Chariots as equid battering rams

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

A single isolated form-to-function argument cannot override the united evidence of such historical data as we possess.  Just because chariots had a wide enough axle base to avoid tipping over during a turn does not mean they were intended to spend their entire time turning, or that it should form the basis of their battlefield tactics.

In any event, the chariots with really wide axle bases were the scythed chariots of Cyrus the Elder..

"... he had chariots of war constructed with strong wheels, so that they might not easily be broken, and with long axles; for anything broad is less likely to be overturned. The box for the driver he constructed out of strong timbers in the form of a turret; and this rose in height to the drivers' elbows, so that they could manage the horses by reaching over the top of the box; and, besides, he covered the drivers with mail, all except their eyes.  On both sides of the wheels, moreover, he attached to the axles steel scythes about two cubits long and beneath the axles other scythes pointing down toward the ground; this was so arranged with the intention of hurling the chariots into the midst of the enemy." - Xenophon, Cyropaedia VI.1.29-30

And that rather finishes off the wide axles = skirmishing argument.

Moving on to the central vs rear axle, this would seem to be mainly a load-bearing consideration.  Rear axles are optimal for speed, while a central axle is optimal for load-bearing.  Larger chariots tend to move the axle to the mid-point under the chariot.  A consideration of the forces exerted on the point where the pole joins the chariot indicates why this was the case: in deceleration, the force is the mass of the crew and chariot body multiplied by the distance between the front of the chariot and its axle.  This distance, interestingly, seems pretty much constant whatever the size of the chariot; in larger (and heavier) chariots the axle is moved more centrally (and a shock absorber mounted above the chariot pole) to minimise the moment of decelerative force.

[Erpingham]

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.

Ramming is, of course, Justin's take (the clue is in the thread title).  Though referring to the first sentence of the first post, Justin only said this was their primary role and they had other secondary roles like troop transport.  We all accept that, in the right circumstances, light chariots would be amongst infantry (and cavalry) like a shot.  But this is only part of their repetoire and may not be their main role.
[/quote]

The Brito-Irish chariot tradition appears to be distinct from anywhere else (at least on such information as we have at present),

You could, of course, postulate an entire pan-European chariot culture of which the British and Irish examples were the final flourishing.  Or perhaps just a "Celtic" chariot culture.  The archaeological evidence we have for British chariots at least points to a similar vehicle to earlier Gallic chariots, though the only Gallic battle description we have discussed doesn't allow straightforward comparison of tactics.  Are there other descriptions out there we haven't seen?

[Patrick Waterson]

Ramming is, of course, Justin's take (the clue is in the thread title).

Justin can doubtless tell us if he meant that chariot tactics would have involved deliberate driving into opponents or whether he was just pointing out their impact potential, which would leave them unafraid to do so and effective if they did.

You could, of course, postulate an entire pan-European chariot culture of which the British and Irish examples were the final flourishing.  Or perhaps just a "Celtic" chariot culture.  The archaeological evidence we have for British chariots at least points to a similar vehicle to earlier Gallic chariots, though the only Gallic battle description we have discussed doesn't allow straightforward comparison of tactics.  Are there other descriptions out there we haven't seen?

The only examples we have of Gallic chariot use, or at least those of which yours truly is presently aware, are 1) Sentinum and 2) the 'elephant victory'; in each case, the Gallic chariots either deploy with intent or go in all the way; in neither case do they even hint at skirmishing.  Gallic chariots were present at Telamon, but appear to have done precisely nothing in that particular battle.

Gallic chariots presumably featured at the Allia in 390 BC, but are ignored by our sources who content themselves with describing the Roman collapse in general terms.  They are clearly mentioned at Sentinum in 295 BC, and their actions there we have already examined.  The Gallic tribe concerned is the same in each of these cases: the Senones.

Postulating a pan-European chariot culture seems plausible, but if so, which path did it follow?  Or would it have been one culture with several differing tactical tribal traditions?  Unfortunately we only get tactical information (and not much of that) when pan-European chariots encounter literary cultures on the European fringes, and what we have suggests that Gauls and Britons used their fundamentally similar vehicles in fundamentally different ways.

[Mark G]

It all seems so clear, it makes you wonder why no one else agrees with your radical new theory

[Patrick Waterson]

It all seems so clear, it makes you wonder why no one else agrees with your radical new theory

Perhaps they will.  Give them time and a chance to look up sources and think things over.

[Mark G]

You will have to get published first.

Any plans?

[Erpingham]

I must admit that, while I know Justin's conjecture, I am less clear what the theory Patrick will publish is.  Patrick has presented a lot of ideas around the fact that light and heavy chariots were used the same way but I'm not sure they have come together in a theory.  Perhaps publication would facilitate that process, however.

Going back to Celtic chariots again, Patrick states the only descriptions of Gallic chariots are Sentinum and the "Elephant Victory".   Do we have the evidence that Galatian chariot use mirrored that of their European brethren, or was it influenced by Near Eastern use?   

[Duncan Head]

Going back to Celtic chariots again, Patrick states the only descriptions of Gallic chariots are Sentinum and the "Elephant Victory".   Do we have the evidence that Galatian chariot use mirrored that of their European brethren, or was it influenced by Near Eastern use?

The "Elephant Victory" took place only about three years after the Galatians crossed to Asia. It's probably a bit too soon for any Near Eastern influence.

[Andreas Johansson]

The "Elephant Victory" took place only about three years after the Galatians crossed to Asia. It's probably a bit too soon for any Near Eastern influence.

I guess that leaves us with a choice of improbabilities: Either the Galatians had picked up scythed chariots within just three years in Asia, or they'd independently invented them back home in Europe, or Lucian was wrong about them using them.

(Actually, given the sort of writer he was and how much later he was writing, I'm not sure the last counts as an improbability.)

[Duncan Head]

The "Elephant Victory" took place only about three years after the Galatians crossed to Asia. It's probably a bit too soon for any Near Eastern influence.

I guess that leaves us with a choice of improbabilities: Either the Galatians had picked up scythed chariots within just three years in Asia, or they'd independently invented them back home in Europe, or Lucian was wrong about them using them.

(Actually, given the sort of writer he was and how much later he was writing, I'm not sure the last counts as an improbability.)

I had previously assumed option A, local acquisition. It fits with Lucian's describing the Galatian front ranks as bronze-cuirassed - which is only likely to have been true if they acquired local loot in significant amounts - and Livy's brief description of them rampaging all over Asia Minor defeating everyone in sight and extracting tribute in the years immediately after the crossing.

But I am now wondering about the last option.

[Erpingham]

So, just to clarify my understanding, because I'm not familiar with this stuff, the two front runners are either the Galatians have captured some scythed chariots but are using them according to some Celtic model (not having absorbed the tactical use because they haven't been in Asia Minor long enough) or Lucian is applying poetic licence? 

[Duncan Head]

So, just to clarify my understanding, because I'm not familiar with this stuff, the two front runners are either the Galatians have captured some scythed chariots but are using them according to some Celtic model (not having absorbed the tactical use because they haven't been in Asia Minor long enough)

I'm not sure if there is necessarily any "Celtic model" to the way the scythed chariots are used. At Sentinum and Telamon the Gallic chariots are deployed on the wings, in the first case at least along with the cavalry; but at the Elephant Victory the chariots (scythed and otherwise) were initially deployed behind the centre, to attack through lanes opened in the infantry phalanx.

[RichT]

Given that the chariots (scythed or otherwise) at the Elephant Victory all ran away before they even got within bowshot of the elephants, it's a bit hard to guess what their intended role would have been. If the Galatians acquired Seleucid scythed chariots in AM (which doesn't seem that unlikely in three years) it's fair to assume they would use them in the way they were designed to be used, by driving them at the enemy. Deploying them behind their own infantry and driving through them (assuming for the sake of argument that Lucian's account is accurate) is innovative (or foolish) but bears no relation either to Sentinum or to Achaemenid or Seleucid usage (so far as they are known) either. The only similarity to Sentinum would be that chariots are deployed behind someone else, but that's pretty tenuous.

It seems reasonable to guess that the Galatians' intent (assuming Lucian's accuracy) would be to drive the scythed chariots at the Seleucids to break up their order, then exploit the gaps with their regular chariots and infantry. Now this is similar in outline to what happened at Sentinum except there the role of initial line breakers went (by chance) to the Roman cavalry and fear rather than scythed chariots. It is also exactly what we would expect from chariots (or cavalry) - attacking and exploiting a broken and disordered infantry force - and fits perfectly well with the 'skirmishing plus' model of chariots that, so far as I am aware, everyone has always agreed on.

[Patrick Waterson]

So, just to clarify my understanding, because I'm not familiar with this stuff, the two front runners are either the Galatians have captured some scythed chariots but are using them according to some Celtic model (not having absorbed the tactical use because they haven't been in Asia Minor long enough) or Lucian is applying poetic licence?

As Duncan says, there does not appear to be a 'Celtic model' for scythed chariot use.  The non-scythed chariots at Sentinum were, judging by their deployment position and lack of participation in the cavalry action until the Gallic cavalry had twice failed against their Roman counterparts, intended to attack the Roman infantry and only the Roman infantry.  We can safely assume that every Gallic chariots ('Galatian' is from the Greek for Gallic) in the 'elephant victory' was, whether or not it had scythes, similarly intended to attack the Seleucid infantry.  They all deployed at the same time and in the same way.

It is also exactly what we would expect from chariots (or cavalry) - attacking and exploiting a broken and disordered infantry force - and fits perfectly well with the 'skirmishing plus' model of chariots that, so far as I am aware, everyone has always agreed on.

This is redefinition with a vengeance.  The problem with any 'skirmishing plus' model (which itself sits poorly with the devotees of pure skirmishing unless and until the enemy routs) is that the attested behaviour of Gallic chariots at both Sentinum and the 'elephant victory' shows only 'plus' and no skirmishing.

Actually, it is interesting to see how the concept of chariot use changes over time.  Game designers SPI published two games on Biblical period warfare: Armageddon and Chariot.  In the first, chariots (of all nations) were unequivocally shock weapons; in the second, published about a decade later, they were uncompromisingly skirmish platforms.  Fashion changes, sometimes quite radically.  The only things which do not change are our original sources.

I must admit that, while I know Justin's conjecture, I am less clear what the theory Patrick will publish is.  Patrick has presented a lot of ideas around the fact that light and heavy chariots were used the same way but I'm not sure they have come together in a theory.

Patrick thinks what he has presented has been mainly source information plus thoughts on the implications of such information.  He hesitates to compile a theory on account of the information being scanty and hence not necessarily presenting a full picture.  His main focus thus far has been to dispense with any ideas that chariots would never drive into/through infantry formations (or would disintegrate if they tried) and to point out that chariot lightness seems not to correlate with role.  We have under consideration several different cultures and time periods, and attempting to wrap them all up in a single all-embracing theory could easily be wrong.  At present the best he can do is point to trends and point out which assumptions are and are not supported by such information as we have.

But he is working on it.  If he gets as far as a conjectural chariot manual he will doubtless let everyone know.

[Erpingham]

Thanks patrick for your explanation of your "non-theory".  I suppose we must leave it to others to assess that.  I think the one thing we can agree on is that the lack of evidence making it hard to make definitive statements.  Although this has not stopped others like Drews or Ferrill writing books about the subject.

I find I can't agree with your summation of Celtic chariotry.  It seems to me to work more in support of cavalry in most instances we have - the "Elephant victory" seems to be the exception, perhaps prompted by the opportunities afforded by (or adoption of traditional tactics for) scythed chariots.  But with such a small sample, separated by such a great geographic and time spread, a clear pattern eludes us.