Chariots as equid battering rams

[Justin Swanton]

"In chariot fighting the Britons begin by driving all over the field hurling javelins, and generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. Then, after making their way between the squadrons of their own cavalry, they jump down from the chariot and engage on foot. In the meantime their charioteers retire a short distance from the battle and place the chariots in such a position that their masters, if hard pressed by numbers, have an easy means of retreat to their own lines. Thus they combine the mobility of cavalry with the staying power of infantry; and by daily training and practice they attain such proficiency that even on a steep incline they are able to control the horses at full gallop, and to check and turn them in a moment. They can run along the chariot pole, stand on the yoke, and get back into the chariot as quick as lightning" (Gallic War, IV.33).

So according to Caesar, British chariots had no shock role. Other Roman writers tend to agree, as does the Irish literature (the scythed chariot episode in the Tain is a late interpolation).

There's a bit of a giveaway in this passage: generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to throw their opponents' ranks into disorder. If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them. My own take is that if the charioteers saw that conditions were not optimal for a chariot charge they dismounted and fought on foot rather than just sit in their chariots doing nothing.

British horses were quite small: pony-sized according to this site, which would have affected their ability to punch through infantry. They certainly weren't going to have any success against Roman legionaries (as Mithridates found out). Onagers are also small, about the size of a British horse/pony, but they can gallop as fast as a thoroughbred racing horse, which gives them tremendous energy on impact.

Several Roman sources speak of British and Caledonian scythed chariots:

They fight not only on horseback and on foot, but also in wagons and chariots [bigis et curribus], and are armed after the manner of the Gauls. They call those chariots covines which are set with scythes round about the naves [falcatis axibus] Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 3.43 - writing around AD43

[Britons, who paint their bodies with iron-red, drive] scythed two-horse chariots [bigis curribusque falcatis] which they commonly call essedae - Jordanes, Getica I.2.15

Bottom line is that some Britons/Caledonians at least used some scythed chariots but that British chariots weren't as effective in a shock role due to their poor pony-like horses, which meant that their drivers tended to employ them more for psychological intimidation (which hearkens back to their primary role) and a quick getaway.

[Erpingham]

Question: just how effective is a spear at physically stopping a galloping horse?

I'd say it depends what you do with it.  Throwing it probably wouldn't stop a horse.  Planting the end in the ground, braced with your foot and aiming the point at the horses chest would probably kill it but it would fall on top of you at speed.  For a chariot crew or cavalryman, the risk of mutual destruction from such an encounter would be a powerful factor in the effectiveness of the spear, beyond its physical effect.

[Erpingham]

This article has a lot of classical sources for the British chariot.

[Mick Hession]

There's a bit of a giveaway in this passage: generally the terror inspired by the horses and the noise of the wheels are sufficient to If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them. My own take is that if the charioteers saw that conditions were not optimal for a chariot charge they dismounted and fought on foot rather than just sit in their chariots doing nothingthrow their opponents' ranks into disorder. .

You're welcome to your own take but you are drawing a very specific inference from a very general statement. However all you've got is inference. Have you any instances of Celtic chariots being used in a shock role?   

They fight not only on horseback and on foot, but also in wagons and chariots [bigis et curribus], and are armed after the manner of the Gauls. They call those chariots covines which are set with scythes round about the naves [falcatis axibus] Pomponius Mela, De Chorographia 3.43 - writing around AD43

[Britons, who paint their bodies with iron-red, drive] scythed two-horse chariots [bigis curribusque falcatis] which they commonly call essedae - Jordanes, Getica I.2.15

Jordanes is not a primary source for Celtic chariots. I'm aware of the Pomponius Mela quote but he also believed that people couldn't survive the heat at Tropical latitudes. There's no indication he ever visited Britain so I wouldn't attach the same weight to his writing as I would to Caesar or Tacitus. 

Cheers
Mick       

[Andreas Johansson]

I'm aware of the Pomponius Mela quote but he also believed that people couldn't survive the heat at Tropical latitudes.

To be fair, that was the general opinion of ancient geographers.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm aware of the Pomponius Mela quote but he also believed that people couldn't survive the heat at Tropical latitudes. There's no indication he ever visited Britain so I wouldn't attach the same weight to his writing as I would to Caesar or Tacitus. 

Cheers
Mick     

Frontinus, governor of Britain from 76-78AD, wrote about the 4-horse scythed British chariot, the falcatas quadrigas:

Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check. - Stratagems, II.3.18

I think it's fair to conclude the British had scythed chariots and used them in a shock role, obliging Caesar to do something about them.

[Flaminpig0]

If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them.

You are assuming that the infantry are aware of the history of British chariots in action.

[Erpingham]

Frontinus, governor of Britain from 76-78AD, wrote about the 4-horse scythed British chariot, the falcatas quadrigas:

Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check. - Stratagems, II.3.18

I think it's fair to conclude the British had scythed chariots and used them in a shock role, obliging Caesar to do something about them.

But where did Frontinus get this information, as Caesar seems to have forgotten to mention it?

[Justin Swanton]

Frontinus, governor of Britain from 76-78AD, wrote about the 4-horse scythed British chariot, the falcatas quadrigas:

Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check. - Stratagems, II.3.18

I think it's fair to conclude the British had scythed chariots and used them in a shock role, obliging Caesar to do something about them.

But where did Frontinus get this information, as Caesar seems to have forgotten to mention it?

My mistake - Frontinus was talking about Gallic, not British, chariots. But Caesar may simply have omitted to mention them in his Gallic Wars because they played no significant part in the fighting.

[Justin Swanton]

If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them.

You are assuming that the infantry are aware of the history of British chariots in action.

Not quite: I conclude that since the infantry got the willies just from seeing chariots, they knew that those chariots were quite capable of charging them and had done so in the past.

[Duncan Head]

If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them.

You are assuming that the infantry are aware of the history of British chariots in action.

Not quite: I conclude that since the infantry got the willies just from seeing chariots, they knew that those chariots were quite capable of charging them and had done so in the past.

But Caesar says "When our troops were thrown into confusion in this fashion by the novel character of the fighting" (BG. IV.34) - in other words, the infantry got the willies specifically because they had not fought chariots before.

[Erpingham]

But Caesar may simply have omitted to mention them in his Gallic Wars because they played no significant part in the fighting.

It is interesting that Caesar completely omitted four horsed scythed chariots (different from the usual Gallic chariot, still in use as transport, which was two-horsed) but spoke in detail about British military two horse chariots.  Strange, too, that he didn't contrast them with the Gallic type.

Is it possible that Frontinus is garbling who was responsible for the stratagem, or even he's thinking of Galatian scythed chariots?

I must admit, I would be cautious building an operating model for British chariots by disregarding the evidence of Caesar and Tacitus and relying instead of passing references found elsewhere in Roman literature.

[Flaminpig0]

If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them.

You are assuming that the infantry are aware of the history of British chariots in action.

Not quite: I conclude that since the infantry got the willies just from seeing chariots, they knew that those chariots were quite capable of charging them and had done so in the past.

But Caesar says "When our troops were thrown into confusion in this fashion by the novel character of the fighting" (BG. IV.34) - in other words, the infantry got the willies specifically because they had not fought chariots before.

very much so.


The much maligned Newbury Ancient rules treated British chariots as dismounting elite skirmishers, which I suspect is closer to reality then the infamous 'Ancient British Panzer Division' which Phil Barker describes so eloquently in his 'purple primer'.

[Justin Swanton]

If British chariots never, ever, ever charged formed foot then the infantry would have no reason to fear them.

You are assuming that the infantry are aware of the history of British chariots in action.

Not quite: I conclude that since the infantry got the willies just from seeing chariots, they knew that those chariots were quite capable of charging them and had done so in the past.

But Caesar says "When our troops were thrown into confusion in this fashion by the novel character of the fighting" (BG. IV.34) - in other words, the infantry got the willies specifically because they had not fought chariots before.

What exactly is the novel character of the fighting that throws the troops into confusion? Not the danger of being charged by chariots - which they knew about otherwise they wouldn't have feared them - but the way the Britons used a chariot-cavalry combination to surround the Roman infantry and attack them with a combination of the solidity of foot with the mobility of mounted troops.

[Justin Swanton]

But Caesar may simply have omitted to mention them in his Gallic Wars because they played no significant part in the fighting.

It is interesting that Caesar completely omitted four horsed scythed chariots (different from the usual Gallic chariot, still in use as transport, which was two-horsed) but spoke in detail about British military two horse chariots.  Strange, too, that he didn't contrast them with the Gallic type.

Is it possible that Frontinus is garbling who was responsible for the stratagem, or even he's thinking of Galatian scythed chariots?

I must admit, I would be cautious building an operating model for British chariots by disregarding the evidence of Caesar and Tacitus and relying instead of passing references found elsewhere in Roman literature.

It could be that Caesar mentions British 2-horse chariots because they gave him serious problems which 4-horse chariots (which one can posit were far less numerous) did not.