the greater the penetrative power of the pikes becomes.  A wooden screen that was impenetrable at a walking pace might be smashed to pieces at a trot.  (As Isaac Newton taught us that action and reaction tend to be equal and opposite, the pikemen would not be unscathed either.)  In essence, the 'pilots' would disintegrate on impact, taking the first few ranks of pikes with them, at least in my evaluation.

This assumes the devices could be made to run straight, which would be extremely unlikely on most available battlefield terrain.  Chariots were steered by altering the direction of travel of the horses, and if the inertia of the chariot was not too great then it would follow the horses (if it was too great, the chariot body would roll over and the whole thing would disintegrate).  The 'pilot' has no effective means of steering because it precedes rather than follows the horses, which is why I think the combination of small irregularities in terrain (laser levelling was not used for farmland or pasture in the classical era) and non-steerability would result in the 'pilots' running afoul of each other before they had travelled very far, rendering the concept regrettably ineffectual in battle.

[Mark G]

Nonsense.
You are proposing a plank in front which will hit the ground hard.
Not at all the same as a pulled wheel going over.

And you are proposing a horse will gallop directly into that wall because you tellit it will move with it.

Donkeys follow carrots on sticks. Horses will not learn that this wall of wood will move with the that fast.

And still, no example of a horse pushed vehicle from history

[andrew881runner]

The concept now has a basic design, which makes discussion easier.  It resembles a locomotive 'pilot', often referred to in the USA as a 'cowcatcher' after one of its principal 19th century functions.

Eliminating the chariot makes things much easier.  If I understand correctly, the concept now involves just the 'pilot', which is attached to the horse's harness by two shafts and runs on two wheels, one on each side.  Do I understand correctly that these wheels are not steerable?  Also, do they share a common axle or are they independently attached to hubs on the exterior of the 'pilot'?

Assuming the device will be used principally on Mediterranean battlefields, which tend to throw up a fairly large amount of dust, the wheels would have to be as far back as possible to avoid channelling dust up the inside of the 'pilot' and into the faces of the horse(s) and rider(s).  The problem is that the further back the wheels are, the more likely the front end is to dip and catch the ground with dire consequences.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that a classical engineer managed to hit upon a workable design, and that it was fielded in some numbers against a Hellenistic army (say the Romans tried it against Pyrrhus in place of those silly anti-elephant oxcarts at Asculum).  How effective might it have been?

Are the horses used to elephants?  Answer: no.  End of invention as soon as elephants are deployed against it (see Lucian's 'elephant victory' for a cunning counter to massed cavalry and chariots).

"Neither the Galatians nor their horses had ever seen an elephant, and they were so taken aback by the strange sight that, long before the beasts came to close quarters, the mere sound of their trumpeting, the sight of their gleaming tusks relieved against dark bodies, and minatory waving trunks, was enough; before they were within bow-shot, the enemy broke and ran in utter disorder; the infantry were spitted on each other's spears, and trampled by the cavalry who came scurrying on to them. The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims." - Lucian, Zeuxis and Antiochus.

So - let us further assume for the sake of argument that the elephants are busy dealing with the Roman cavalry, and the 'pilots' are deployed exclusively against the phalanx on the second day of Asculum (they would be unusable on the first day because of the varied terrain).  The horse teams are all lined up and the fabricae (army engineers) are busy attaching the 'pilots' - how long does this take, incidentally?  Enemy archers, screening ahead of the phalanx, are beginning to take an interest and shafts start to whistle and drop on the teams and horses as they assemble the devices, disrupting everything.  Some friendly light infantry will be needed to keep enemy archers away and occupied while the devices are assembled in relative safety.  Of course, this means the friendly light infantry will be on the wrong side of the 'pilots' when they start moving ...

Finally, and hopefully before the rapidly-advancing phalanx can arrive, the devices are ready.  The signal is given and they all start off - hopefully not so close that they start bumping into each other.  What interval between them is needed to avoid collisions?  The horses and riders have presumably trained intensively with these counter-intuitive and clumsy loads, and can reach a trot in a straight line.  As the line advances, it will encounter minor irregularities of terrain unless the army's engineers have also levelled the ground in advance (unlikely as Pyrrhus' choice of ground on the second day of Asculum seems to have caught the Roman army by surprise).  These little irregularities cause bumps, and bumps cause the 'pilots' to change direction slightly.  It will not be long before the devices start fouling each other, which means there will be gaps in the line (even chariots cannot advance 'shoulder to shoulder' for this reason).  By the time the line of 'pilots' reaches the phalanx, there will be sufficient gaps caused by accidents and minor deflections of course that many of the phalangites will be able to avoid the devices altogether.  Assume, though, that some 'pilots' smash into parts of the pike formation like Cyrus' scythed chariots at Thymbra in 546 BC.  If we have a two-horse team plus a 'pilot' the likely frontage is about 8-9 feet (about 2.5-2.8 metres).  The 'pilot' should thus encounter 25-30 pike points, each pike weighing about 22 pounds (10 kg).  The 25-30 men add about 3,750-4,500 pounds (about  1,700-2,000 kg) of inertia to their weapons' 550-660 pounds (250-300 kg).  This makes about two tons (slightly over two tonnes) of stopping-power.

As discussed when the question of pikes penetrating legionary shields arose, movement adds kinetic force to impact.  The faster the 'pilot' is moving, the greater the penetrative power of the pikes becomes.  A wooden screen that was impenetrable at a walking pace might be smashed to pieces at a trot.  (As Isaac Newton taught us that action and reaction tend to be equal and opposite, the pikemen would not be unscathed either.)  In essence, the 'pilots' would disintegrate on impact, taking the first few ranks of pikes with them, at least in my evaluation.

This assumes the devices could be made to run straight, which would be extremely unlikely on most available battlefield terrain.  Chariots were steered by altering the direction of travel of the horses, and if the inertia of the chariot was not too great then it would follow the horses (if it was too great, the chariot body would roll over and the whole thing would disintegrate).  The 'pilot' has no effective means of steering because it precedes rather than follows the horses, which is why I think the combination of small irregularities in terrain (laser levelling was not used for farmland or pasture in the classical era) and non-steerability would result in the 'pilots' running afoul of each other before they had travelled very far, rendering the concept regrettably ineffectual in battle.

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

OK I read everything. Man, you are going to much forward with imagination. What you said is only an imaginary battle with imagined result. What you say could happen but could even not happen.

And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate? It is exactly as saying that if a truck invest a person, the truck would break. Not, when a moving object meets a steady object, the energy is transferred from first one to second. This is why if I hit your head with my head you will have the bigger injury, even if we have same mass stored heads.
So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

[Patrick Waterson]

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

Unfortunately one cannot forget the dust problem.  Read Ammianus' account of Adrianople or Appian's account of Cannae, or Dionysius' account of Vercellae.

And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

But now the driver has to control the horse and a pair of wheels on hubs attached to a turntable or T-frame (which makes driving a two-man job); how is this steerable system to be attached to the shell of the 'shield'?  I can envisage a concept, but even if the system can be made stable and responsive under the stress of forward travel, it is going to transmit significant lateral stresses to the wheels when it turns and is anyway going to throw up all the dust, stones and other debris it encounters right into the faces of the horse and driver.

As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate?

A longbow arrow can do so, or at least is recorded as penetrating timber to a depth of several inches, so a pike would have no difficulty.

So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

I can be pretty sure without testing, but a test would be the ultimate proof (or disproof).  And if you like, we can leave the matter there.

[Justin Swanton]

There were attempts to use a cart before horse arrangement in a more sedate civilian capacity, as shown by this 1907 experimental Parisian surrey. If the idea never took off there must be a reason, and of course this says nothing about how a vehicle would perform in the realities of a battlefield situation.

[Erpingham]

There were attempts to use a cart before horse arrangement in a more sedate civilian capacity, as shown by this 1907 experimental Parisian surrey. If the idea never took off there must be a reason, and of course this says nothing about how a vehicle would perform in the realities of a battlefield situation.

One might suspect that the reason is to duplicate a motor car experience, while using old technology for propulsion

Perhaps Patrick is right to draw a line at this point and return to the phalanx itself.  If the barrier chariot thread could be hived off into a separate thread (as Mark Watson used to do) it would make it easier to find for future reference and might even allow its expansion into other wheeled vehicles used on battlefields to break up formations.  Patrick has mentioned ox-carts but there were a variety of hand-pushed vehicles, the familiar scythed chariots and the enigmatic Late Roman cataphract scythed chariot (myth or reality?).

[andrew881runner]

I stopped at the point of dust.
Mediterranean countries are dusty? seriously? I live in Italy, Tuscany exactly (maybe you heard about Florence, Dante Alighieri, divine comedy, Medici family, Petrarca..) and i can assure. There is no desert land here. Not even if you look for it. It is exactly the mild climate you could find anywhere in northen Europe. Countryside is very very nice and made of Plains, hills, mountains, with grass everywhere, so no dusty desert lands. I notice that a lot of people have a strange idea of "mediterranean" countries. There is some difference between Maghreb and Italy for example. And even inside same Italy you could find Alps, Hills, rivers, seaside, flat lands... et cetera. You cannot talk in general.
So let's forget the dust problem.

Unfortunately one cannot forget the dust problem.  Read Ammianus' account of Adrianople or Appian's account of Cannae, or Dionysius' account of Vercellae.

And as I said this device could be made steerable with no problem, with a central axis where it could turned (in front of the horse and behind the shield) by the same horse driver. My English is not enough good to describe what I think and I have no time for a drawing, neither I am enough good. But believe me I have a simple idea in mind.

But now the driver has to control the horse and a pair of wheels on hubs attached to a turntable or T-frame (which makes driving a two-man job); how is this steerable system to be attached to the shell of the 'shield'?  I can envisage a concept, but even if the system can be made stable and responsive under the stress of forward travel, it is going to transmit significant lateral stresses to the wheels when it turns and is anyway going to throw up all the dust, stones and other debris it encounters right into the faces of the horse and driver.

As for the fact that it would be broken by impact with some pikes, not. Not. First thing, the design I told is made to deflect the pikes in the sides. So there would be no real impact. Secondly even a perpendicular plank 1 inch thick would never break meeting some pikes. Pikes would break, though. Seriously, how can you imagine a pike piercing a solid one inch wooden plate?

A longbow arrow can do so, or at least is recorded as penetrating timber to a depth of several inches, so a pike would have no difficulty.

So what you say of pikes breaking the wooden pilot is not possible on my opinion. Surely, unless we test it, we will never be sure.

I can be pretty sure without testing, but a test would be the ultimate proof (or disproof).  And if you like, we can leave the matter there.

oh the dust problem. Tell me where you see dust. https://www.google.it/search?q=Italia+paesaggi&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=VbbPU92jNMGb0QWa_IDoBg&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=360&bih=615&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588
These are professional pictures but you have an idea of what you could see in a Mediterranean country. Obviously it changes a lot according  to place and weather and time of the year. But generally speaking you will not see many dusty desert lands: ok, maybe in some places in Sicily and southern Italy, but they are exception. I don't know why people when thinking Italy (or Mediterranean countries) they think about some remote village in southern Italy (even when they think of the (stereo)"typical Italian" dark haired: where I live most are rather blondish). [emoji1]
Generally speaking "Mediterranean countries" (which are very different even inside same country, anyway let's talk in general) are very fertile lands so there are much fewer dusty places than green places. You can find wide dusty places in Arizona, Texas, Colorado, not Italy. As for the tips in the ground, if you go in some wide flat land like Italian Padana Pianura you will see wide open spaces with almost no tips in the ground for hundreds of km. So what you say can only be referred to some particular places, like the setting of Adriano ple, you cannot talk in general about a great variety of landscapes so different. [emoji6]

[Mark G]

Interesting image, Justin.
Notice the weight distribution.  All the people (weight) are between the wheel axels, so the weight is on the wheels.
To repeat this with a wall, you will need the front wheels to be forward of the barrier, which makes breaking a wheel very easy.

If you want the wall in front, you need an equal counterweight behind the second paid of wheels.

The horse then has more weight to push from behind.

Notice also how high the front is, for a bulldozer weapon like this, you have a problem.
Low axel and small wheels keep the protection, but cannot cope with any depression (or else you are pushing the barrier into the ground)
But high axel big wheels to cope with more terrain expose the vulnerable wheel...
The articulated steering proposed is also hard to believe practical in a pre ball bearing age.
Ancients steered by turning the horse pulling, not by having a steering wheel and axel .

I bet that horse never got past a walk too

[Justin Swanton]

Here are some pictures of southern Italy, chosen at random from Google maps (street view), Pyrrhus's campaign country. An army could certainly kick up a dustcloud here. Time of year would also make a difference of course.

[andrew881runner]

believe me, I know Italy very well because I have relatives from all sides of peninsula and the pictures you have taken are not representative of entire Italy.  therr are surely dusty places but they are the minor part. Maybe 3% or less to give an idea, and mostly in southern.
Then, if you pay attention, you have showed pictures of cultivated lands, which are dusty because they must be so, there cannot be grasslands where you cultivate something (probably grain): you can clearly see the stripes and the marks of the beginning of the farm's field. You will not see the desert you imagine unless in some parts of Sicily and a central side of Sardinia or other minor part in southern Italy (not all "southern Italy" is the same... Campania for example was called "Campania felix" by same Romans, for abundance it had of every product). We should talk of natural landscape and Italy is surely one of the countries with maybe more variety of landscapes all over the world.
Fact is that the most famous movies are set in southern Italy (Sicily mainly) so common people have an idea of Italy and Italians very different than reality.

Again, https://www.google.it/search?client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&biw=360&bih=321&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588&tbm=isch&ei=NB7QU8nYDujY4QStq4HIBA&oq=+Italy+landscapes&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3..0i19j0i5i19.75405.75892.0.76629.2.2.0.0.0.1.521.756.2-1j5-1.2.0....0...1c..49.mobile-gws-serp..1.1.235.cumh1b51EwM&q=Italy%20landscapes 
These are professional pictures but can give an idea.

[andrew881runner]

this is where I live https://www.google.it/search?q=Tuscany&client=ms-android-samsung&hl=it-IT&source=android-browser-type&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=86zQU9W8BOqi4gTUmYCIBQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=360&bih=615&rlz=1Y1XIUG_itIT587IT588

[Erpingham]

You are a lucky man, Andrew. 

Turning to the dust issue, even damp old England can be dusty in places in a dry summer.  The point about cultivated land is a good one.  My experience would suggest cultivated land with a light soil is your major dust source, rather than pasture or woodland.  Turning again to the battle descriptions, should we therefore be looking at where they took place, how cultivated it was and the season to explain the dust problem, rather than trying to do it on macro-climate basis? 

To go further, what is the issue about dust, other than nuisance?  How does it effect, say, a phalanx or cavalry and is it something we need to take account of in looking at battlefield performance?

[andrew881runner]

I don't think that dust can be an issue so great. Surely a running horse creates a lot of dust, but it is soon dissolved into air so that horseman (who is in a higher position) is not much affected, in my opinion. Dust can be an instrument if you want to cover some tactical manoeuvre, since dust is a visible fog for a distant observer rather than for someone who is inside it.
Anyway the only place where dust can be massive and a real problem for eyes and vision is desert, in my opinion, but there are not so many deserts in Europe (there was only one in Italy, a famous one in Tuscany, but it was changed). Otherwise I have been in dry places, with no vegetation almost, but I don't recall a dust issue. Common ground tends to be compact. There is a massive dust only where is sand, so near rivers, in the seaside, or in African or Arabic deserts. Dry land does not make so much dust. Same for cultivated lands. I lived in a farm as a child for some time and I don't recall dust at all, even in summer. But you cannot walk easily on a cultivated land since ground is all very soft (I think that that could be a problem in an ancient battle, slowing down troops).

[Patrick Waterson]

Marching an army over land is rather different from one person looking at the scenery.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 9 (signs for scouts):

"Dust spurting upwards in high, straight columns indicates the approach of chariots.  When it hangs low and widespread, infantry is approaching.  When dust rises in scattered areas, the enemy is collecting and bringing in firewood; when there are numerous small patches which seem to come and go, he is encamping the army."

Xenophon, Anabasis I.8.8 on the approach of Artaxerxes' army:

"And now it was midday, and the enemy were not yet in sight; but when afternoon was coming on, there was seen a rising dust, which appeared at first like a white cloud, but some time later like a kind of blackness in the plain, extending over a great distance. As the enemy came nearer and nearer, there were presently flashes of bronze here and there, and spears and the hostile ranks began to come into sight."

Ammianus, Rerum Gestarum XXXI.1-2 on the battle of Adrianople:

"On every side armour and weapons clashed, and Bellona, raging with more than usual madness for the destruction of the Romans, blew her lamentable war-trumpets; our soldiers who were giving way rallied, exchanging many encouraging shouts, but the battle, spreading like flames, filled their hearts with terror, as numbers of them were pierced by strokes of whirling spears and arrows. [2] Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea.

And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows whirling death from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against."

Dust is an endemic feature of most ancient and classical period battlefields south of the Alps and is not unknown north of them.  While there have been dust-free battlefields (notably the Crimisus in 340 BC, which was fought during a thunderstorm) one must plan on dust being a fact of battlefield life around the Mediterranean when armies are on the move.

One point to note is that wheels kick up dust directionally (upwards), as observed by Sun Tzu.  Doing this within the confines of a wooden shell will not be nice for men or animals inside it.

[andrew881runner]

Marching an army over land is rather different from one person looking at the scenery.

Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Chapter 9 (signs for scouts):

"Dust spurting upwards in high, straight columns indicates the approach of chariots.  When it hangs low and widespread, infantry is approaching.  When dust rises in scattered areas, the enemy is collecting and bringing in firewood; when there are numerous small patches which seem to come and go, he is encamping the army."

Xenophon, Anabasis I.8.8 on the approach of Artaxerxes' army:

"And now it was midday, and the enemy were not yet in sight; but when afternoon was coming on, there was seen a rising dust, which appeared at first like a white cloud, but some time later like a kind of blackness in the plain, extending over a great distance. As the enemy came nearer and nearer, there were presently flashes of bronze here and there, and spears and the hostile ranks began to come into sight."

Ammianus, Rerum Gestarum XXXI.1-2 on the battle of Adrianople:

"On every side armour and weapons clashed, and Bellona, raging with more than usual madness for the destruction of the Romans, blew her lamentable war-trumpets; our soldiers who were giving way rallied, exchanging many encouraging shouts, but the battle, spreading like flames, filled their hearts with terror, as numbers of them were pierced by strokes of whirling spears and arrows. [2] Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea.

And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows whirling death from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against."

Dust is an endemic feature of most ancient and classical period battlefields south of the Alps and is not unknown north of them.  While there have been dust-free battlefields (notably the Crimisus in 340 BC, which was fought during a thunderstorm) one must plan on dust being a fact of battlefield life around the Mediterranean when armies are on the move.

One point to note is that wheels kick up dust directionally (upwards), as observed by Sun Tzu.  Doing this within the confines of a wooden shell will not be nice for men or animals inside it.

surely it will not be a pleasure to have some dust in the face, but when you are going towards enemy life and your life is in danger is the last of your problems.  So I guess dust would not be a great problem anyway. Horses will not stop for some dust (they will be kicked and pushed to go forward) and riders will be trainer to tolerate some dust (i guess only the bravest and strongest warriors would be chosen for these Hugh risk missions). I still think that these engines were possible and would have been  effective in battle. Unfortunately I cannot build one of my own to prove it