Chariots as equid battering rams

[Justin Swanton]

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. Their role as mobile missile platforms and troop conveyors was IMHO a secondary one.

Trawling through YouTube I came across some videos that show that galloping horses are quite happy to ride over humans if trying to avoid them would slow them down. Examples here, here and especially here.

Notice that the horses barely slow down after knocking the humans flat. This argues an impressive impact power.

I did some rough calculations on how many joules of energy are required to knock down a man weighing about 75kg with his legs standing 1 yard apart if he was hit in the pelvis - about 400J, and then how many joules of energy are contained in a horse (actually an onager for my calculations) that weighs 250KG and moves at about 55km/h - about 8000J. I don't have the maths in front of me right now but the upshot is that the onager could knock down about 20 men before being brought to a halt. Hitch 4 onagers together in front of a cart and they become a formidable shock weapon.

One question came to mind: chariots became very light in design - Egyptian models weighed as little as 35kg - yet they were never pulled by less than two horses. Why is that? A gig or whiskey, which weighs more, can get along at a good speed behind a single horse.

My working hypothesis is that two or more horses hitched firmly together to a cross-yoke find it difficult or impossible to swerve to avoid an obstacle. Each horse of a two-horse team would tend to go in an opposite direction (not wanting to collide with each other) and hence each would bring the other back in line. In a three-horse or four-horse team the middle horses would keep going straight, obliging the flanking horses to follow suite. This makes the chariot a perfect battering ram against enemy infantry. Also the horses would clear the way for the chariot itself, the large wheels of which could easily ride over prone enemy infantry.

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

And now to the floor...

[Duncan Head]

Trawling through YouTube I came across some videos that show that galloping horses are quite happy to ride over humans if trying to avoid them would slow them down. Examples here, here and especially here.

All of which show horses trampling over individuals, not groups of men - not even loosely-formed ones.

[Justin Swanton]

Trawling through YouTube I came across some videos that show that galloping horses are quite happy to ride over humans if trying to avoid them would slow them down. Examples here, here and especially here.

All of which show horses trampling over individuals, not groups of men - not even loosely-formed ones.

Sure. I included them to show how little a single human being slows down a galloping horse, which tends to support my working hypothesis that you would need an infantry line in the region of 20-deep to stop it if the infantry don't have weapons capable of killing the horse.

This of course is all heading towards numerically huge Fertile Crescent armies with a glance at their attendant logistical and movement problems. 

[Mick Hession]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

And now to the floor...

I don't have the details at hand, but at Waterloo didn't the French cavalry ride up to and around the British squares, indicating that being mown down from a distance wasn't the issue, more the lack of a gap to ride into?

Cheers
Mick

[Erpingham]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

I'm not sure muskets are the key thing.

Take this Roman anti-cavalry formation - so good that the Byzantines were still using it centuries later

If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause.

Arrian : Array against the Alans

Indeed, it may not having needed all four ranks

Indeed, as our knights were fighting on their own with their swords and their short weapons, they would have feared attacking the foot soldiers equipped with lances: these, with their lances longer than knives and swords, and moreover lined up in an unbreachable formation of triple layers of walls, were so cleverly disposed that there was no way that they could be breached.

William the Breton : The Phillipiad

I always thought, incidentally, that the theory that a horse would see a line of infantry like a hedge or wall it couldn't jump was a better one than horses won't stand on people.  Individuals standing in the way of a galloping horse are more an analogy for going through a skirmish line, IMO.

I await your quotation of sources to back up your theory with interest.

[Justin Swanton]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

And now to the floor...

I don't have the details at hand, but at Waterloo didn't the French cavalry ride up to and around the British squares, indicating that being mown down from a distance wasn't the issue, more the lack of a gap to ride into?

Cheers
Mick

Muskets are notoriously inaccurate at anything except virtually point blank range - hence the low casualties in infantry vs infantry volleys. But fire a volley just before the cavalry charge rides home and it is a different matter.

[RichT]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it.

I think that is wrong in general and in detail, though going through why would be off topic, and would probably just end with the usual response in these sort of discussions - along the lines of 'Napoleonic examples are totally irrelevant, and everything was different'.

When we've talked about cavalry's ability to charge home before and Napoleonic squares came up, we have found a few examples of cavalry who did successfully charge into a square, but more (many more) when they didn't (which is why squares were used), and could never rule out (in those cases where they did charge home) that the cavalry weren't penetrating gaps (caused by men killed or fleeing or just flinching out of the way) rather than actually smashing into them. There are some examples of cavalry forcing their horses to collide with infantry, but the result is always bad for the horses, usually bad for the riders, and not necessarily efficacious in breaking the infantry.

The consensus is that a mounted charges is a terror tactic designed to make enemy infantry flinch, break or run away; if the infantry stood firm they were usually (but not always) safe (relatively). Evidence (rather than theorising) to contradict this consensus would be interesting.

The idea that yoked horses are less able to swerve aside is an interesting one too - no idea if it is true. Chariots designed to charge into contact (if possible) seem to be specially equipped for this (scythed chariots) - and even so the simple expedient of leaving gaps for them to pass through seems to have worked OK.

Still, at least this has woken people up.

Also - equine battering rams surely?

[Andreas Johansson]

One question came to mind: chariots became very light in design - Egyptian models weighed as little as 35kg - yet they were never pulled by less than two horses. Why is that? A gig or whiskey, which weighs more, can get along at a good speed behind a single horse.

The relevant number is surely the weight of the vehicle + crew and equipment, which is probably more like 150-200 kg for the Egyptian chariot, both crew and horses frequently being armoured.

What, anyway, gives you the impression that shock was the primary role of chariots? Egyptian reliefs mostly show their crew as shooting arrows, which prima facie would suggest that to be their main role.

Also, as Rich alludes to, scythed chariots of later eras have a terrible track record. Why would conventional chariots be better shock weapons, and if they were why did the conventional ones disappear and the scythed ones be invented?

[Justin Swanton]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

I'm not sure muskets are the key thing.

Take this Roman anti-cavalry formation - so good that the Byzantines were still using it centuries later

If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause.

Arrian : Array against the Alans


Indeed, it may not having needed all four ranks

Indeed, as our knights were fighting on their own with their swords and their short weapons, they would have feared attacking the foot soldiers equipped with lances: these, with their lances longer than knives and swords, and moreover lined up in an unbreachable formation of triple layers of walls, were so cleverly disposed that there was no way that they could be breached.

William the Breton : The Phillipiad

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). Notice also that they have to 'max out' to have a chance of stopping the cavalry - "the strongest possible manner". Note finally that this is a formation designed to stop/deter cavalry - individual horsemen - not chariots that are much heavier entities.

I always thought, incidentally, that the theory that a horse would see a line of infantry like a hedge or wall it couldn't jump was a better one than horses won't stand on people.  Individuals standing in the way of a galloping horse are more an analogy for going through a skirmish line, IMO.

My guess is that cavalry/chariotry horses were deceptively trained to think humans gave way easily before a charge or a simple advance at a walk, trot or canter. A horse would probably not take part in more than one full-scale battle in the course of a campaign, smaller skirmishes would be much looser affairs not involving infantry walls. By the time the horse learns that people aren't as easy as all that the battle is lost or won anyway.

I await your quotation of sources to back up your theory with interest.

This from Patrick:

But Abradatas plunged directly through them and hurled himself upon the Egyptian phalanx; and the nearest of those who were arrayed with him also joined in the charge. Now, it has been demonstrated on many other occasions that there is no stronger force than that which is composed of comrades that are close friends; and it was shown to be true on this occasion. For it was only the personal friends and mess-mates of Abradatas who pressed home the charge with him, while the rest of the charioteers, when they saw that the Egyptians with their dense throng withstood them, turned aside after the fleeing chariots and pursued them. But in the place where Abradatas and his companions charged, the Egyptians could not make an opening for them because the men on either side of them stood firm; consequently, those of the enemy who stood upright were struck in the furious charge of the horses and overthrown, and those who fell were crushed to pieces by the horses and the wheels, they and their arms; and whatever was caught in the scythes—everything, arms and men, was horribly mangled. As in this indescribable confusion the wheels bounded over the heaps of every sort, Abradatas and others of those who went with him into the charge were thrown to the ground, and there, though they proved themselves men of valour, they were cut down and slain. - Xenophon

These are scythed chariots but the principle holds: the horses are quite happy to charge into infantry; it's only the less courageous drivers who flinch at the last minute, with the quite legitimate fear of dying when their horses and vehicles are finally stopped by the mass of foot.

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

The conclusion seems to be that infantry have to interlock together with shields or a closely-packed formation or something similar to stop horses quickly. Just standing in intermediate order doesn't cut it. Otherwise they need to deploy in great depth to slow the horses and eventually bring them to a halt.

[Mick Hession]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it. Were the spears of Fertile Crescent infantry as effective? I doubt it.

And now to the floor...

I don't have the details at hand, but at Waterloo didn't the French cavalry ride up to and around the British squares, indicating that being mown down from a distance wasn't the issue, more the lack of a gap to ride into?

Cheers
Mick

Muskets are notoriously inaccurate at anything except virtually point blank range - hence the low casualties in infantry vs infantry volleys. But fire a volley just before the cavalry charge rides home and it is a different matter.

Yet infantry lines, which were able to bring more firepower to bear, were notoriously vulnerable to being ridden down.

But, as Richard says, Napoleonic parallels rarely get us anywhere. 

Cheers
Mick

[Andreas Johansson]

if the infantry don't have weapons capable of killing the horse.

Surely the rabbliest Bronze Age spear-carrier had weapon capable of killing a horse. The skill and bravery on the part of the wielder to actually do so when faced by a charging horse might be in doubt, in particular as being hit by a dying horse is little if any better than being so by a live one, but the capability of the weapon can hardly be in doubt.

[Justin Swanton]

As a final point, Napoleonic squares though only 4-deep worked (usually) against enemy cavalry since the horses could be killed by muskets before penetrating the square, and no cavalryman wanted to deliberately sacrifice his mount if he could help it.

I think that is wrong in general and in detail, though going through why would be off topic, and would probably just end with the usual response in these sort of discussions - along the lines of 'Napoleonic examples are totally irrelevant, and everything was different'.

Please go ahead. The thread is about the nature of the impact of a moving horse on stationary infantry and in that optic I think the Napoleonic era does offer useful input.

When we've talked about cavalry's ability to charge home before and Napoleonic squares came up, we have found a few examples of cavalry who did successfully charge into a square, but more (many more) when they didn't (which is why squares were used), and could never rule out (in those cases where they did charge home) that the cavalry weren't penetrating gaps (caused by men killed or fleeing or just flinching out of the way) rather than actually smashing into them. There are some examples of cavalry forcing their horses to collide with infantry, but the result is always bad for the horses, usually bad for the riders, and not necessarily efficacious in breaking the infantry.

The consensus is that a mounted charges is a terror tactic designed to make enemy infantry flinch, break or run away; if the infantry stood firm they were usually (but not always) safe (relatively). Evidence (rather than theorising) to contradict this consensus would be interesting.

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?

Also - equine battering rams surely?

Equid, if you want to include onagers. I've changed the thread heading. 

[Justin Swanton]

if the infantry don't have weapons capable of killing the horse.

Surely the rabbliest Bronze Age spear-carrier had weapon capable of killing a horse. The skill and bravery on the part of the wielder to actually do so when faced by a charging horse might be in doubt, in particular as being hit by a dying horse is little if any better than being so by a live one, but the capability of the weapon can hardly be in doubt.

Methinks he would have to brace the spear against the ground to have any real effect. Just holding it pointed at the horse would probably not be sufficient. There's a lot to penetrate before his spear reaches any vital spots of the horse's anatomy.

[Duncan Head]

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

These are scythed chariots...

... in a work of fiction.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

The conclusion seems to be that infantry have to interlock together with shields or a closely-packed formation or something similar to stop horses quickly. Just standing in intermediate order doesn't cut it.

Accepting this as true, do we have any particular reason to believe chariot age infantry didn't adopt such expedients? It's hard to tell exactly how closely the Assyrian infantry in the reliefs discussed in this thread, say, are supposed to be, but it looks fairly tight to me, and their shields are certainly large enough they could be interlocked.