Chariots as equid battering rams

[Patrick Waterson]

Returning to chariots and their impact potential, we have not yet looked at Mons Graupius, Agricola's victory over the Caledones.  It should be noted there are some translation issues which I have endeavoured to overcome; they do not materially affect the conclusions to be drawn (if anything, the Church and Brodribb and Thompson translations have more enthusiastic and vandalistic chariots than my own rendering). 

The battle opens with (all references from Tacitus, Agricola 35 et. seq.):

"The enemy, to make a formidable display, had posted himself on high ground; his van was on the plain, while the rest of his army rose in an arch-like form up the slope of a hill. The plain between resounded with the noise and with the rapid movements of chariots and cavalry."

'Chariots and cavalry' (covinnarius eques, but without a conjunction) may be a mis-rendering.  The literal translation is 'the chariot driver rider', and the later course of the action casts doubt on the presence of Caledonian cavalry.  Be that as it may, the presence of chariotry is clear and their actions are interesting.

They begin the battle by driving around in the plain, filling it with strepitu (noise) and discursu (running about, travelling to and fro).  However there is a curious absence of chariot skirmishing: Agricola's auxilia and the infantry of the Caledones proceed to what looks like a form of infantry skirmishing as if the chariots were not present.

"The action began with distant fighting. The Britons with equal steadiness and skill used their huge swords and small shields to avoid or to parry the missiles of our soldiers, while they themselves poured on us a dense shower of darts, till Agricola encouraged three Batavian and two Tun-grian cohorts to bring matters to the decision of close fighting with swords. Such tactics were familiar to these veteran soldiers, but were embarrassing to an enemy armed with small bucklers and unwieldy weapons. The swords of the Britons are not pointed, and do not allow them to close with the foe, or to fight in the open field. No sooner did the Batavians begin to close with the enemy, to strike them with their shields, to disfigure their faces, and overthrowing the force on the plain to advance their line up the hill, than the other auxiliary cohorts joined with eager rivalry in cutting down all the nearest of the foe."

So where are the chariots?  What happened to them?  Tacitus merely states:

"Meanwhile our cavalry had routed the enemy's charioteers and mingled in the engagement of the infantry. But although they at first spread panic, they were soon impeded by the close array of the enemy ranks [densis ... hostium agminibus] and by the inequalities of the ground. With the least bit of level ground our men made a fight, while the slightest slope threw men and horses together, and often chariots, destitute of guidance, their terrified horses without drivers, dashed as panic urged them, sideways, or in direct collision against the ranks."

'Direct collision' is obvios, a meeting or stright-line encounter.  And the effect of these 'collisions'?

Tacitus does not say.  He merely goes on to state that the Caledones on the hill split and flowed down in an outflanking movement, and Agricola countered this effectively with his cavalry reserve.  Then he sent the cavalry which he had ordered withdrawn from the fight round the Caledonian rear (Tacitus having missed this bit in his narrative) and all was over bar the pursuit.

So what do we learn from this episode?  Two points stand out: 1) the absence of any skirmishing by the Caledonian chariots; 2) the fact that horses, admittedly driverless and frightened out of their wits, carried their chariots into direct impacts with the Roman lines.  We get no description of splintered chariots and/or piles of broken bodies from these impacts, so all we can really say is that these 'light' chariots are not recorded as skirmishing but are recorded as driving into battlelines.  Whether they would have done the former if under command is open to question, but given that animals tend to follow their training, the fact that some did drive into the battle lines suggests they had received training to do so.

We may wonder why the Caledonian chariots proved so ineffectual against the Roman cavalry.  The Romans had had two generations to become accustomed to chariots of the British persuasion and devise effective counters to them., and reading between the lines, it looks as if they attacked the chariots while the latter were still driving around out of formation and picked off the crews, precipitating a flight.  This would have cleared the way for the infantry skirmish with which Tacitus opens the battle and is readily consistent with how once the action became general it was joined by the Roman cavalry and the occasional fleeing chariot.

This gives us another case of 'skirmishing' chariots not doing any actual skirmishing, but when they individually put in an appearance they act in an (admittedly involuntary) shock role.  To my mind, this raises serious questions about our categorisation of chariots and their effect in battle (specifically on the tabletop).  Just how far did 'skirmishing' chariots actually skirmish, and do we need to adopt something like Richards Taylor's concept of 'skirmishing' being a cover term for activities while awaiting an opportunity for effective shock action?  And did the 'light' chariots of the Ancient Near East actually do anything other than charge?

[Patrick Waterson]

Any suggestions?

Not really, tho WP's Category:Egyptology journals might be a starting point. Note that the German-language ones seem to accept English-language submissions.

My thanks.  The JEA would be an obvious starting point although it is by nature more interested in archaeology than history.

[Erpingham]

Thanks patrick for the re-interpretation of Mons Graupius.   Nice to have some new material, rather than repeating ourselves.

I think one of the issues is you clearly have a definition of skirmishing which involves throwing missiles and not much else.  Others (me for example) may use a different definition.  This could explain why we disagree - we are defining terms differently.

"Meanwhile our cavalry had routed the enemy's charioteers and mingled in the engagement of the infantry. But although they at first spread panic, they were soon impeded by the close array of the enemy ranks [densis ... hostium agminibus] and by the inequalities of the ground. With the least bit of level ground our men made a fight, while the slightest slope threw men and horses together, and often chariots, destitute of guidance, their terrified horses without drivers, dashed as panic urged them, sideways, or in direct collision against the ranks."


I presume the key is in the Latin, but why do you assume the ranks in the last sentence are different to those in the first?  Also, if the ranks are specifically Roman, why it refers to infantry?  The previous sentence refers to the problems of the ground gave the cavalry, while the second explains the effect in more detail, doesn't it?

I think it is a real stretch here to read a ramming tactical model into the behaviour of the Caledonians on the basis of what driverless chariots did in a confined space.

I look forward to the views of people who have track record on Britons and Caledonians comments on your ideas. 

[Dangun]

The later source may have tapped a new vein of information not available to the earlier source, and/or the earlier source may have had contemporary motivation to misrepresent matters (see Polybius on Timaeus and Fabius Pictor, for example, and compare Velleius Paterculus with Tacitus). 

It is certainly possible.
And in this specific case, "Thymbra," must have come from somewhere.

But... at such great temporal distance, the accumulation of new detail is normally more suspect, than a reflection of better sources.
Whether this bears on chariots, is a different matter.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think one of the issues is you clearly have a definition of skirmishing which involves throwing missiles and not much else.  Others (me for example) may use a different definition.  This could explain why we disagree - we are defining terms differently.

I tend to regard skirmishing as attemtping to wear down the opponent by use of missiles; there is obviouysly more to it than a simple missile exchange, i.e. use of evasion, cover, loose formations and generally getting out of harm's way if possible.  Would you like to expound your defintion so we can see whether our wavelengths are coinciding, interfering or jamming?

"Meanwhile our cavalry had routed the enemy's charioteers and mingled in the engagement of the infantry. But although they at first spread panic, they were soon impeded by the close array of the enemy ranks [densis ... hostium agminibus] and by the inequalities of the ground. With the least bit of level ground our men made a fight, while the slightest slope threw men and horses together, and often chariots, destitute of guidance, their terrified horses without drivers, dashed as panic urged them, sideways, or in direct collision against the ranks."


I presume the key is in the Latin, but why do you assume the ranks in the last sentence are different to those in the first?

Mainly because the infantry on both sides are now enaged in close combat on the hill, so the ranks which would have been engaged by the Roman cavalry would be the front (and to an extent flanks) of the Caledonian infantry, whereas the driverless chariots would have been starting on or around the plain, so when they get to the hill where the action is they would almost certainly have to encounter Romans.

Also, if the ranks are specifically Roman, why it refers to infantry?  The previous sentence refers to the problems of the ground gave the cavalry, while the second explains the effect in more detail, doesn't it?

Yes, and then introduces the driverless chariots.  Whether this is specific to the Roman cavalry (whom Agricola seems to withdraw prior to the next stage of the battle) is another matter; the general view seems to be that the chariots went through the infantry of both sides.

I think it is a real stretch here to read a ramming tactical model into the behaviour of the Caledonians on the basis of what driverless chariots did in a confined space.

The chariots do not seem to have been in a confined space.  As mentioned, they were on the plain and that is where they were tackled and defeated by the Roman cavalry.  While this was going on, skirmishing began between the infantry of both sides and Agricola ordered an advance.  This indicates the chariots had pulled out to the wings on the plain, leaving a line of advance clear for the Roman infantry.

The Roman auxilia close and make contact uphill, so they are already off the plain.  Then the cavalry join in, it being unclear whether on the wings (as I would guess) or just piling in along the front (less likely, in my estimation).  This leaves the driverless chariots still careering around on the plain until they bolt (presumably away from the legions, the Roman cavalry reserve and perhaps also the Caledones' downhill flanking movement) up the hill.  Going up the hill would introduce them to the back end of the Romans fighting on the hill.

I look forward to the views of people who have track record on Britons and Caledonians comments on your ideas.

That will be interesting, especially given the translation issues concerning this battle.  What does seem clear is the absence of skirmishing behaviour by allegedly skirmish-type chariots.  Whether they did skirmish and Tacitus has omitted the details is a theoretical possibility, but so far the only attested skirmish-like behaviour by any chariots outside Ireland seems to be that faced by Julius Caesar's troops in Britain in 55 BC.

If anyone has any other source material to demonstrate skirmishing by any chariots, please feel free to mention it.

Finally, the behaviour of the driverless chariots at Mons Graupius seems to reinforce the idea that chariots can hit and plough through (or into) enemy lines without disabling themselves.  I say 'seems to' because it is a conclusion from absence of evidence - Tacitus does not make any reference to disintegrating or even damaged chariots - as opposed to clear positive information that the chariots passed through the battling troops leaving flattened soldiery in their wake.

[Patrick Waterson]

But... at such great temporal distance, the accumulation of new detail is normally more suspect, than a reflection of better sources.

As a historian of sorts, I would disagree.  The accumulation of new detail is in my experience more a factor of the diligence of the historian than of temporal distance relating to reliability.  Polybius, for example, was writing well after such writers as the egregious Fabius Pictor, but unlike the latter, who presented every engagement between Roman and Carthaginian armies as a Roman success (for Cannae he gave the Romans a smaller army and botched the casualty count), Polybius went around finding out exact details from as many reliable or apparently reliable sources as possible (his discovery of Hannibal's bronze tablet in Bruttium being a case in point).  So Polybius added new detail and composed a more accurate account than the earlier Fabius P.

Given that Xenophon gives every indication of attention to detail, I would put his extra details down to diligent collection, not attempted fabrication.

Historical reliability is not a linear phenomenon like radioactive decay.  It depends at least as much on the quality of the historian as the quality of the material.

[Erpingham]

I think one of the issues is you clearly have a definition of skirmishing which involves throwing missiles and not much else.  Others (me for example) may use a different definition.  This could explain why we disagree - we are defining terms differently.

I tend to regard skirmishing as attemtping to wear down the opponent by use of missiles; there is obviouysly more to it than a simple missile exchange, i.e. use of evasion, cover, loose formations and generally getting out of harm's way if possible.  Would you like to expound your defintion so we can see whether our wavelengths are coinciding, interfering or jamming?

I would go for a wider definition .  The OED has "To engage in a skirmish or irregular encounter; to fight in small parties."  To me skirmishing is something not done in formal battlelines, being more irregular and less rigid, perhaps more individual.  Following from these, it is often more mobile and fluid.  Now, it follows that a type of fight where the engagement of the two sides isn't rigid will often involve missiles but I say that was a consequence rather a defining trait.  In the light of that definition, the mobile warfare of Caesar's British chariots seem essentially skirmishing, using mobility against the enemy and hit-and-run delivery of dismounted crew, who rapidly disengage if things get too hot.

[RichT]

For anyone more interested in fact than fantasy, Mons Graupius is a nice illustration of the problems with constructing detailed models of combat from a translation or even from an original text. Tacitus is known for his highly condensed language - as it says in the Loeb introduction, "Tacitus condenses to a degree so great that a literal English translation in the same number of words is almost unintelligible; and his condensations not merely obscure but sometimes distort his meaning."

As a result there are some spectacular variations in the translations. This isn't due to lack of skill on the part of the translators, they are just trying to construct a coherent narrative given the highly condensed original and - what's worse - the dubious state of the text (ch. 36 contains some well known problems in the manuscripts). There are two particular problem passages - 'ut fugere covinnarii' and 'minimeque aequa nostris iam pugnae facies erat' with the latter being an emendation (which is why the older translations talk about 'not the least appearance was left of an engagement of cavalry' or similar) from the original text 'minimeq equestres ea enim pugnae facies erat' which is not in the modified Latin text to be found on Perseus. Having the charioteers mingle with the infantry was the general view of these older translations (by punctuating and excluding 'ut', as 'interim equitum turmae fugere; covinnarii peditum se proelio miscuere', though I tend to think it's the turmae equitum (these being Roman - 'interim equitum turmae, ut fugere covinnarii, peditum se proelio miscuere') but I could certainly be wrong. Note the uncertainty about who is doing what to whom, and which side is being referred to - not just with the driverless chariots but in most sentences.

Here's my attempt at a very literal translation of the Perseus version of the text (though it's a poor attempt as I've forgotten too much of Tacitus' usage to be sure of several clauses. I did Agricola as a set text, but that was over 30 years ago...):

"Meanwhile the squadrons of cavalry, as the charioteers to flee, mingled with the battle of infantry. And although recently they induced terror, however the density of the enemy line and unevenness of ground impeded them; and it was not at all an equal fight for ours, with standing on uneven slopes while driven by the bodies of horses; and often empty chariots, terrified riderless horses, wherever fear drove them, ran in sideways or full on."

Who, what or how the empty chariots and riderless (or driverless) horses ran into is not defined, nor is the result.

[Patrick Waterson]

Here's my attempt at a very literal translation of the Perseus version of the text (though it's a poor attempt as I've forgotten too much of Tacitus' usage to be sure of several clauses. I did Agricola as a set text, but that was over 30 years ago...):

"Meanwhile the squadrons of cavalry, as the charioteers to flee, mingled with the battle of infantry. And although recently they induced terror, however the density of the enemy line and unevenness of ground impeded them; and it was not at all an equal fight for ours, with standing on uneven slopes while driven by the bodies of horses; and often empty chariots, terrified riderless horses, wherever fear drove them, ran in sideways or full on."

Who, what or how the empty chariots and riderless (or driverless) horses ran into is not defined, nor is the result.

Thanks for that, Richard; I think you have the essence of the passage.  As you mention, Tacitus' tight style can be enigmatic at times; familiarity with it does help.

I would suggest that ac saepe vagi currus, exterriti sine rectoribus equi be rendered: and often a stray driverless chariot with terrified horses, as literally it is: 'and often a stray chariot, terrified without drivers horses'.  There is no conjunction to distinguish the horses from the chariots as different travelling entities.

[Patrick Waterson]

I would go for a wider definition .  The OED has "To engage in a skirmish or irregular encounter; to fight in small parties."  To me skirmishing is something not done in formal battlelines, being more irregular and less rigid, perhaps more individual.  Following from these, it is often more mobile and fluid.  Now, it follows that a type of fight where the engagement of the two sides isn't rigid will often involve missiles but I say that was a consequence rather a defining trait.  In the light of that definition, the mobile warfare of Caesar's British chariots seem essentially skirmishing, using mobility against the enemy and hit-and-run delivery of dismounted crew, who rapidly disengage if things get too hot.

As described by Caesar, it does indeed contain such elements. 

"Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels; and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the mean time withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry ..." - Gallic War IV.33

The delivery of dismounted crew appears to be more hit than run (they only leave in adverse circumstances, a term generally considered as 'withdrawal'), but the initial driving about throwing weapons seems to fall within the skirmishing category.  Is it, though?  Movement and missile use need not involve skirmishing, as in the caracole, where files of missile cavalry circulate before an enemy formation with each man discharging his weapon in turn and reloading while in the movement cycle.  Arrian's description of Roman cavalry exercises reveals a similar technique which owes at least part of its repertoire to Gallic cavalry.

In wargaming, we tend to assume that any formation not standing still to shoot is defined as skirmishing (shooting while charging being an exception).  This works well enough in most cases, but raises questions when a skirmishing unit wishes to charge.  The generality of pre-gunpowder mounted formations seem to have been able to move straight into a charge from their missile-using status without a discernible formation change.  There are exceptions, for example the 'circulating' Scythians Alexander routed at the Jaxartes, and, formation change or no, Numidians exhibit behaviour that we would all agree constitutes 'skirmishing': the darting forth to use missiles, the shoal-like evasion if attacked, the prompt return to harassment once pursuit ceases and the ability to maintain cohesion throughout such manoeuvres.

Taking Numidians as our basic model, do we see British chariots exhibiting these characteristics?  Maybe.  In the following year, Caesar brings a cavalry contingent of his own and it acts as his vanguard.  In Gallic War V.16, the Roman cavalry, having helped to repulse the Britons' chariots and cavalry in what resembles a regular engagement, have their own troubles:

"... the horse also fought with great danger, because they [the Britons] generally retreated even designedly, and, when they had drawn off our men a short distance from the legions, leaped from their chariots and fought on foot in unequal [and to them advantageous] battle. But the system of cavalry engagement is wont to produce equal danger, and indeed the same, both to those who retreat and to those who pursue. To this was added, that they never fought in close order*, but in small parties and at great distances, and had detachments placed [in different parts], and then the one relieved the other, and the vigorous and fresh succeeded the wearied."

*conferti, side-by-side, packed together

This lure-away-and-dismounted-counterattack technique attested by Caesar seems unique to British chariotry; the Gallic chariots at Sentinum just charged.  The behaviour of British chariots does not resemble the shoal-like reactivity of Numidian cavalry, but it is flexible and involves relief of participants by reserves.  We can indeed say (as previously) that British chariots indulged in skirmishing, but this simply highlights the dearth of indications or references to other chariots doing anything except routing opponents by a charge and/or driving into/through them as part of an attack.

[Andreas Johansson]

When I, some pages back, referred to British chariots as "skirmishers", I really only meant they weren't Swantonian shock weapons. I'm happy to concede that dismounting to display "the firmness of infantry" doesn't sound like skirmishing in any strict sense

(I similarly characterized Xenophon's Cyrenaeans: this too was meant loosely, as all I know of their tactics is Xenophon's statement that they fought only at a distance, in "Trojan" style. Judging by the Iliad, this might have involved plenty of dismounting too, albeit apparently not closing to hand-strokes while on foot.)

Swerving for a movement into wargaming, the Triumph! rules I've written about elsewhere (SL review forthcoming) perhaps interestingly divide chariots into two classes, "Chariots" and "Battle Taxis". The former include Near Eastern, Indian, Chinese, etc. chariots and are functionally shock cavalry light, less likely to ride down formed foot than Knights, but also less likely to get themselves killed trying. The letter include Mycenaean, Trojan, and Celtic vehicles and are something like skirmishers on wheels, not very strong but able to to evade heavier enemy when things go wrong. This apparently reflects a sort of Watersonian-Swantonian-light view of things.

(Scythed chariots are not dealt with by the base rules. An expansion will apparently treat them as a one-shot fire-and-forget weapon, sort of like an ancient guided missile.)

[Erpingham]

When I, some pages back, referred to British chariots as "skirmishers", I really only meant they weren't Swantonian shock weapons. I'm happy to concede that dismounting to display "the firmness of infantry" doesn't sound like skirmishing in any strict sense

(I similarly characterized Xenophon's Cyrenaeans: this too was meant loosely, as all I know of their tactics is Xenophon's statement that they fought only at a distance, in "Trojan" style. Judging by the Iliad, this might have involved plenty of dismounting too, albeit apparently not closing to hand-strokes while on foot.)

I don't think I'd disagree but, as I've already said, it depends how you conceive of skirmishing.  I'm not convinced that Caesar's opponents formed rigid close order phalanxes when they dismounted, for example.

I'm not entirely convinced by the "battle taxi" idea.  It seems to me that there has been some forgetting that cavalry dismounted in certain circumstances in Ancient combat and this might be a more appropriate comparison.

As to the "Waterson-Swintonian" model, it originally only allowed for ramming chariots.  Justin has been quiet recently, so we don't know how his thinking is developing, but I think Patrick now allows some flexibility for light chariots, in that they don't just ram things.

[Andreas Johansson]

I don't think I'd disagree but, as I've already said, it depends how you conceive of skirmishing.  I'm not convinced that Caesar's opponents formed rigid close order phalanxes when they dismounted, for example.

I wouldn't expect particularly tight and rigid formations either - it would be hard to get out of them and onto the chariots in a hurry - but Caesar implies they possessed a firmness generally lacking in cavalry, which has to imply some degree of "heaviness".

I'm not entirely convinced by the "battle taxi" idea.  It seems to me that there has been some forgetting that cavalry dismounted in certain circumstances in Ancient combat and this might be a more appropriate comparison.

I think the class is primarily based on Homeric (and Irish?) literature, where champions are driven to battle and jump off to do heroic stuff. It's probably a bad fit for say Gallic chariots, which seem to have been for fighting, rather than dismounting, from.

As to the "Waterson-Swintonian" model, it originally only allowed for ramming chariots.  Justin has been quiet recently, so we don't know how his thinking is developing, but I think Patrick now allows some flexibility for light chariots, in that they don't just ram things.

I brought it up in part because I thought it might be interesting if the gentlemen in question opined whether they thought it sounded like a good model.

(Perhaps needless to say, I have some major reservations about it myself.)

[Patrick Waterson]

Might I take the opportunity to point out that chariots never 'just ram things', but if in the course of their demolition of enemy infantry formations they encounter men who stay put, they have sufficient advantage in size, weight and impact to bowl over individuals without appreciable hindrance, and only deep formations or tight, cohesive ones will cause them any problems.

The Brito-Irish chariot tradition appears to be distinct from anywhere else (at least on such information as we have at present), and my own interest is mainly with the mainstream.  What emerges from the said mainstream is that there seems to be no apparent corelation between chariot weight and chariot role.  Justin's initial examples indicate how easily horses flatten individual humans, and two pairs of horses pulling two light chariots would seem to have similar impact potential to one set of four horses pulling a heavy chariot.

The British chariot tradition also has chariots bursting through formations on occasion, as previously referred to.  What we lack, and feel the lack of, is how British chariots were normally employed in battles between British tribes.  All we have on them is how they acted against Romans, who were not the kind of opponents or military tradition they were designed to face.

Like Andreas and Anthony, I am unconvinced by the 'battle taxi' concept.  Nestor's speech about chariot fighting in the Iliad is very much about straight lines and fighting mounted, and Homer's heroic encounters are usually of the hero-throws-something-which-strikes-down-warrior-or-driver variety, with occasional dismounted action, the latter usually when someone is down and it is a question of finishing him off and stripping his armour (others on his side sometimes object and interfere).  The Britons in Caesar's account use their chariot crews in a dismounted role as part of their repertoire, but by no means is this their exclusive or even primary modus operandi.  Like Andreas, I see them as assembling into coherent formations to fight, this being particularly necessary for their tactics of luring Roman cavalry away from the main army and then dismounting to fight them; this would fail spectacularly if they dismounted in loose skirmishing formation.

Justin is currently finishing Issue 319 to make sure Slingshot gets back on schedule.

[Mark G]

So how much thought have you given the the location and shape of the axel in your theory, Patrick?.

It seems pretty fundamental to the designed use, and features in a lot of other studies.

What effect do you think that has, why was it changed over time, what does that tell us about the intended use?