Hittite chariots

[Erpingham]

I've never been sure that the argument that a running horse can collide with a human they can't avoid and knock them over therefore the military horses primary role was an equid battering ram logically follows, but that's a bit by-the-by.  Chariots are not really my area (I actually know a bit more about WWII tanks ) I think Justin's ideas of chariot fighting miss what chariots do better than foot archers, which is move over tactically useful distances quickly.  This may be the basic similarity of most chariot systems.

Another point about Indian chariotry, if we must bring them in, is our knowledge of them is not limited to one source.  We can find quite a bit about Indian chariot fighting (I googled it)  and its not mainly about ram tactics but fighting chariots, so even if we accept Justin's interpretation of the bit in the Arthasastra (and other interpretations are available) this isn't their only or even main mode of employment.

[Justin Swanton]

I've never been sure that the argument that a running horse can collide with a human they can't avoid and knock them over therefore the military horses primary role was an equid battering ram logically follows, but that's a bit by-the-by.  Chariots are not really my area (I actually know a bit more about WWII tanks ) I think Justin's ideas of chariot fighting miss what chariots do better than foot archers, which is move over tactically useful distances quickly.  This may be the basic similarity of most chariot systems.

Another point about Indian chariotry, if we must bring them in, is our knowledge of them is not limited to one source.  We can find quite a bit about Indian chariot fighting (I googled it)  and its not mainly about ram tactics but fighting chariots, so even if we accept Justin's interpretation of the bit in the Arthasastra (and other interpretations are available) this isn't their only or even main mode of employment.

Since we're on the subject...

I'm a fan of WW2 tanks too. The King Tiger for example was surprisingly manoeuvrable given its size and weight, and definitely more reliable than the Panther.

If chariots were missile platforms whose only purpose was to move archers or javelineers more quickly to useful spots on the battlefield and were never used to charge enemy troops then it would follow that once cavalry were introduced on the battlefield they would all be horse archers and only ever horse archers. But this is not the case. Therefore...

As regards the Arthasastra, sure, chariots weren't used only as battering rams - it says so itself, but interpreting the text in the obvious sense, that was one of their uses. It gives the distance between chariots in line as about a yard, i.e. just enough to prevent the chariots from fouling each other, and not nearly enough to permit a chariot line to break off from enemy if it just rode up to shoot it, but perfect if the chariots were meant to be used as a continuous charging wall designed to flatten an infantry line.

[Erpingham]

If chariots were missile platforms whose only purpose was to move archers or javelineers more quickly to useful spots on the battlefield and were never used to charge enemy troops then it would follow that once cavalry were introduced on the battlefield they would all be horse archers and only ever horse archers. But this is not the case. Therefore...

Therefore?  Was the original use of horsemen charging into massed infantry, or more a manouevering light cavalry role ? 

[Justin Swanton]

If chariots were missile platforms whose only purpose was to move archers or javelineers more quickly to useful spots on the battlefield and were never used to charge enemy troops then it would follow that once cavalry were introduced on the battlefield they would all be horse archers and only ever horse archers. But this is not the case. Therefore...

Therefore?  Was the original use of horsemen charging into massed infantry, or more a manouevering light cavalry role ?

The point is that chariots were around for a long time. If they were never used in a shock role but just as missile platforms then it follows that cavalry would never be used in a shock role but just as missile platforms (a horse being a horse whether hitched to a chariot or carrying a rider), which means all accounts of cavalrymen equipped with shock weapons and cavalry charging into infantry need to be dismissed as imaginative interpolations, or terminological inexactitudes to quote a prestigious British politician.

[Erpingham]

If chariots were missile platforms whose only purpose was to move archers or javelineers more quickly to useful spots on the battlefield and were never used to charge enemy troops then it would follow that once cavalry were introduced on the battlefield they would all be horse archers and only ever horse archers. But this is not the case. Therefore...

Therefore?  Was the original use of horsemen charging into massed infantry, or more a manouevering light cavalry role ?

The point is that chariots were around for a long time. If they were never used in a shock role but just as missile platforms then it follows that cavalry would never be used in a shock role but just as missile platforms (a horse being a horse whether hitched to a chariot or carrying a rider), which means all accounts of cavalrymen equipped with shock weapons and cavalry charging into infantry need to be dismissed as imaginative interpolations, or terminological inexactitudes to quote a prestigious British politician.

Again, I think you're jumping from the specific to the general.  AFAIK, we don't have much evidence for either chariot or cavalry charges against formed infantry in the Bronze Age.  The Artharsastra is , according to Wiki, from 3rd BCE at the earliest, so much later, and in a different sub-continent to the Hittites.  We could therefore argue that the tactic described (unspecifically and capable of different interpretations) is developed later and elsewhere, in the same way as boot-to-boot cavalry charges did.  I think it is worth drawing on our earlier discussions to note that Xenophon , a writer much esteemed, reckoned there were earlier chariot techniques, like the Trojans used, and the later ones of Cyrus' time i.e. chariot tactics, design and use did not stand still over their military lifetime

However, I'm sure we had many of these arguments discussions in the Equid Battering Ram topic and I'm not sure if we are advancing further in our understanding of early chariotry or Hittite chariotry in particular. 

[Justin Swanton]

However, I'm sure we had many of these arguments discussions in the Equid Battering Ram topic and I'm not sure if we are advancing further in our understanding of early chariotry or Hittite chariotry in particular.

Sure. If we limit what we affirm about chariotry in general and Hittite chariots in particular to clear and explicit affirmations by several reliable and unrelated primary sources then there isn't anything to say on the subject either way. I think though that one can go beyond looking for cuneiform tablets that state "The Great King did ride down his foes in his war chariot accompanied by his other chariots the horses of which did strike the enemy infantry and knock them down and trample them underfoot."

In the absence of that kind of evidence what can we say? On the one hand there is no proof that chariots were never used in a shock role. The only evidence I've seen offered is the assumption that horses didn't charge into foot - which goes flat against the documented use of cavalry horses throughout history - and that there is no explicit affirmation that chariots (at least Fertile Crescent chariots) charged infantry.

On the other hand we have the Arthaśāstra that shows that chariots could be and were used in a shock role - and if the Indians worked that out the inhabitants of the Fertile Crescent could also work it out. We have Persian scythed chariots, clearly meant to plough into enemy formations so their scythes could do their work. Were they a refinement of an already-existing use of the chariot? We have Egyptian images of chariots knocking down and trampling fleeing enemy infantry, which begs the question: what made those infantry flee in the first place? A few arrows from the charioteers? And we have that reference to Persian chariots charging into enemy infantry and dying in the bargain in the Cyropaedia - a Greek work on Cyrus the Great, fictional but founded on Greek knowledge of Persian military doctrine. Then there is the design of the chariot itself: why use four horses to cart one archer/javelineer around the place? Why not just use a one-horse gig? (horses being expensive and all that)

One can argue that the evidence is circumstantial (?) but at least it exists. Chariots used in a shock role: some evidence; chariots never used in a shock role: no evidence. You decide. 

[DBS]

The reason I mentioned tanks is not that I am in any way making a physical comparison between a Bronze Age chariot and a Chally 2.  I was instead making a comment about the perception of the vehicle's capabilities as held by those who have not operated them or close to them, and the perception of those who have operated them or close to them.

Perhaps a better comparison might be racing cars.  One can race a Maserati of course.  But one would not enter a Maserati in a stock car race.  That would be a ridiculous risk of a precious asset.  Similarly with a chariot which in the 13th century BC is probably comparable in terms of resource investment to an expensive car these days.  Yes, taking it onto a battlefield risks that investment.  Engaging in any combat risks that investment.  But some forms of combat probably pose an unacceptable cost-benefit risk ratio, and I would suggest that driving at formed infantry is very much in that class.  Far better to pepper them with arrows, then pursue them when they break - the latter seems to me the obvious explanation of "trample down" as that is how the mounted arm has always inflicted the most casualties.

One other thought - the Bronze Age does give quite a few examples of victors specifically boasting about incorporating the defeated troops, chariot teams included, into their own forces.  This would seem to me to suggest that supposed differences in the characteristics of chariots, and their employment, between the various regional powers may not have been as great as is often imagined.

[Justin Swanton]

The reason I mentioned tanks is not that I am in any way making a physical comparison between a Bronze Age chariot and a Chally 2.  I was instead making a comment about the perception of the vehicle's capabilities as held by those who have not operated them or close to them, and the perception of those who have operated them or close to them.

Perhaps a better comparison might be racing cars.  One can race a Maserati of course.  But one would not enter a Maserati in a stock car race.  That would be a ridiculous risk of a precious asset.  Similarly with a chariot which in the 13th century BC is probably comparable in terms of resource investment to an expensive car these days.  Yes, taking it onto a battlefield risks that investment.  Engaging in any combat risks that investment.  But some forms of combat probably pose an unacceptable cost-benefit risk ratio, and I would suggest that driving at formed infantry is very much in that class.  Far better to pepper them with arrows, then pursue them when they break - the latter seems to me the obvious explanation of "trample down" as that is how the mounted arm has always inflicted the most casualties.

Perhaps one way forwards is to examine the precise risks to a horse that charges into a body of infantry. Cavalry have done this many, many times in history. Keeping in mind that the horses probably did this only once in their lifetime, what kind of injuries could they sustain? What kind of injuries did they sustain? We've plenty of examples from the sources. My impression is not enough injury to the horse to make charging into foot a seriously costly exercise.

In the Fertile Crescent even massed archers by themselves generally weren't enough to force a body of infantry to break and run, much less the greatly reduced firepower of chariots. Infantry had large shields for a reason.

One other thought - the Bronze Age does give quite a few examples of victors specifically boasting about incorporating the defeated troops, chariot teams included, into their own forces.  This would seem to me to suggest that supposed differences in the characteristics of chariots, and their employment, between the various regional powers may not have been as great as is often imagined.

Sure. And I suspect that news of military innovations travelled right across Asia and Europe. If someone in India figured out you could charge a chariot into infantry to good effect, it wouldn't be too long before the Chinese and the Persians knew about it.

[Jim Webster]

I think you underestimate the number of times chariot horses would campaign. Certainly Frankish warhorses had a service life of seven or eight years. Given a lot of armies over this period would campaign every year, you'd expect a horse to face combat three or four times at least. Probably more because chariots could well skirmish ahead of the army when scouting etc

[DBS]

Perhaps one way forwards is to examine the precise risks to a horse that charges into a body of infantry. Cavalry have done this many, many times in history. Keeping in mind that the horses probably did this only once in their lifetime, what kind of injuries could they sustain? What kind of injuries did they sustain? We've plenty of examples from the sources. My impression is not enough injury to the horse to make charging into foot a seriously costly exercise.

In the Fertile Crescent even massed archers by themselves generally weren't enough to force a body of infantry to break and run, much less the greatly reduced firepower of chariots. Infantry had large shields for a reason.

The number of occasions in history that cavalry have successfully delivered frontal attacks on close formed infantry is very low.  Even cataphracts were well advised to wait, as they did at Carrhae, for archery to take its toll on the enemy.  Also, bear in mind that a cavalry horse can be manoeuvred far more easily than a chariot team.  A horse can be guided into gaps, shoulder men aside.  Its rider can strike down in all directions with his weapon.  A horse can step over bodies, a chariot cannot.  It might be able to drive over one squishy human, but do that too often and you risk overturning the vehicle or breaking an axle, and certainly throwing the occupants around just as they are trying to fight.

Cavalry is a killer against infantry who are dispersed, or caught in the flank and rear.  That is why the watchword for infantry throughout history has been to present a disciplined front to cavalry.

In any case, the training investment in, and availability of, cavalry horses since the Iron Age has been radically lower than that of chariot teams during the Bronze Age.  Scythed chariots are a viable (though whether effective) option for a Persian King of Kings who commands almost unlimited resources, and Pontic rulers with no shortage of money or horses, far beyond those available to even the Bronze Age Great Kings.  The scythed chariot does not appear to have been a poor man's plaything even in the Hellenistic period.  Bronze Age kingdoms prize the capture of enemy chariots and teams because they are big ticket items, that boost your capabilities, and that the enemy will struggle to replace.  You therefore use them wisely, not in a manner that will guarantee their injury.  The Hurrian training manual shows that the training investment in chariot horses then bears no comparison with, say, the training of a dragoon's horse in the 18th century.  And even 18th century generals fretted a lot about remounts after a big battle, even if they won.

As for massed infantry archery, a few points that one should make:
- we have no idea, because we have no meaningful descriptions, of the effectiveness, or even the employment, of Bronze Age infantry archery (I struggle to think of any depictions of them in action other than the Egyptian reliefs, and even there, the emphasis seems to be more on chariot archery and melee infantry);
- the charioteers have composite bows, another big ticket item, which may not have been commonplace amongst the infantry;
- the charioteers spent a lot of time practising with their bows, and were expected, as testified in both Egyptian and Hittite texts, to achieve a high level of proficiency;
- we have no idea how much infantry archers (if they existed in meaningful numbers) practised, one suspects that some of the Egyptians are the most likely to have been trained since they are deemed worthy of portrayal on pharaonic reliefs.

[Justin Swanton]

I think you underestimate the number of times chariot horses would campaign. Certainly Frankish warhorses had a service life of seven or eight years. Given a lot of armies over this period would campaign every year, you'd expect a horse to face combat three or four times at least. Probably more because chariots could well skirmish ahead of the army when scouting etc

Sure, but how many times would a chariot horse (or a cavalry horse for that matter) take part in a major pitched battle where it might be required to charged a battleline of infantry that could not be easily flanked?

[DBS]

I think you underestimate the number of times chariot horses would campaign. Certainly Frankish warhorses had a service life of seven or eight years. Given a lot of armies over this period would campaign every year, you'd expect a horse to face combat three or four times at least. Probably more because chariots could well skirmish ahead of the army when scouting etc

A very good point. Plus, when one chariot horse gets injured or killed, you have a problem because they are trained as pairs; you effectively have lost two.  You might be able to harness another horse as a replacement for the march, but are you going to be happy taking the non-pair into battle in the near future?  Also, injured horses present a problem on campaign: if they have prospects of recovery, do you slow down / stop for them to recover, and thus preserve your investment but lose strategic mobility when you should be pursuing the enemy (which is a big feature in the Hittite descriptions of their Anatolian campaigns at least) or heading back to Hattusa pronto before those pesky Kaskans notice your absence and mount a cheeky raid.  Perhaps a bit different in actions around significant towns such as Kadesh, where you can leave the injured to recover in some security.

[DBS]

I think you underestimate the number of times chariot horses would campaign. Certainly Frankish warhorses had a service life of seven or eight years. Given a lot of armies over this period would campaign every year, you'd expect a horse to face combat three or four times at least. Probably more because chariots could well skirmish ahead of the army when scouting etc

Sure, but how many times would a chariot horse (or a cavalry horse for that matter) take part in a major pitched battle where it might be required to charged a battleline of infantry that could not be easily flanked?

Probably not very often because any general stupid enough to do that would not continue in employment for long.  And would not have the horses left with which to repeat his stupidity anyway.

I really really struggle to think of occasions when that happened, other than Crecy, and even then the plan was for the knights to attack after the Genoese had softened up the English.  And even the best French apologists struggle with Crecy...  And the French were a tad short of cavalry at day's end.

[Erpingham]

One difference in charging a chariot into infantry is that two horses tied to a wheeled vehicle are nothing like as flexible as a single horse.  A cavalryman pushing into infantry can turn and if needs be extract himself (most of the time).  If the cavalryman gets stuck, he'll spend a lot of time defending his horse and he can't protect it all - some pleb will get under the animal or take its back legs out.  You can't turn a struck chariot out of danger and so you will be swarmed if the infantry sticks together.  Infantry support teams would be handy, to exploit the mess you'd made and clear space for the chariot to get underway (your research will show that both the Indians and the Chinese used these and chariot runners existed elsewhere).  Infantry support teams do imply the infantry stays close enough to the chariot, so this approach sacrifices mobility.

[DBS]

Exactly, an extension of the point I made above.  Furthermore, the horse can if necessary be turned side on whilst the rider hacks away to create a gap, then turned into said gap - probably very relevant in flank or rear attacks on infantry.