Chariots as equid battering rams

[Justin Swanton]

But that's just it - infantry couldn't swarm a chariot. Chariots could turn on a dime and be off long before the infantry could reach them.

I think the idea is that chariot runners support their chariot when their chariot is in combat with the other chariots
I think the idea is that the two lines of chariots 'clash' by passing through each other, and then the chariot runners mug those weakened by the clash
Given the fact that a chariot has a far larger turning circle than a man on foot or a horse, especially when moving at speed (or with one horse or driver wounded) then this would give the chariot force with chariot runners a big advantage over the chariot force without chariot runners

That makes sense. Chariots brought to standstill would also be very vulnerable to infantry, in the same way infantry supported cavalry for cavalry vs cavalry engagements.

[Patrick Waterson]

The one time Indian chariots discernibly encountered the Western historical sphere, Alexander disposed of them so effectively they never even had a chance to show whether they had a role.

Not my period. So I have an obvious question.
Do we know how or why they were disposed of?

I was referring to a specific event, the Battle of the Hydaspes, in which Alexander's men trounced the Indian chariots without the latter doing anything discernible except being subtracted from the Indian order of battle.  There were two clashes involving Indian chariots: the first, when Porus' son was sent to intercept Alexander's crossing, went thus (all quotes from Arrian Book V):

"Aristobulus says that the son of Porus arrived with about sixty chariots, before Alexander made his later passage from the large island, and that he could have hindered Alexander's crossing (for he made the passage with difficulty even when no one opposed him); if the Indians had leaped down from their chariots and assaulted those who first emerged from the water. But he passed by with the chariots and thus made the passage quite safe for Alexander; who on reaching the bank discharged his horse-archers against the Indians in the chariots, and these were easily put to rout, many of them being wounded."

Or thus:

"But Ptolemy, son of Lagus, with whom I agree, gives a different account. This author also says that Porus despatched his son, but not at the head of merely sixty chariots ... Ptolemy says that the son of Porus arrived at the head of 2000 cavalry and 120 chariots; but that Alexander had already made even the last passage from the island before he appeared."

and then:

"Ptolemy also says that Alexander in the first place sent the horse-archers against these, and led the cavalry himself, thinking that Porus was approaching with all his forces, and that this body of cavalry was marching in front of the rest of his army, being drawn up by him as the vanguard. But as soon as he had ascertained with accuracy the number of the Indians, he immediately made a rapid charge upon them with the cavalry around him. When they perceived that Alexander himself and the body of cavalry around him had made the assault, not in line of battle regularly formed, but by squadrons, they gave way; and 400 of their cavalry, including the son of Porus, fell in the contest. The chariots also were captured, horses and all, being heavy and slow in the retreat, and useless in the action itself on account of the clayey ground."

So on this occasion the chariots were essentially stuck in the mud, and did not shine against either horse archers or shock cavalry.  On to the battle itself: Arrian notes Porus' deployment of his remaining chariots, this time on sandy ground where they would not get stuck.

"... on both sides of the infantry he had posted the cavalry, in front of which were placed the chariots on both wings of his army."

Alexander dealt with them in a similar way to previously.

"But when they came within range of missiles, he launched the horse-archers, 1000 in number, against the left wing of the Indians, in order to throw those of the enemy who were posted there into confusion by the incessant storm of arrows and by the charge of the horses. He himself with the Companion cavalry marched along rapidly against the left wing of the barbarians, being eager to attack them in flank while still in a state of disorder, before their cavalry could be deployed."

The Indian cavalry, we remember, was behind the Indian chariots, which to Ptolemy's mind meant 'undeployed'.  From this point, there is no further mention of Indian chariots, only cavalry, and it would appear that the combination of horse archery and Companions attacking in flank prised the Indian cavalry away from the chariots and left the latter, already troubled by the horse archers, easy pickings for the Macedonian cavalry (the Indian cavalry were then reinforced by the horse from their right and the battle proceeded without further mention of the chariots).

Your question also set me thinking about when Indian armies did finally abandon chariots, and what I can glean of the picture is as follows (others may be able to improve on this). Online sources are minimal, so I ended up going back to army lists, and it looks as if the 2-horse Indian chariot vanishes around 320 BC, with the four-horse chariot lasting until about AD 50.  Around then the Kushan Empire was on the rise, and this horse-archer-using culture apparently considered chariots superfluous.

The overall picture would seem to be that Indian chariots met their match in horse archers, but this may be a simplistic conclusion.

[Edit: corrected a few typos in the quotes(!)]

[Erpingham]

But would it?  Assuming we get one of the seemingly very rare cases of one side not chickening out beforehand (I think we may be broadly in agreement that one side usually would), we get horses coming together at speed, but does this actually kill or even maim the horses?  I would imagine it would produce some bruising, but how sure are we about crippling injuries and/or deaths?  The chariot crews themselves are safe from the initial impact and only have to worry about inertia vs safety straps and the inherent strength of chariot frames (if either fails they go headfirst into the rear of a horse - a relatively soft landing, considering, provided there is no follow-up with the rear hooves.) 

I think you have a very optimistic view of the survivability of horses in this situation.  As to the survivability of vehicles when a horse is lost at speed, I direct you to Egyptian art, where chariot crashes (of non-Egyptians) are handled with some animation.

OK, thanks, although I would suggest substituting 'charging' for 'crashing' for a more accurate tactical picture.

We have one person in this discussion who is quite keen on chariots crashing into each other and another who is keen on chariots crashing into bodies of infantry, so I think the contrast was warranted in this case

Does this 'bow-based tactic' require a shoot-and-scoot system and complete avoidance of melee in any shape or form?  Or would it permit something of each, depending upon circumstances?

It does not require an avoidance of close-combat.  Some of the options are given in my earlier post in reply to Justin.   

[Dangun]

Assuming we get one of the seemingly very rare cases of one side not chickening out beforehand...

How do we know that is rare?

... we get horses coming together at speed, but does this actually kill or even maim the horses?  I would imagine it would produce some bruising, but how sure are we about crippling injuries and/or deaths?

Chariots are very fragile. You don't need an outright death.
You have 8 legs and 2 wheels, and if you lose any of them the vehicle is lost, and the passengers much more likely to be killed.

This is a neat fit with your explanation that Alexander's horse archers dominated the chariots.

This fragility is partly why I think we are overestimating the willingness of a driver to put his chariot into dense infantry. Sure you might main half a dozen enemies, but you also die.

The other reason is of course the complete lack of evidence

[Flaminpig0]

Perhaps part of the reason for the chariot runners is to defend and possibly rescue/ extract the crews of immobilized chariots?

[Erpingham]

So, where are we now?

Discussions of chariot/infantry interaction seem to have stalled a bit, with a transfer of interest to chariot/chariot combat, with a bit of chariot/cavalry stuff for good measure.

A few questions that have arisen for me are :
Is the vulnerability of Middle Eastern Infantry to chariots entirely based on a belief in the uselessness of said infantry?  I'm reminded that there used to be such a similar view about Early medieval knights and infantry, which would not be held today. 

What was the role of chariot-accompanying infantry?  How did they maintain contact in the proposed chariot charges?  Or did the charges move at lower speeds?  Or perhaps the charges were short and the infantry would catch up in time for a slower speed melee between opposing chariots?

What is the difference between the effectivness of horse archers against chariots and that of  bow-equipped light chariots?

[Erpingham]

Perhaps part of the reason for the chariot runners is to defend and possibly rescue/ extract the crews of immobilized chariots?

It is certainly possible.  But some armies had lots of chariot support infantry.  According to this wikipedia article, Chinese chariots had between 10 and seventy attached infantry.  I'd be interested in one of the Chinese-aware members comments on this.

[Flaminpig0]

Perhaps part of the reason for the chariot runners is to defend and possibly rescue/ extract the crews of immobilized chariots?

It is certainly possible.  But some armies had lots of chariot support infantry.  According to this wikipedia article, Chinese chariots had between 10 and seventy attached infantry.  I'd be interested in one of the Chinese-aware members comments on this.

It probably varies from army to army, in some armies they might be a dedicated professional support force in others they might be servants or feudal followers.

[Justin Swanton]

So, where are we now?

Discussions of chariot/infantry interaction seem to have stalled a bit, with a transfer of interest to chariot/chariot combat, with a bit of chariot/cavalry stuff for good measure.

A few questions that have arisen for me are :
Is the vulnerability of Middle Eastern Infantry to chariots entirely based on a belief in the uselessness of said infantry?  I'm reminded that there used to be such a similar view about Early medieval knights and infantry, which would not be held today.

My own take at present is that Middle Eastern infantry for a long time didn't have an effective anti-cavalry formation other than great depth, as horses can happily smash through a regular line of infantry (say 8 deep) that isn't properly disposed to repulse them. So long as the horses can knock the men down one after the other and not all together (quite doable if the men are in intermediate order with 3 feet per rank) they can bash through lines up to, say, 20 men deep before running out of momentum. Notice in the three videos at the beginning of the thread how the people are immediately knocked flat when contacted by the horses. The later uselessness of chariots is due to infantry finally adopting effective dispositions, for example compressing the first few ranks together, though I'm not aware of any explicit references in the sources on how exactly they eventually learned to stop chariots (besides opening gaps in the line).

What was the role of chariot-accompanying infantry?  How did they maintain contact in the proposed chariot charges? Or did the charges move at lower speeds?  Or perhaps the charges were short and the infantry would catch up in time for a slower speed melee between opposing chariots?

I thought about that. Evidently the chariots approach enemy infantry at a pace the accompanying infantry could match, getting up to charge speed only over the last couple of dozen yards or so, which would also keep the horses fresh until the last moment.

What is the difference between the effectivness of horse archers against chariots and that of  bow-equipped light chariots?

Horse archers are cheaper than chariots so an army can field more of them, and horse archers supply more firepower per square dekametre than chariots - you can probably fit two or more horse archers into the area occupied by one chariot.

[Duncan Head]

According to this wikipedia article, Chinese chariots had between 10 and seventy attached infantry.  I'd be interested in one of the Chinese-aware members comments on this.

Damn. that's the second time a reply has completely disappeared.

Chinese accounts give widely different figures. Some Western Zhou inscriptions IIRC give strengths of 10 infantry per chariot, but not necessarily supporting infantry. At Xuge in 707 the Zheng centre had squadrons of 25 chariots supported by five files (squads, groups) of five infantry "to maintain a close and unbroken front" - but whether this is 25 men per chariot or per squadron is not clear. Sunzi, in maybe the 5th century, says an army of 1,000 chariots involves 1,000 heavy wagons and 100,000 armoured infantry - no indication of how they work together.

[Justin Swanton]

According to this wikipedia article, Chinese chariots had between 10 and seventy attached infantry.  I'd be interested in one of the Chinese-aware members comments on this.

Damn. that's the second time a reply has completely disappeared.

Chinese accounts give widely different figures. Some Western Zhou inscriptions IIRC give strengths of 10 infantry per chariot, but not necessarily supporting infantry. At Xuge in 707 the Zheng centre had squadrons of 25 chariots supported by five files (squads, groups) of five infantry "to maintain a close and unbroken front" - but whether this is 25 men per chariot or per squadron is not clear. Sunzi, in maybe the 5th century, says an army of 1,000 chariots involves 1,000 heavy wagons and 100,000 armoured infantry - no indication of how they work together.

Would there be more than two possible ways for infantry to support chariots?

1. In chariot vs chariot or chariot vs cavalry combat, the chariots stop the enemy chariots/cavalry and static melee ensues, in which the supporting infantry can slip between the enemy chariots/cavalry and do bad things to them.

2. In chariot vs infantry combat, the chariots ride over the enemy infantry and keep going (they dare not stop), whilst the supporting infantry attack and finish off the disorganised enemy infantry that has just been ridden over/through by the chariots.

[PMBardunias]

But that's just it - infantry couldn't swarm a chariot. Chariots could turn on a dime and be off long before the infantry could reach them. My own theory on chariot runners is that they were there to dispatch infantry that had been knocked over by the chariot but had survived. Elephants don't have anything like the speed of a chariot and were not employed to charge through infantry formations, but rather disrupt them from the front, killing many infantry in the process, as at Bagradas.

On a dime? have you seen recreation chariots wheel? Wide turning radius.

My take is that chariots did crash into deep formations because horses were able to knock down infantry that weren't properly disposed to stop them, hence the need for specific formations like the anti-cavalry fulcum, which involved turning shields into an overlapping wall and making the first three ranks bunch together into a compact mass, much stabler than a man standing alone.

I am sorry, because I know you like this vision, but this is simply not how the mechanics work. You could far easier put a chariot through three overlapped ranks than 8 close-order ranks.  For a chariot to get through ranks without stalling you need to catch men in opened order at the least, and routing is even better.

Clearing lanes was a trick that required trained and disciplined troops to pull off, and it worked the same way as the punctuated Roman lines at Zama - elephants and horses will naturally follow the line of least resistance and go down inviting spaces, keeping clear of a mass of men making terrific racket. But notice that it was only at Zama that the Romans finally caught on to the tactic, as it was only at Gaugamela that someone tried it against scythed chariots for the first time.

Yes, but you have to see that the "line of least resistance" when coming up to close formed men is to wheel sideways.  Clearly Scythed chariots were intended to break up battle-lines, but the expectation is that the infantry will flinch. The same holds true for cavalry charges, it the infantry does not flinch, you are not going to break them unless you wade into the formation and fight your way through.  Scythed chariots would work well against a crowd of light troops, or a Persian style shield wall with only a rank or two of shield-men in front of light troops, but as we see they did not work against hoplites.  You need to have the tight formed ranks that are perceived as too strong to plunge into in order to create a "path of least resistance" beside it. If you are a loose swarm or a fragile wall, then there is no resistance essentially anywhere.



Not at Guagamela, but at Cunaxa:

Xen anabasis 1.8.10 In front of them were the so-called scythe-bearing chariots, at some distance from one another; and the scythes they carried reached out sideways from the axles and were also set under the chariot bodies, pointing towards the ground, so as to cut to pieces whatever they met; the intention, then, was that they should drive into the ranks of the Greeks and cut through the line.
20] As for the enemy's chariots, some of them plunged through the lines of their own troops, others, however, through the Greek lines, but without charioteers. And whenever the Greeks saw them coming, they would open a gap for their passage; one fellow, to be sure, was caught, like a befuddled man on a race-course, yet it was said that even he was not hurt in the least, nor, for that matter, did any other single man among the Greeks get any hurt whatever in this battle, save that someone on the left wing was reported to have been hit by an arrow.

[Erpingham]

My own take at present is that Middle Eastern infantry for a long time didn't have an effective anti-cavalry formation other than great depth, as horses can happily smash through a regular line of infantry (say 8 deep) that isn't properly disposed to repulse them. So long as the horses can knock the men down one after the other and not all together (quite doable if the men are in intermediate order with 3 feet per rank) they can bash through lines up to, say, 20 men deep before running out of momentum. Notice in the three videos at the beginning of the thread how the people are immediately knocked flat when contacted by the horses. The later uselessness of chariots is due to infantry finally adopting effective dispositions, for example compressing the first few ranks together, though I'm not aware of any explicit references in the sources on how exactly they eventually learned to stop chariots (besides opening gaps in the line).

Your final lines suggest you have evidence of the initial ineffectiveness of infantry, if all you lack are explicit references to how later infantry became effective against chariots.  You haven't yet shared this, or is it in reserve for a future article?

While we wait for said evidence, here is a theory built on analogy with other periods. What if the role of infantry was to provide a solid base from which chariots could attack enemy chariots?  Friendly chariots could regroup behind their infantry, protected from their opposite numbers.  Once chariot supremacy has been won, infantry and chariots together can deal with the enemy infantry, who will struggle to withdraw any distance against a mobile foe and if they make a stand could be hit by supported chariot attacks, archery barrages or even infantry assaults.

[Justin Swanton]

But that's just it - infantry couldn't swarm a chariot. Chariots could turn on a dime and be off long before the infantry could reach them. My own theory on chariot runners is that they were there to dispatch infantry that had been knocked over by the chariot but had survived. Elephants don't have anything like the speed of a chariot and were not employed to charge through infantry formations, but rather disrupt them from the front, killing many infantry in the process, as at Bagradas.

On a dime? have you seen recreation chariots wheel? Wide turning radius.

I based that on chariot racing, specifically quadriga (four-horse) chariot racing which involved incredibly tight turns around the ends of the spina at full speed. The point about a chariot is that unlike a 4-wheeled vehicle it doesn't have to move forwards whilst turning. It can turn in place or even move backwards a little if necessary.

My take is that chariots did crash into deep formations because horses were able to knock down infantry that weren't properly disposed to stop them, hence the need for specific formations like the anti-cavalry fulcum, which involved turning shields into an overlapping wall and making the first three ranks bunch together into a compact mass, much stabler than a man standing alone.

I am sorry, because I know you like this vision, but this is simply not how the mechanics work. You could far easier put a chariot through three overlapped ranks than 8 close-order ranks.  For a chariot to get through ranks without stalling you need to catch men in opened order at the least, and routing is even better.

But horses regularly crashed through formed infantry lines 8 or more deep (that's how mid-Republican Roman armies routinely won their battles). The enemy infantry weren't in open order as they were about to engage the Roman foot. Hence the need for a special formation to stop them. Chariots worked on the same principle. The point about the fulcum is that it specifically required the three front ranks to bunch together in close order, shoulder to shoulder - which made it impossible to knock the men over - whilst the shields overlapped to supply sufficient protection against a 400kg horse hitting at full speed. In one of the videos at the beginning of the thread the man knocked down was killed.

Clearing lanes was a trick that required trained and disciplined troops to pull off, and it worked the same way as the punctuated Roman lines at Zama - elephants and horses will naturally follow the line of least resistance and go down inviting spaces, keeping clear of a mass of men making terrific racket. But notice that it was only at Zama that the Romans finally caught on to the tactic, as it was only at Gaugamela that someone tried it against scythed chariots for the first time.

Yes, but you have to see that the "line of least resistance" when coming up to close formed men is to wheel sideways.  Clearly Scythed chariots were intended to break up battle-lines, but the expectation is that the infantry will flinch. The same holds true for cavalry charges, it the infantry does not flinch, you are not going to break them unless you wade into the formation and fight your way through.  Scythed chariots would work well against a crowd of light troops, or a Persian style shield wall with only a rank or two of shield-men in front of light troops, but as we see they did not work against hoplites.  You need to have the tight formed ranks that are perceived as too strong to plunge into in order to create a "path of least resistance" beside it. If you are a loose swarm or a fragile wall, then there is no resistance essentially anywhere.

Scythed chariots were meant to plough through formed heavy infantry, not just light troops, hence their use by Darius at Gaugamela against the phalanx. A Persian style shield wall is no 'lighter' than regular heavy infantry in that the men are as close together as heavy foot (they are the Persian version of heavy foot) and the rear ranks not having shields doesn't in any way facilitate the horses' ability to punch through them.

Not at Guagamela, but at Cunaxa:

Xen anabasis 1.8.10 In front of them were the so-called scythe-bearing chariots, at some distance from one another; and the scythes they carried reached out sideways from the axles and were also set under the chariot bodies, pointing towards the ground, so as to cut to pieces whatever they met; the intention, then, was that they should drive into the ranks of the Greeks and cut through the line.
20] As for the enemy's chariots, some of them plunged through the lines of their own troops, others, however, through the Greek lines, but without charioteers. And whenever the Greeks saw them coming, they would open a gap for their passage; one fellow, to be sure, was caught, like a befuddled man on a race-course, yet it was said that even he was not hurt in the least, nor, for that matter, did any other single man among the Greeks get any hurt whatever in this battle, save that someone on the left wing was reported to have been hit by an arrow.

True.

[Erpingham]

As a curiosity, I was reading this report by Mike loades on reconstructing a British chariot and came across this :

Livy, writing of the battle of Sentino in 295BC cites that the Romans "were
terrified by a new method of warfare". The Gauls had arrived in chariots and
"great was the noise of the horses and the wheels and the Roman mounts
were thrown into panic by that fearful din to which they were unaccustomed."

Note the similarity to Caesar's account of fighting British chariots (and, for that matter, Tacitus').  Can our classicists tell us whether Livy's account contains anything more of interest?