Chariots as equid battering rams

[Andreas Johansson]

Xenephon!s Cyropaedia has an  interesting view on the Persian devision to invent the svythed chariot. Its likely unfounded, but is plausible.

I do believe you are refering to the passage I quoted in reply #43 in this thead.

[PMBardunias]

As to analogies with Napoleonic warfare, the battle that informs me on what happens when horse meets formed infantry is Dresden.  In most battles squares were not broken by horse without the help of artillery or in one case a horse that slid into the lines dead if I recall.  Where lancers run down infantry, it is because they did not form square or mass together, but were caught in line and rolled up, as at Albuera. Squares were broken at Dresden and Katzbach river a few days later, in the rain.  This removed the use of firearms from the equation.  But the cavalry did not charge home into the square because the mud prevented a charge at speed.  Instead lancers rode around the square and made use of their longer reach to pick off infantry.  Historically most infantry had longer spears than cavalry, but cases where this was reversed are worth looking at. I think you will find that either the infantry break because they know they are outreached or the cavalry fights their way in at the walk.

As to what happens when you ride into a group of men, it depends on the spacing the men are maintaining. With enough space, you are simply riding down men as shown in those videos, but if the men are packed together a bit, you bleed energy packing them together in front of you and your force is absorbed by the crowd. It is probably impossible to set up, but if you hit a crowd packed as tight as possible, you would be stopped dead and the rear ranks of the formation would be launched off their feet like a fleshy Newton's cradle.

[Justin Swanton]

There isn't any conclusive evidence the British used scythed chariots but none either that they didn't, and I prefer to accept a primary source if there is no compelling reason to reject it.

What compelling evidence do you have to reject Xenophon's statement that Cyrenaean chariots fought only at a distance?

I think Xenophon was right on the money - in everything he said.

Notice that he describes the Cyrenaeans using 4-horse chariots. Four horses to pull a driver and archer around on the battlefield? Why? One horse would be perfectly adequate for the job. Notice also that he finds the Cyrenaean chariot a huge waste of men and resources as it just adds up to one big mobile skirmisher archer. So he abolishes it and replaces it with a chariot capable of performing a shock role.

Xenophon is describing the state of affairs at the time of Cyrus, i.e. at the end of the 4th century, when the chariot had long since had its heyday as a shock weapon, but was still kept in existence for its secondary functions though its design retained its primary purpose of charging formed infantry with a tight pack of horses. Cyrus tweaks the design and restores the chariot to its original role.

[aligern]

Yes, you are right Andreas, Xenophon's genesis of the scythed chariot  is described in your post #43.
we cannot, of course trust Xenophon here, he is writing something that would later be called 'a mirror fir princes' rather than a work of history.  However, the scythed chariot had to be invented somewhere and most lijely by Persians and there is a seductive line of reasoning that the original chariots grew heavier and became four horse to enable the breaking of infantry formations and that as the infantry became better at resisting them something new was needed rather than a four horse chariot with four men which rode at the infantry , fircing them to flinch and open gaps. The scythed chariot abandons the mobile missile role of the four horsed chariot and concentrates on the shock role.
Like ancient authors and modern editors the militaries of the ancient middle east seem to have been obsessed by this militarily useless weapon . We should project back its lack of results to the chariots that preceded it. If chariots were ever intended to smash into infantry formations abd scythed chariots were better than their predecessors then we can only imagine how useless those preceding chariots must have been at shock action........abd how much better as missile platforms.

[Mark G]

Well, seven pages in, and four of them are posted by Justin.

Justin, if your theory is already perfected, which it seems to be since your reject every counter point, correction or criticism of it, then why did you bother starting this thread?

And can you just post your conclusion and be done, please.

There is clearly no point in anyone responding to you on this topic, as there usually isn't when you have one of your ideas.

[Andreas Johansson]

I think Xenophon was right on the money - in everything he said.

Notice that he describes the Cyrenaeans using 4-horse chariots. Four horses to pull a driver and archer around on the battlefield?

Point of order: he doesn't say anything about an "archer". Given that this mode of charioteering is described as "Trojan", we should rather assume javelineer, which would also fit with Herodotus' Libyan chariots with javelins.

Why? One horse would be perfectly adequate for the job.

Bold assumption, given that nobody used one-horse chariots.

Notice also that he finds the Cyrenaean chariot a huge waste of men and resources as it just adds up to one big mobile skirmisher archer. So he abolishes it and replaces it with a chariot capable of performing a shock role.

Nitpick: He didn't replace the Cyrenaean chariot, since that was till in use in Xenophon's time; he, allegedly, replaced similar chariots in use among the Asiatics.

Xenophon is describing the state of affairs at the time of Cyrus, i.e. at the end of the 4th century, when the chariot had long since had its heyday as a shock weapon, but was still kept in existence for its secondary functions though its design retained its primary purpose of charging formed infantry with a tight pack of horses. Cyrus tweaks the design and restores the chariot to its original role.

The time of Cyrus is, of course, mid-sixth century.

But minor objections aside, I take it, then, that you accept that not all chariots were used as shock weapons; Cyrenaean and, from some to-be-determined point in time until the reforms of Cyrus, Asiatic ones fought only at a distance. Correct?

[Patrick Waterson]

The chariot as a missile platform has serious limitations compared to a massed archer formation.  Deploying chariots in depth is possible, but coordinating their shooting would be difficult and it would be more effective to dismount the shooters and line them up as archers, in which case why do you really need the chariots in the first place?

I call attention to the two (semi-) detailed accounts of chariotry in action in Egyptian records: Megiddo and Kadesh.  At Megiddo, the Egyptian chariotry charges and routs the opposing army.  At Kadesh, the chariotry of Hatti charge and rout the division of Amun.  It is hard to see any skirmishing role or practice in any of this.

Xenophon's description of Cyrenean chariot tactics may well be accurate (I see no reason to attempt to rubbish this particular source).  When Merneptah took on opponents based in Libya he had his archers work them over for six hours, which is a long time in combat.  This suggests that archery, or at least missilery, was the preferred mode for combatting whatever and whoever Merneptah and the Cyreneans fought, and this overt reliance on missiles may have been opponent-specific.

[Jim Webster]

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned it, but if discussing Chariots and infantry, do we really need to take into account Drews, The End of the Bronze Age Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. - And other work that he's done

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

I think Xenophon was right on the money - in everything he said.

Notice that he describes the Cyrenaeans using 4-horse chariots. Four horses to pull a driver and archer around on the battlefield?

Point of order: he doesn't say anything about an "archer". Given that this mode of charioteering is described as "Trojan", we should rather assume javelineer, which would also fit with Herodotus' Libyan chariots with javelins.

Fine.

Why? One horse would be perfectly adequate for the job.

Bold assumption, given that nobody used one-horse chariots.

Just so. Why?

Notice also that he finds the Cyrenaean chariot a huge waste of men and resources as it just adds up to one big mobile skirmisher archer. So he abolishes it and replaces it with a chariot capable of performing a shock role.

Nitpick: He didn't replace the Cyrenaean chariot, since that was till in use in Xenophon's time; he, allegedly, replaced similar chariots in use among the Asiatics.

OK.

Xenophon is describing the state of affairs at the time of Cyrus, i.e. at the end of the 4th century, when the chariot had long since had its heyday as a shock weapon, but was still kept in existence for its secondary functions though its design retained its primary purpose of charging formed infantry with a tight pack of horses. Cyrus tweaks the design and restores the chariot to its original role.

The time of Cyrus is, of course, mid-sixth century.

Right.

But minor objections aside, I take it, then, that you accept that not all chariots were used as shock weapons; Cyrenaean and, from some to-be-determined point in time until the reforms of Cyrus, Asiatic ones fought only at a distance. Correct?

Well (and this is also in answer to Mark), I've changed my mind about half a dozen times so far in this thread and am on a learning curve. Britons didn't, habitually at least, use their chariots in a shock role and neither obviously did the Cyrenaeans et al. during the time of Xenophon and Cyrus the Younger. The chariot's effectiveness as a shock weapon declined over time but it was still retained long past its sell-by date, as evinced by the Pontics fielding it against the Romans. Essentially, once it had become completely useless as a shock weapon, even if just a psychological one, it was abandoned.

I think though that something like a chariot took a long time to go out of fashion in Antiquity - much longer than would be the case in modern times - because its actual use on the battlefield was so brief and rare, battles themselves being brief and rare. It could take decades or even a century or two before enough battles had accumulated to convince military thinkers that a particular weapon or tactic no longer worked.

[PMBardunias]

"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?"

Speed. It is proverbial that two horses running together run faster, and the added weight to put another horse on is negligible.  The classic racing chariots were 4 horse chariots with ultra-light woven frames.

[Justin Swanton]

"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?"

Speed. It is proverbial that two horses running together run faster, and the added weight to put another horse on is negligible.  The classic racing chariots were 4 horse chariots with ultra-light woven frames.

Why the speed? Chariots were by far and away the fastest means of transport in Antiquity and I suspect that they were, at least initially, faster than cavalry. A one-horse chariot could easily outpace any man on foot. And if speed mattered in chariot vs chariot combat then why weren't all chariots pulled by a 4-horse team?

[Patrick Waterson]

Well (and this is also in answer to Mark), I've changed my mind about half a dozen times so far in this thread and am on a learning curve. Britons didn't, habitually at least, use their chariots in a shock role and neither obviously did the Cyrenaeans et al. during the time of Xenophon and Cyrus the Younger. The chariot's effectiveness as a shock weapon declined over time but it was still retained long past its sell-by date, as evinced by the Pontics fielding it against the Romans. Essentially, once it had become completely useless as a shock weapon, even if just a psychological one, it was abandoned.

It might be worth pointing out that scythed chariots seem to have been integral to the Pontic army during much of the 1st century BC and not just conjured up for a last hurrah at Zela; in 89 BC Mithridates' vanguard defeated the Bithynian army by following up a scythed chariot charge (albeit against cavalry); prior to Zela Mithridates had defeated Triarius on that selfsame battleground and more recently Pharnaces had defeated Domitius' composite Roman/Romanised Galatian army as one of his 'forty-two victories'.  One can draw a line between 89 BC and 47 BC and assume that the scythed chariot remained in service throughout (it also appears at Orchomenus in 86 BC, albeit unsuccessfully), providing Pharnaces with at least some of the numerous successes about which he boasted.  Such a track record would account for the extreme confidence with which he fielded the things at Zela.

And if speed mattered in chariot vs chariot combat then why weren't all chariots pulled by a 4-horse team?

A valid question.  When on the battlefield rather than the racing circuit, 4-horse chariots seem to have been more robustly built.  This suggests (at least to me) that the extra horsepower was needed to achieve decent performance with the heavier chariot body.

What the four-horse chariot did seem to have was relative unstoppability.  I am sure we have al encountered Sargon II on his eighth campaign against Urartu, when he is on the march through the mountains, turns a corner and there is the Urartian army deployed before him.  He attacks straight off the march with his chariot and accompanying cavalry, the rest of the army following, and cleaves the line of his foes asunder, putting them to flight.  Whether or not his chariot was at the apex of the charge it was intimately involved and appears to have been effective in making or assisting the initial penetration which determined the course of the battle.

[Justin Swanton]

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned it, but if discussing Chariots and infantry, do we really need to take into account Drews, The End of the Bronze Age Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. - And other work that he's done

Jim

Got it. 

[Jim Webster]

I don't know if anybody else has mentioned it, but if discussing Chariots and infantry, do we really need to take into account Drews, The End of the Bronze Age Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. - And other work that he's done

Jim

Got it. 

I think you'll find it interesting 

[PMBardunias]

Why the speed? Chariots were by far and away the fastest means of transport in Antiquity and I suspect that they were, at least initially, faster than cavalry. A one-horse chariot could easily outpace any man on foot. And if speed mattered in chariot vs chariot combat then why weren't all chariots pulled by a 4-horse team?

Multiple horses make chariots faster. Why you need speed in battle is a different question. Speed would seem to be important in any mobile missile platform- as we see with tanks.  Why were all chariots were not 4 horses? You can have twice as many chariots if they are pulled by 2 horses and still be fast enough. If you move to 4 one horse chariots, you are not faster than a horse alone. A one horse chariot can outpace a man when it gets going on level ground, but it cannot out-accelerate a man.  More importantly, your single horse gets blown fast when pulling a chariot by itself.

Are you familiar with "chariot runners"?  That they exist seems to indicate that chariots did not usually go much faster that a man could follow. They would have functioned much like the Greek runners who accompanied horse. I don't remember if it is Drews, but someone suggested the sword and shield men we see at the time of the sea peoples originated as a troop type as chariot runners.  I am not a fan of that theory.