More on early war chariots

[Andreas Johansson]

Plenty of royals have gotten themselves killed in battle across the ages, so I'm dubious to accept that being used by royalty implies safety.

More to the point, though, rather less likely than what? We don't know either how safe the replica was - Noble gives no quantification of the propensity to tip over* -  nor what degree of safety the Sumerians would have considered acceptable.

I quite agree that the replica's proportions may be off, but unless we've got some principled reasons to prefer another configuration that what Noble used, I don't see that that gets us far.

* He does, however, say one got better at avoiding it with practice. One suspects men who drove the things in battle had more practice than Noble got around to getting.

[Justin Swanton]

I do think we're licensed to assume that they were not one-directional weapons. The idea is intrinsically unlikely and nobody has yet suggested any flaw in the reconstruction that would cast doubt on Noble's conclusion in that regard.

The question then is how would they turn? AFAIK a 4-wheeled vehicle needs to have the two front wheels articulated to be able to move right or left more than a few degrees - or is that not a universal  rule? The Romans did it that way.

[aligern]

The difficulty with the turning solution is that I am not sure whether Alastair originated this idea or simply passed it on. The tactic adopted for turning could be to lean backwards until the chariot is on the back two wheels and then make a two wheel turn. I recall that there were details of the harnessing that made it easier to lift the front two wheels. Anyway it was a really cool sounding way to do a turn. I imagine the crew hanging off the rear whilst she spins on the spot, giving the finger to the approaching enemy.
Andreas we will just agree to disagree about nobles, heirs to the throne etc. They might be put in positions of danger for  leadership and morale reasons, but they are given kit that works, indeed the best kit. Edward III did not expect the boy to win his spurs with a sword that would not pass the Forged in Fire judges.  Come to that, a chariot that could only go forward would be a sign of huge confidence , or alternatively of suicidally wasteful use of the state's best men. The nobility need mobility!
Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

The question then is how would they turn?

I'll try and remember digging the book out tomorrow and refresh my memory exactly what Noble said about it.

[John GL]

Duncan Noble, author of Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600BC , is said by the publisher to have built a replica for the BBC.

I remember seeing that.  The vehicle (driven by an attractive young lady) was able to manoeuvre at speed while the crew flung javelins.  It certainly turned well.  Unfortunately I can't remember any other details.

[aligern]

How do they reconstruct the shape? the front looks to me as though we could be being shown front and side at the same time. The rein guide rings are shown in plan and the javelin case ought to be down the side of the vehicle otherwise they would be very hard to reach!

Roy

[Andreas Johansson]

The question then is how would they turn?

I'll try and remember digging the book out tomorrow and refresh my memory exactly what Noble said about it.

He doesn't discuss turning technique in any depth, but does mention that, contrary to theoretical expectation, it made no practical difference to turning radius whether the axles were rotating or not*, because the donkeys were strong enough to simply drag the vehicle sideways.

Speaking of donkeys, the original was drawn by onagers (which Noble understandably couldn't get hold of) with nose-rings (which Noble couldn't use out of animal-welfare concerns). He also had a mechanism to release the animals in case they bolted out of control - the original likely did not.

Relevant to another of our recurrent discussions, he notes that while javelins could be thrown with reasonable accuracy, using a stabbing spear while the vehicle was in motion was out of the question.

* In theory, a rotating axle, which forces the wheels it joins to revolve at the same angular speed, should make for a larger turning radius than a fixed axle, which allows the outer wheel to rotate faster.

[Patrick Waterson]

He doesn't discuss turning technique in any depth, but does mention that, contrary to theoretical expectation, it made no practical difference to turning radius whether the axles were rotating or not*, because the donkeys were strong enough to simply drag the vehicle sideways.

Does this indicate that his reconstructed vehicle was too light?  Directional dragging seems to me a somewhat suspect method of battlefield manoeuvre.  Does he give any figures for the turning circle thus obtained?  (Apologies for the barrage of questions, but this is my one chance to find out without spending $27 plus postage).

Speaking of donkeys, the original was drawn by onagers (which Noble understandably couldn't get hold of) with nose-rings (which Noble couldn't use out of animal-welfare concerns). He also had a mechanism to release the animals in case they bolted out of control - the original likely did not.

Nose-rings would presumably give the driver considerably more influence over the animals' directional choices.

Relevant to another of our recurrent discussions, he notes that while javelins could be thrown with reasonable accuracy, using a stabbing spear while the vehicle was in motion was out of the question.

Interesting in view of the original apparently carrying only javelins.

Does Noble attempt to explain the positioning of the warrior at the rear of the vehicle?

[Andreas Johansson]

Does this indicate that his reconstructed vehicle was too light?

I doubt it: it weighed 342 lbs / 155 kg empty, about twice that with crew.

Directional dragging seems to me a somewhat suspect method of battlefield manoeuvre.  Does he give any figures for the turning circle thus obtained?  (Apologies for the barrage of questions, but this is my one chance to find out without spending $27 plus postage).

He quotes a turning radius of 13 m at a canter; presumably you could turn more tightly at lower speed.

(I don't much mind the barrage, considering I don't particularly think the book deserves more sales. The appendix we're discussing is the best part, and even it is annoyingly vague at some points. It reads more like an elderly gentleman recounting his adventures than a systematic writeup of an experiment.)

Nose-rings would presumably give the driver considerably more influence over the animals' directional choices.

Yup: Noble remarks as much.

Does Noble attempt to explain the positioning of the warrior at the rear of the vehicle?

Not re-reading the entire appendix again, but I don't think so.

[Patrick Waterson]

Thank you, Andreas.

That is quite a large turn radius; interestingly a poster on this forum remarks that "The turning circle is governed by the horses ability to turn and nothing more," which makes me wonder a) if this remark is correct, and b) if it is, then given earlier discussions on equine turning circles, b) is the Noble chariot and its method of directional change really adding c.10 metres to the turning circle?

The tactical implications are this: the narrower their turning circle, the closer to each other chariots can operate and hence the more solid-appearing their line and the more imposing the threat of their impetus and shock effect.   Chariots with a poor turning circle (or radius) would have to operate in dispersed formations.  Chariots with a good turning radius could operate more closely.  The Ur Standard appears to show chariots quite close together.

Just musing ...

[Dangun]

That is quite a large turn radius;

Not the same period, I understand.
But might hippodromes provide some guidance for turning circles at speed?

Centripetal acceleration means that speed and turning circle is always a trade off.

[Patrick Waterson]

True; I suppose the question is how much speed is represented by four asses at the canter.

I wondered about hippodromes, but having looked at a few measurements came to the conclusion they would not be particularly helpful; hppodromes seem to have been designed for turns at speeds as high as the charioteer dared to go as opposed to tactical battlefield turns.  This is turn (sorry) raises the question: would a chariot on the battlefield want to make a low-speed turn, a high-speed turn or somewhere in between?

One constraint would be tactical circumstances: if attempting to execute a turn when skirmishing or having attempted a feint charge, a chariot would wish to get through 180 degrees or so fairly smartly, whether at speed or otherwise.  If a chariot line had ploughed through an opposing formation, the emphasis might be on turning together in order to maintain unit cohesion, so the smaller the individual turn radius the better, and hence the turn would be executed at low speed.

In a chariot-chariot clash, one side might suddenly decide upon discretion as the better part of valour.  The resultant attempt to turn hard at high speed could be severely detrimental to one's own formation.  Risk of tipping/upsetting a chariot was generally minimal: most if not all were designed with a wide axle base for stability, and it usually took something like a boulder or heap of corpses under one wheel at speed to tip a chariot over.

If one were part of the assembled chariotry of Syria and Asia Minor, and a single Egyptian chariot were coming from the opposite direction at speed, one might wish to haul round and go after it in pursuit.  This might however disrupt one's own formation as one slowed, swerved and then attempted to pick up speed going in the new direction, having quite possibly already lost the target in the swarm of friendly vehicles.  And so Ramses II escapes from Kadesh ...

All in all, I would think that turns in formation would be at low speed with individual vehicles turning with tight circles.  Anything else makes a mess of the formation or requires a looser formation.  One reason the Egyptians may have hung on to the 2-horse chariot for so long is that it does seem to have been very handy compared to the Assyrian and Achaemenid 4-horse formation-breakers.  This allowed the Egyptian chariotry to form tight lines and presumably manoeuvre with them, whereas 4-horse chariotry would be inclined to operate at greater frontal dispersal.

Getting back to the original subject, I would suggest, maybe even conclude, that chariot formations make desirable either a vehicle with a narrow turn radius, even if this has to be at slow-ish speed, or a vehicle which, through applied technique (such as Roy describes for the Sumerian four-wheel chariot), allows an otherwise ungainly vehicle to be put temporarily into a configuration which makes it easy to turn.

[Jim Webster]

I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.

Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off

[Erpingham]

I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.

Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off

If we were to pursue this parallel, we could suggest that how tight a chariot turned was less a function of design and more of the skill and nerve of the operator.  Who would push it to the design limit and who would keep a margin of error?

[Jim Webster]

I think the issue is that in the manual there would be recommended turning distances but in combat people would just have to try things.

Think of it in terms of the planes of WW2, where you knew the specs of the plane but every so often people would have to exceed those specs, and sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't and the wings fell off

If we were to pursue this parallel, we could suggest that how tight a chariot turned was less a function of design and more of the skill and nerve of the operator.  Who would push it to the design limit and who would keep a margin of error?

I think that in reality a lot of machinery handling is up to the skill and nerve (and experience) of the operator