Chariots as equid battering rams

[Andreas Johansson]

The label 'fantasy' seems a little excessive: Xenophon appears to be regurgitating a (possibly idealised and conceivably simplified) version of tales he would have picked up as a member of Cyrus' entourage.  He is not making it up out of whole cloth (the allies of Croesus are, for example, confirmed by Herodotus, as is the use of camelry to disrupt Lydian cavalry).

This is less reassuring than it could've been, as Xenophon might simply have lifted those details from Herodotus.

But I can agree that "fantasy" is excessive: in modern generic terms, "historical novel" is probably closer to the mark.

[Jim Webster]

I will be guided by the classicists here but should we be putting so much weight on Xenophon's Thymbra description?  It is taken from a fantasy work, not a historical one.

The label 'fantasy' seems a little excessive: Xenophon appears to be regurgitating a (possibly idealised and conceivably simplified) version of tales he would have picked up as a member of Cyrus' entourage.  He is not making it up out of whole cloth (the allies of Croesus are, for example, confirmed by Herodotus, as is the use of camelry to disrupt Lydian cavalry).

I accept that fictionalised accounts can contain useful references to practices in the author's time, especially if that author is an experienced soldier, but surely we must be cautious in the weight we apply?

Again, Xenophon's account is probably sieved and filtered through a peripherally acquainted Greek mind as opposed to being 'fictionalised'.  If he is by any chance imagining and/or fictionalising anything, then his account of the use and behaviour of Median scythed chariots (the elder Cyrus was technically a Median monarch) accords surprisingly well with the behaviour and use of the Gallic chariots at Sentinum a century later; all the more amazing if Xenophon was hypothetically the world's first fantasy author.  (The chance of the Gauls basing their essentially successful chariot tactics on Xenophon's Cyropaedia seems impossibly remote.)

So whatever the provenance of Xenophon's information, what he describes accords with the actions of chariotry in a solid historical example from a later period, i.e. one he could not crib from.  This makes him either remarkably prescient or properly informed.  Given the presence and operation of scythed chariots in his own time, and his acquaintance with Cyrus the Younger, I would incline to the latter.

Remember  Cyrus the Great died about 530BC, about 130 years before Xenophon was mingling too much with Persians.
However he may have seen them in action against Spartan forces in Asia minor later. It's more likely he'll be extrapolating from that than from earlier evidence.
With the rest of the Persian army in the Cyropedia he basically has Cyrus create a hoplite force, not Sparabara. So his knowledge of Persian infantry might be more relevant to what we think of as Takabara. The question has to be asked, if he was so well informed about the Persian army of the 560's BC, why did he get the infantry wrong? And if he got the infantry wrong, why should his chariots be any better?

[evilgong]

Remember that Cyrus the Younger's army had some chariots too.  So X could see them from both sides.

[PMBardunias]

Remember  Cyrus the Great died about 530BC, about 130 years before Xenophon was mingling too much with Persians.

Xenophon could be wrong about Cyrus's Persians, but is so, the error is in projecting backward the scythed, shock-chariots that were a real thing in his own day.  Higher in the thread I posted the quote from Cunaxa where chariots he would have seen, rode directly at the front ranks and into gaps created by the hoplites.  At Thymbara he describes the same thing, only this time the "hoplites" can't get out of the way:

Xen. Cyrop. 7.30 "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. [31] 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. [32]"

and

"The scythe-bearing chariots also won extraordinary distinction, so that this military device also has been retained even to our day by each successive king. [48]""

It could well be something along the lines of "I don't know what Cyrus did with his chariots, but what would have happened to us is we did not get out of the way?"  Xenophon's whole goal in the description is to show why the Theban ultra-deep column tactics were a one trick pony- as they turned out to be. He hits that poor formation with everything in the books- thin ranks in front to just delay them long enough for the cavalry envelopment, Missile towers showering down, and scythed chariots cutting it up.

[Erpingham]

So whatever the provenance of Xenophon's information, what he describes accords with the actions of chariotry in a solid historical example from a later period, i.e. one he could not crib from.  This makes him either remarkably prescient or properly informed.  Given the presence and operation of scythed chariots in his own time, and his acquaintance with Cyrus the Younger, I would incline to the latter.

Just to be clear, I don't have an argument with the idea that Xenophon is basing his description on how scythed chariots were supposed to work.  Even then I don't know if he ever saw a successful charge against hoplites.  My issue is whether we can treat his account of Thymbra as factual and draw conclusions from it. 

I have read of it being a "historical novel" and also a work of fiction numerous times.  I am not aware of serious scholarship treating it as detailed history.  I apologise if the word "fantasy" upset people - I was thinking of it in terms of what the OED defines as "a product of imagination, fiction, figment" not in the modern genre sense.

[Patrick Waterson]

The label 'fantasy' seems a little excessive: Xenophon appears to be regurgitating a (possibly idealised and conceivably simplified) version of tales he would have picked up as a member of Cyrus' entourage.  He is not making it up out of whole cloth (the allies of Croesus are, for example, confirmed by Herodotus, as is the use of camelry to disrupt Lydian cavalry).

This is less reassuring than it could've been, as Xenophon might simply have lifted those details from Herodotus.

And were they identically expressed, I would suspect him of doing so.  But they are coincident threads in a larger tapestry, which either exonerates him or identifies him as a very deft weaver.

Remember  Cyrus the Great died about 530BC, about 130 years before Xenophon was mingling too much with Persians.
However he may have seen them in action against Spartan forces in Asia minor later. It's more likely he'll be extrapolating from that than from earlier evidence.
With the rest of the Persian army in the Cyropedia he basically has Cyrus create a hoplite force, not Sparabara.

In Cyropaedia II.1.16 Cyrus describes this force as follows:

"Now, up to this time you have been bowmen [toxotai] and lancers [akontistai = javelinmen], and so have we; and if you were not quite our equals in the use of these arms, there is nothing surprising about that; for you had not the leisure to practise with them that we had. But with this equipment we shall have no advantage over you. In any case, every man will have a corselet [thorax] fitted to his breast, upon his left arm a shield [gerrhon], such as we have all been accustomed to carry, and in his right hand a sabre [makhaira] or scimitar [sagaris] with which, you see, we must strike those opposed to us at such close range that we need not fear to miss our aim when we strike. [17] In this armour, then, how could any one of us have the advantage over another except in courage?

These troops are closer to Roman legionaries than they are to hoplites and are reminiscent of Assyrian quradu sans spears; dedicated close fighters.  They are also, weaponry apart, very close to Heorodotus' sparabara.

Herodotus (VII.61.1) describes the Persians in the army of Xerxes thus:

... the Persians were equipped in this way: they wore on their heads loose caps called tiaras, and on their bodies embroidered sleeved tunics, with scales of iron like the scales of fish in appearance, and trousers on their legs; for shields they had wicker bucklers [gerra], with quivers hanging beneath them; they carried short spears, long bows, and reed arrows, and daggers [egkheiridia] that hung from the girdle by the right thigh.

The essential changes are the addition of missile weapons and the downgrading of the makhaira to an egkheiridia now that the spear has come back into fashion.  The changes are easy to understand in the context of a people which has now come into possession of the world's greatest empire and no longer needs to be deprived of missile weapons in order to be able to overcome opponents in close combat.

So his knowledge of Persian infantry might be more relevant to what we think of as Takabara.

Xenophon's Persians, with their gerrha, do not resemble takabara.  The only point of similarity is the ocasional sagaris, and that is not really enough to put them near the takabara bracket, at least to my thinking.

The question has to be asked, if he was so well informed about the Persian army of the 560's BC, why did he get the infantry wrong? And if he got the infantry wrong, why should his chariots be any better?

If we think he got the infantry wrong, it could easily reflect changes in the infantry between the times of the elder and younger Cyrus.  It also incidentally means he did not lift the details from Herodotus, but was sufficiently confident of his own source.

[Patrick Waterson]

Just to be clear, I don't have an argument with the idea that Xenophon is basing his description on how scythed chariots were supposed to work.  Even then I don't know if he ever saw a successful charge against hoplites.  My issue is whether we can treat his account of Thymbra as factual and draw conclusions from it.

I think we can, or at least sufficiently factual to draw conclusions from.  The fact this his chariots, fictional or otherwise, behave just like factual chariots at Sentinum indicates that even if he was spaced out on magic mushrooms at the time of writing, his output actually works in the same way as real chariotry in real history and hence can be considered reliable.

I have read of it being a "historical novel" and also a work of fiction numerous times.  I am not aware of serious scholarship treating it as detailed history.  I apologise if the word "fantasy" upset people - I was thinking of it in terms of what the OED defines as "a product of imagination, fiction, figment" not in the modern genre sense.

Nice of you.   I get the sense that a number of details in the Cyropaedia are Grecised (e.g. making libations to the gods at the end of a meal) and I am not sure how far we can trust things like the small unit organisation Xenophon has for Cyrus the Elder's Persians (he has Spartanesque files of twelve whereas the Persians used a decimal system), but on the whole I would see the Cyropaedia as 'flavoured' rather than 'fictionalised'.  People who dislike large armies and imaginative gadgets in this particular period have a vested interest in undermining Xenophon; I prefer to make up my own mind.

There is of course the possibility others have alluded to, namely that Xenophon is sending disguised mesages to his Greek audience (Paul in particular mentions the highlighting of the deficiencies of the Theban 50-deep formation), and he may well be doing this.  I do not think this need detract from the essential validity of his account, as to point a moral or adorn a tale, especially to a Greek, you do really need a valid pointer and a valid pointee.

[Erpingham]

Just to be clear, I don't have an argument with the idea that Xenophon is basing his description on how scythed chariots were supposed to work.  Even then I don't know if he ever saw a successful charge against hoplites.  My issue is whether we can treat his account of Thymbra as factual and draw conclusions from it.

I think we can, or at least sufficiently factual to draw conclusions from.  The fact this his chariots, fictional or otherwise, behave just like factual chariots at Sentinum indicates that even if he was spaced out on magic mushrooms at the time of writing, his output actually works in the same way as real chariotry in real history and hence can be considered reliable.

We continue to talk at cross purposes but I don't think anything will be gained by repetition.

The bigger issue is whether the Cyropaedia is a reliable historical work, based on lost sources, or a work of fiction on a historical framework .  Perhaps a separate thread could consider that, as we've already drifted into discussions of Persian infantry, a long way from our actual theme of chariot tactics.

[Patrick Waterson]

We continue to talk at cross purposes ...

Oh dear.  What purposes are we crossing here?

The bigger issue is whether the Cyropaedia is a reliable historical work, based on lost sources, or a work of fiction on a historical framework .  Perhaps a separate thread could consider that, as we've already drifted into discussions of Persian infantry, a long way from our actual theme of chariot tactics.

Maybe so.  The essential question will of course be: by what criteria do we judge?

[Erpingham]

Maybe so.  The essential question will of course be: by what criteria do we judge?

Is this a trick question?  We examine the evidence presented for the two conclusions and assess it to our satisfaction.  This is way beyond my knowledge of ancient literature, so it would be up to others to do that if they so wished.  I suspect most will accept the general consensus on the matter in the meantime. 

[Dangun]

I think we can, or at least sufficiently factual to draw conclusions from.  The fact this his chariots, fictional or otherwise, behave just like factual chariots at Sentinum indicates that even if he was spaced out on magic mushrooms at the time of writing, his output actually works in the same way as real chariotry in real history and hence can be considered reliable.

I have read this paragraph 4 times now.
It seems to boil down to, "because the fiction is realistic, we can consider his fiction to be reliable (history)."
Do you really mean that?

[Jim Webster]

I think we can, or at least sufficiently factual to draw conclusions from.  The fact this his chariots, fictional or otherwise, behave just like factual chariots at Sentinum indicates that even if he was spaced out on magic mushrooms at the time of writing, his output actually works in the same way as real chariotry in real history and hence can be considered reliable.

I have read this paragraph 4 times now.
It seems to boil down to, "because the fiction is realistic, we can consider his fiction to be reliable (history)."
Do you really mean that??

As somebody who has what, in a less cruel world, would be a professional interest in fiction I'd like to chip in on this.
It is my experience that when discussing 'realistic' what we're really saying is 'plays to our preconceptions' 

By this I'm not taking a swing at any individual, it's just a general phenomenon.

[Mark G]

"did you really mean that"

He almost certainly did.

There are a couple of folk who view Ancient sources as always 100% accurate unless directly contradicted by another ancient source.

You will pick up which pretty quickly once you look for it.

[Duncan Head]

People who dislike large armies and imaginative gadgets in this particular period have a vested interest in undermining Xenophon; I prefer to make up my own mind.

The self-delusion made manifest.

"People who like large armies and imaginative gadgets have a vested interest in believing Xenophon; I prefer to make up my own mind."

[Dangun]

I was hunting around for something about the historicity of the Cyropaedia and ran across this.
Just thought I'd flag it in case anyone is interested.

Can't vouch for it, haven't read it...

RECONSIDERING THE ORIGIN OF THE SCYTHED CHARIOT (ROP. J., 2013)
Abstract: This article challenges the current scholarly consensus that the scythed c veloped by the Persiansfor use against Greek hoplites. Closer examination ofthe his reveals that the scythed chariot was a specialized device deployed only under spéci conditions and used against ali types ofinfantry and cavalry. Reviewing the informatio Xenophon 's Cyropaedia and Ctesias ' Persica in the context ofthe évolution ofehariotry i Near East, I argue that the most plausible origin for the scythed chariot is in the Neo Assyrian period.