SoA Forums

Been pondering Hittites.
Also reading around, Trevor Bryce in his Warriors of Anatolia claims that the standard Hittite chariot crew was two men, a charioteer and an archer who had a spear, and they got a third man, a shield bearer for Kadesh.

Hittite Military and Warfare by Jürgen Lorenz and Ingo Schrakamp

"An administrative text from Îattusa
mentions a quantity of 17,000 arrows along with additional chariot parts and
equipment. Similar records from Nuzi, mentioning thousands of arrows, easily
spring to mind.58 A Hittite literary text describes training and manoeuvres for
chariot crews under the supervision of two officers.59 This text supposes that
training with a bow and arrow, as well as the training for chariot horses, was
significant to the maintenance of the Hittite army."

58 KBo 18.170 (+) 170a; on this text, see Kosak 1982, 110-11; Siegelová 1986, 482-88.
According to Taracha (2004, 459) this document provides evidence of an inventory of an armoury
or store place (cf., for example, Kendall 1974, 254). See also the remarks of Beal 1992, 138-39.
For similar references from Nuzi, see Kendall 1974, 255-56; Zaccagnini 1977, 35 n. 77 with
references. The Nuzi text HSS 14, 264 provides a description of the typical chariot equipment
(see Zaccagnini 1977, 31). For finds of Hittite arrowheads, see Boehmer 1972, 104-106; and the
contribution by Siegelová and Tsumoto in this volume, p. 292.
59 KBo 3.34 II 21-35: Beal 1992, 535-36. On training in general, see Beal 1992, 127-29. The
so-called 'Court Chronicle' (CTH 8) mentions a competition of archers (see Klinger 2001, 64).
For further references, see Taracha 2004, 459.

But these seem to rely on The Kikkuli Text. Which as I understand is effectively or originally Mitanni.

Given I know damn all, I thought I'd ask on the grounds that there are people here who are infinitely more clued up on this

Jim

Personally, I never bought the "lancer" style of supposed Anatolian and Aegean chariot combat, as physically nonsensical, and the consensus does seem to have turned in the last couple of decades to acceptance that the primary weapon of anyone planning to fight from a chariot (as opposed to getting out of it) has to be the bow.  Nor have I ever bought into the idea that any sane chariot crew would choose to drive their incredibly valuable horses into a formed body of infantry.

As for the "Kadesh third man", I am sure we will never know.  Is it an early move towards a shield bearer flunky, as per later Assyrian heavy chariots, accepting a weight penalty in a two-horse vehicle, or is it a "runner" hitching a ride because how else does a runner keep up with a chariot at full pelt, or even a trot over a few miles?  (And of course, Kadesh is noted for being a battle where, if the Egyptian accounts are even vaguely accurate, the outstanding Hittite characteristic is the speed of manoeuvre by their chariot divisions.  We assume - but do not really know - that it was a bit unusual in that regard.)  It might be one thing for athletic chaps on foot to operate semi-meaningfully on foot alongside chariots running at tactical speeds over short distances, another entirely when they are supposedly advancing quickly over significant distances to achieve operational surprise.  That said, the Ramses III reliefs also appear to show three man chariot crews for the Sea People chariots (vice their oxcarts), where the two fighters are indistinguishable from each other.  However, the presence of the oxcarts apparently on the move may again indicate one side securing operational surprise over the other in a meeting engagement, so does the extra Sea Person per chariot represent a "combat load" or a "movement load"?

Of course, all this places some burden on the assumed pictorial accuracy of the Egyptian sculptors...

Oh, and as for the Mycenaean Shaft Grave V engraving, my view has always been that the line from the horses' heads represents reins, rather than a long pointy stick - not least because if it is a long pointy stick, it rather illustrates the tactical uselessness of a long pointy stick as primary armament for a chariot if you actually want to reach out and hurt anything other than your own horses.

It's been awhile, and I hope that I got this right. (I can't find the reference.)

Ian Russell Lowell argued that the third man in the chariot was infantry being carried to help the attack on the Egyptian camp. Unfortunately I can't remember too much of the argument or details but I believe he noted that Khadesh is the only battle where 3 man chariots were noted.

Certainly Hittite chariots are shown in three forms at Kadesh, one of them 'Syrian' and the other two assumed to be 'Anatolian'.
I wonder if on their home ground chariotry had to be more hands on and the third man was supposed to protect the horses if they got bogged down in among infantry

I also wondered if the third man as a 'chariot runner' or something similar

Quote from: davidb on August 14, 2022, 01:45:48 PMIan Russell Lowell argued that the third man in the chariot was infantry being carried to help the attack on the Egyptian camp. Unfortunately I can't remember too much of the argument or details but I believe he noted that Khadesh is the only battle where 3 man chariots were noted.

It certainly appears to be the first - there are conventional two-man chariots in earlier Egyptian depictions of Hittites. However, we have three-man chariots in the Sea Peoples army as depicted on the Egyptian reliefs about a century later. And of course come the Iron Age, there are three-man chariots in Assyrian and Neo-Hittite sources. So it has always seemed to me that whatever the reason behind the three-man crews at Kadesh, they set a trend.

Quote from: DBS on August 14, 2022, 08:57:52 AM
Personally, I never bought the "lancer" style of supposed Anatolian and Aegean chariot combat, as physically nonsensical, and the consensus does seem to have turned in the last couple of decades to acceptance that the primary weapon of anyone planning to fight from a chariot (as opposed to getting out of it) has to be the bow.

While I agree about the implausibility of the chariot lancer, I don't see why we should dismiss the chariot javelineer as a possibility. While first millennium Celts were prone to dismount to fight, we do hear of them chucking javelins from their vehicles.

Also, while their status as "chariots" may be suspect, Early and Middle Bronze Age battle-carts were apparently meaningful as javelin-chucking platforms. Doing it from a proper chariots should if anything be more effective.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 14, 2022, 07:10:41 PM

Quote from: davidb on August 14, 2022, 01:45:48 PMIan Russell Lowell argued that the third man in the chariot was infantry being carried to help the attack on the Egyptian camp. Unfortunately I can't remember too much of the argument or details but I believe he noted that Khadesh is the only battle where 3 man chariots were noted.

It certainly appears to be the first - there are conventional two-man chariots in earlier Egyptian depictions of Hittites. However, we have three-man chariots in the Sea Peoples army as depicted on the Egyptian reliefs about a century later. And of course come the Iron Age, there are three-man chariots in Assyrian and Neo-Hittite sources. So it has always seemed to me that whatever the reason behind the three-man crews at Kadesh, they set a trend.

It makes sense to see it as a period of transition. I do wonder if terrain has something to do it.
The problem seems to be is that the currently accepted model is that chariot combat was between skilled armoured archers wit composite bows. I remember seeing the chariot compared to the helicopter gunship of its day.

But the spear armed chariot doesn't fit the model. Rather than assuming the model is right and the spear armed chariot is a creation of what little evidence we have, perhaps there were other models?
Now I can see problems with the 'lancer model' although actually a lancer, pursuing fleeing infantry wouldn't be a bad model as you can stab to the side as you go past.
In Anatolia did the Hittites have terrain issues where a chariot crew might have to slow down or move at infantry pace in the presence of the enemy, after all the Hittites campaigned a lot to their north and west as well as into Syria
Spears and thrown javelins could have been useful
Jim

The chariot of the Hittite king at Qadesh is shown in the Egyptian reliefs with quivers, even though the rank-and-file chariots, for whatever reason, are not. And the Egyptian "Poem" version of the battle-account says that "they were three men on a chariot and they were equipped with all weapons of warfare"; this would not be true if they lacked bows. I think that the evidence suggests the chariots at Kadesh were still equipped with bows, but one or more of the three crewmen carried spears as well - probably for throwing, or for fending off infantry who got too close.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 14, 2022, 08:37:40 PM
The chariot of the Hittite king at Qadesh is shown in the Egyptian reliefs with quivers, even though the rank-and-file chariots, for whatever reason, are not. And the Egyptian "Poem" version of the battle-account says that "they were three men on a chariot and they were equipped with all weapons of warfare"; this would not be true if they lacked bows. I think that the evidence suggests the chariots at Kadesh were still equipped with bows, but one or more of the three crewmen carried spears as well - probably for throwing, or for fending off infantry who got too close.

There are apparently administrative documents which mention arrows along with chariot parts, so the presence of bows seems reasonable.

I come back to the point I made earlier - taken at face value, both Kadesh and the land battle vs the Sea Peoples do appear from the Egyptian accounts to have been battles of operational surprise and manoeuvre.  So the third man might be hitching a ride either because it is the only way to keep up with the Hittite chariots or because he has not had a chance to deploy in the case of the Sea Peoples.  We may also be guilty of assuming that chariots, when close to the enemy, dashed around at top speed.  Arguably, Kadesh may be an occasion when higher speed than was tactically normal was employed by the Hittites in the advance to contact, than perhaps would have normally been the case in one where the two sides had drawn up more formally for battle and actually were in contact.  In the former case, "chariot runners" if they truly existed cannot keep up, in the latter case they have a much better chance of so doing.

I have never dismissed the use of javelins, vice lances, from chariots, but even so, one has to wonder whether anyone sane would use them as a primary weapon versus bow-armed chariots.  Range, accuracy, number of weapons, rate of fire all seem to militate against it.  Celtic chariots might have employed javelins, but how often did they come up against opponents armed with significant numbers of foot or horse archers?  Or fought chariots from a different tradition?  I suspect the careers of Ahhiyawan spear/javelin charioteers, if they came up against Anatolian bow-armed chariots, or Anatolian spear/javelin chariots when they came up against Egyptian bow-armed chariots, would have been a tad short.

Quote from: DBS on August 14, 2022, 09:24:06 PM


I have never dismissed the use of javelins, vice lances, from chariots, but even so, one has to wonder whether anyone sane would use them as a primary weapon versus bow-armed chariots.  Range, accuracy, number of weapons, rate of fire all seem to militate against it.  Celtic chariots might have employed javelins, but how often did they come up against opponents armed with significant numbers of foot or horse archers?  Or fought chariots from a different tradition?  I suspect the careers of Ahhiyawan spear/javelin charioteers, if they came up against Anatolian bow-armed chariots, or Anatolian spear/javelin chariots when they came up against Egyptian bow-armed chariots, would have been a tad short.

From what we know, Ahhiyawan charioteers did come up against Anatolian charioteers.
Although some of this depends on the nature of the forces of the Arzawa lands and how strong were the forces of Ahhiyawa on the mainland

Quote from: DBS on August 14, 2022, 08:57:52 AMNor have I ever bought into the idea that any sane chariot crew would choose to drive their incredibly valuable horses into a formed body of infantry.

"Protection of the army; repelling the attack made by all the four constituents of the enemy's army [infantry, cavalry, elephants, chariots]; seizing and abandoning [positions] during the time of battle; gathering a dispersed army; breaking the compact array of the enemy's army; frightening it; magnificence; and fearful noise – these constitute the work of chariots." – Arthaśāstra: 10.4.

Of course the "enemy's army" doesn't obligatorily refer to the enemy's infantry, but one notes that Indian infantry were deployed closely together - something between the close and intermediate order of the manuals (Alexander would not charge them for that reason) - which would conform to "compact array". In any case chariots aren't going to break up the "compact array" of other chariots or of elephants. Indian cavalry weren't deployed in a particularly compact array and would have no trouble keeping clear of chariots or simply confronting them if the chariots charged them.

Sure, one could take the passage metaphorically: "breaking the compact array" could refer to the charioteers frightening the enemy by riding back and forth in front of them (without of course getting too close), shooting the odd arrow at them and heaping insults on their ancestors. But somehow I take "breaking" in a more literal sense. The psychological demoralisation of the enemy is covered by "frightening it; magnificence; and fearful noise."

And now back on topic.  ::)

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 15, 2022, 07:22:20 AM
From what we know, Ahhiyawan charioteers did come up against Anatolian charioteers.

Precisely my point.

As for Justin's comments - leaving aside the very significant fact that Indian chariots, and possibly ideas of using them, are somewhat different from Bronze Age chariots, "breaking the compact array" does not require trying to persuade scared horses to charge into a formed body of infantry.  Sustained archery from the chariots could have a similar effect, especially if there are not too many infantry archers in opposition.

I don't know whether you have talked to tank crewmen.  Popular imagination tends to assume tanks can crash through buildings with ease - indeed Hollywood finds it impossible to make a film with tanks where at least one does not drive through a building.  On one level, most medium and heavy tanks could and can do so.   Yet it would be an act of desperation for any tank crew to do so in real life.  Why cover your tank with rubble? Why risk bending a barrel? Why risk losing a track?  And worst of all, why risk finding that Mr Jones' house had a cellar with a roof unable to support your mighty behemoth?  That really does make you look silly...

Similarly, you have spent years and a lot of resources training your carefully selected, possibly imported, horses.  You have invested in sourcing different kinds of wood to make the vehicle.  You have waited a couple of years as well for your magnificent composite bow to cure its glues, etc.  The armourer has sweated making you a panoply out of several thousand bronze scales, the tin for which may well have had to have been imported all the way from Afghanistan.  You have personally invested a lot of your time in mastering the bow, and your driver has done likewise in learning to drive the chariot.  And now you are going to risk all by charging madly into a bunch of peasants with pointy sticks, none of whom are worth a fraction of the investment your chariot represents, instead of sitting at a distance like any self respecting aristocrat seeing how many worthless peasants you can pot with your bow until opposing charioteers worthy of your attention show up?

Quote from: DBS on August 15, 2022, 11:25:25 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 15, 2022, 07:22:20 AM
From what we know, Ahhiyawan charioteers did come up against Anatolian charioteers.

Precisely my point.

As for Justin's comments - leaving aside the very significant fact that Indian chariots, and possibly ideas of using them, are somewhat different from Bronze Age chariots, "breaking the compact array" does not require trying to persuade scared horses to charge into a formed body of infantry.  Sustained archery from the chariots could have a similar effect, especially if there are not too many infantry archers in opposition.

I don't know whether you have talked to tank crewmen.  Popular imagination tends to assume tanks can crash through buildings with ease - indeed Hollywood finds it impossible to make a film with tanks where at least one does not drive through a building.  On one level, most medium and heavy tanks could and can do so.   Yet it would be an act of desperation for any tank crew to do so in real life.  Why cover your tank with rubble? Why risk bending a barrel? Why risk losing a track?  And worst of all, why risk finding that Mr Jones' house had a cellar with a roof unable to support your mighty behemoth?  That really does make you look silly...

Similarly, you have spent years and a lot of resources training your carefully selected, possibly imported, horses.  You have invested in sourcing different kinds of wood to make the vehicle.  You have waited a couple of years as well for your magnificent composite bow to cure its glues, etc.  The armourer has sweated making you a panoply out of several thousand bronze scales, the tin for which may well have had to have been imported all the way from Afghanistan.  You have personally invested a lot of your time in mastering the bow, and your driver has done likewise in learning to drive the chariot.  And now you are going to risk all by charging madly into a bunch of peasants with pointy sticks, none of whom are worth a fraction of the investment your chariot represents, instead of sitting at a distance like any self respecting aristocrat seeing how many worthless peasants you can pot with your bow until opposing charioteers worthy of your attention show up?

Well...

I doubt there's much point comparing anything in WW2 to warfare in Antiquity. Take tanks. They're not designed to go through buildings though they can do so at a pinch. They're designed to destroy other armoured vehicles or fortified positions with ranged fire and their armour is designed to protect them from return fire. It can serve to punch through brick walls, but that's like saying a large umbrella can serve as a parachute. It might work.

Horses on the other hand aren't designed for anything. They just can be adapted to human use in a certain number of ways. I've demonstrated elsewhere that horses are very good at knocking down people; their mass and speed gives them tremendous inertia. Horses also have no problem knocking down people who get in their way, rather avoid them - I have several videos showing just that.

Tanks fight day after day, week after week, are expensive and have a limited lifespan, so it makes sense for the crew to be as careful with them as possible. A cavalry or chariot horse on the other hand may be expensive but it is unlikely to take part in more than one major battle in its lifetime, maybe two. It will probably charge into an infantry line only once in its career, if that. It's unlikely the charge will seriously injure the horse unless it charges into grounded pikes and cavalry generally avoided doing anything as stupid as that. There are many examples in the sources of cavalry charging into and through infantry lines - mid-Republican Roman armies routinely won their battles by having their cavalry charge through enemy infantry and then letting the Roman infantry finish off their disorganised foes. I won't bother repeating the source quotes as we've debated this many times already.

I still don't get the point of creating a big, expensive mobile platform merely to carry around a single archer or javelineer. Much cheaper just to use archers on foot. They cost a fraction of a chariot and are capable of massed fire which chariots are not. But using chariots to break infantry lines and then the archers on them to shoot fleeing routers (and keep them running) makes more sense.

But we're really off-topic now.

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.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2022, 12:47:31 PM
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.

QuoteIf 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 ? 

Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2022, 01:49:19 PM

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 15, 2022, 02:26:56 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2022, 01:49:19 PM

QuoteIf 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. 

Quote from: Erpingham on August 15, 2022, 03:14:00 PMHowever, 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.  ;)

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.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 08:21:24 AM
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.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 08:21:24 AMOne 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.

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

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 08:37:50 AM
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.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 16, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
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?

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 16, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
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.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 11:13:00 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 16, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
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.

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.

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.

QuoteThe number of occasions in history that cavalry have successfully delivered frontal attacks on close formed infantry is very low.

How low exactly? Do we have numbers for successful cavalry charges in all recorded battles? In any case we are looking at attempted cavalry charges, i.e. the horsemen weren't indulging in a suicidal banzai: they hoped to break the infantry. How many of those are recorded in historical battles?

QuoteAlso, bear in mind that a cavalry horse can be manoeuvred far more easily than a chariot team.

Really? Chariots, with wheels that rotated independently of each other, could turn on a dime and were expected to as the narrowness of a spina in a circus racetrack demonstrates. I have no doubt a charioteer was very skilled, able to make 2 or 4 horses go exactly where he wanted them to.

QuoteA 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.

A horse doesn't need to be guided into gaps or shoulder men aside; it bowls them over like ninepins, as videos I have seen show. As regards chariots riding over bodies....I've wondered why, after the Sumerian battlecart, chariot wheels were so large. I suspect the reason is that they could then easily ride over prone humans. A chariot's team of horses was always at least as wide as the chariot (no one-horse chariots ever), meaning that the horses could knock flat all the infantry in front of the chariot, leaving it to ride over a largish speed bump at about 40km/h without overturning. Shouldn't be a problem.

QuoteCavalry 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.

Agree. Infantry would have devised means of facing off chariots fairly early on, requiring that they be softened up first before a charge. I don't say that a chariot charge would always be successful, or that charioteers would attempt it in any circumstances. My point is that they would attempt it when the time was right.

QuoteIn 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.

The point is that the Fertile Crescent kingdoms spent a lot of money creating chariots, and I can't believe they did that just because they needed mobile archer platforms (with much less missile punch than massed infantry archers). Chariots were expensive nevertheless they were manufactured in numbers, therefore they were devastating weapons. Exclude the archer and what do you have left? Every era has its wunderwaffen.

QuoteAs 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.

There are plenty of depictions of Fertile Crescent infantry archers so I deduce they were an important component of armies of that region and era (but I don't have detailed sources on hand). Chariot riders would have been skilled archers but that doesn't mean they were collectively more effective than a compact group of infantry archers. I suspect their main purpose was to keep a routed mob of infantry in a state of rout, each man waiting for an arrow in his neck and running for his life.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 11:15:42 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 16, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
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.

What is the chance that a chariot horse would get seriously injured or killed? And if a chariot is capable of delivering the decisive charge that wins the battle, then you take that chance.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 11:32:52 AM
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.

If a cavalryman (possible exception for cataphracts) gets stuck among enemy infantry he is dead. If a chariot gets stuck among enemy infantry the charioteer is dead. Hence it is crucial to not get stuck but to either rout the infantry with the charge or burst right through their line.

QuoteHow low exactly? Do we have numbers for successful cavalry charges in all recorded battles? In any case we are looking at attempted cavalry charges, i.e. the horsemen weren't indulging in a suicidal banzai: they hoped to break the infantry. How many of those are recorded in historical battles?

Big ask, Justin.  I think you should narrow it to SoA period and specify against formed close order infantry from the front to give us a chance :)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 12:32:12 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 11:32:52 AM
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.

If a cavalryman (possible exception for cataphracts) gets stuck among enemy infantry he is dead. If a chariot gets stuck among enemy infantry the charioteer is dead. Hence it is crucial to not get stuck but to either rout the infantry with the charge or burst right through their line.

Correct.  The point was cavalry are less likely to get stuck, which made charging into infantry a more viable tactic.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 12:33:52 PM

QuoteHow low exactly? Do we have numbers for successful cavalry charges in all recorded battles? In any case we are looking at attempted cavalry charges, i.e. the horsemen weren't indulging in a suicidal banzai: they hoped to break the infantry. How many of those are recorded in historical battles?

Big ask, Justin.  I think you should narrow it to SoA period and specify against formed close order infantry from the front to give us a chance :)

All right....if you insist on twisting my arm...

You are rather missing the point, even leaving aside the arguments that you make which I think are incredibly fallacious.  Why would a Bronze Age king or general bother charging infantry?  It is the enemy chariotry that is his target.  Defeat the chariots and you win the battle.  That is the decisive action.  The infantry are likely there to take cities to win the campaign, and may be able to protect the survivors of the losing chariotry; they are not battle winners, more defeat mitigators.  In the Poem of Pentaur, the Egyptians specifically accuse the Hittite king of cowardly hiding amongst his infantry rather than coming out to fight in his chariot like Ramses.  But he is safe there - even the divinely heroic Ramses is not going to drive his chariot into those infantry.

Infantry are necessary, but individually worthless in this mentality.

Of course there are occasions when one side has no, or insignificant numbers of chariots, or is hiding up a mountain.  In the latter, the attacker cannot take his chariots up there anyway - I forget which Hittite king boasted of not being put off by that tactic in western Anatolia and how he personally led his infantry up the mountain.  In the former, say Egyptians vs Libyans or Sea Peoples, there is no evidence that the Egyptians used their chariotry in frontal attacks into formed bodies of infantry, and why should they?  It could shoot the enemy up with impunity, the Egyptians seem to have taken their infantry marginally more seriously anyway, and the glorious action of the Pharaoh was pursuing his broken enemies to nail the threat they posed out of sight.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 12:44:14 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 12:32:12 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 11:32:52 AM
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.

If a cavalryman (possible exception for cataphracts) gets stuck among enemy infantry he is dead. If a chariot gets stuck among enemy infantry the charioteer is dead. Hence it is crucial to not get stuck but to either rout the infantry with the charge or burst right through their line.

Correct.  The point was cavalry are less likely to get stuck, which made charging into infantry a more viable tactic.

I would argue that the adhesiveness of cavalry or chariots in a mass of infantry was about the same. Unless of course we're talking about KTB. 8)

QuoteUnless of course we're talking about KTB. 8)

Nah, lets stick with history  ::)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 12:25:09 PM
There are plenty of depictions of Fertile Crescent infantry archers so I deduce they were an important component of armies of that region and era (but I don't have detailed sources on hand).

There are plenty of depictions of monarchs with bows (and often spears).  Obviously before the advent of the chariot, that proves nothing.  After the chariot is adopted, then said monarch is likely to be fighting from his chariot if he goes into battle, but not necessarily be depicted in his chariot - the Egyptians are big on doing that, but others not so much until you get to the Assyrians.  Even if a non-monarchical pleb with a bow is depicted, that does not necessarily make him a major player on the field of battle, as opposed to attacking or, especially, defending in a siege.  How practised is said pleb in the use of the bow?  Is it a cheap peasant's bow, or a beautifully crafted composite bow?  In a siege, the attacker has no choice but to come within range of even the poorest bow if he wants to assault the city (and Bronze Age logistics rather limit the chance of taking it by simple blockade).  On a battlefield, only a fool is going to put something valuable within their range; either sit off and use your superior bow and marksmanship to hit with impunity, or send in your Sherden to cut them up with a sword; if the Sherden take casualties, then it is for the greater glory of Ramses and will pay them back for being pirates in the first place.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 12:49:05 PM
You are rather missing the point, even leaving aside the arguments that you make which I think are incredibly fallacious.

Feel free to detail exactly why they are fallacious.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 12:49:05 PMWhy would a Bronze Age king or general bother charging infantry?  It is the enemy chariotry that is his target.  Defeat the chariots and you win the battle.  That is the decisive action.  The infantry are likely there to take cities to win the campaign, and may be able to protect the survivors of the losing chariotry; they are not battle winners, more defeat mitigators.  In the Poem of Pentaur, the Egyptians specifically accuse the Hittite king of cowardly hiding amongst his infantry rather than coming out to fight in his chariot like Ramses.  But he is safe there - even the divinely heroic Ramses is not going to drive his chariot into those infantry.

Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Defeating chariots wins the battle, but Ramses dare not charge into the undefeated infantry? If you win a battle then you win a battle: the enemy army is beaten meaning it is either dead or routed. If a large part of the enemy army remains on the field then you haven't won the battle. You still have to defeat the part of that army that stands its ground.

And infantry can't protect routing chariots. The infantry are pretty much immobile leaving enemy charioteers free to roam around them and chase their defeated counterparts at will.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 12:49:05 PMInfantry are necessary, but individually worthless in this mentality.

If infantry are worthless then why are they necessary?

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 12:49:05 PMOf course there are occasions when one side has no, or insignificant numbers of chariots, or is hiding up a mountain.  In the latter, the attacker cannot take his chariots up there anyway - I forget which Hittite king boasted of not being put off by that tactic in western Anatolia and how he personally led his infantry up the mountain.  In the former, say Egyptians vs Libyans or Sea Peoples, there is no evidence that the Egyptians used their chariotry in frontal attacks into formed bodies of infantry, and why should they?  It could shoot the enemy up with impunity, the Egyptians seem to have taken their infantry marginally more seriously anyway, and the glorious action of the Pharaoh was pursuing his broken enemies to nail the threat they posed out of sight.

The point is that all armies in this period deployed significant numbers of infantry in set piece battles, so they must have served a purpose (as cheerleaders?...warning: sarcasm alert). Shooting infantry certainly disorganised them and softened them up, but it still required a knockout blow to send them packing - again, I don't have the sources at hand.  :'(

QuoteThe point is that all armies in this period deployed significant numbers of infantry in set piece battles, so they must have served a purpose (as cheerleaders?...warning: sarcasm alert).

There is a model of combat, mentioned by David, that infantry masses form a moving defensive position around which the chariots operate against each other.  Damaged or exhausted or out of ammo chariots can take refuge shielded by the foot and perhaps return to action.  When one side has achieved chariot superiority, it can screen it's own infantry to advance and break the enemy infantry, then the victorious chariots can gloriously slaughter the fleeing enemy, grinding them beneath the wheels and posing for the hero shot to be placed in temples to celebrate.  I think Ian Russell-Lowells Rein-bow warriors works on this model, from Jon Freitag and Ian's recent test games.

We encounter a similar model of infantry/cavalry collaboration in some early medieval battles, and even early tournaments (the mock battle types), so its not inately unlikely.  Doesn't mean it happened though.

QuoteShooting infantry certainly disorganised them and softened them up, but it still required a knockout blow to send them packing - again, I don't have the sources at hand.  :'(

I think everyone would agree that degrading the cohesion and fighting ability of the infantry then finishing them off with cavalry is sound.  Indeed, I'm not sure anybody is arguing that degraded and disordered infantry weren't legitimate prey for chariots in any era.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 12:58:33 PM

QuoteUnless of course we're talking about KTB. 8)

Nah, lets stick with history  ::)

Oi!

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 12:44:14 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 12:32:12 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 16, 2022, 11:32:52 AM
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.

If a cavalryman (possible exception for cataphracts) gets stuck among enemy infantry he is dead. If a chariot gets stuck among enemy infantry the charioteer is dead. Hence it is crucial to not get stuck but to either rout the infantry with the charge or burst right through their line.

Correct.  The point was cavalry are less likely to get stuck, which made charging into infantry a more viable tactic.

Mmmh. I need a convincing reason why cavalry are less likely to get stuck. The horse has no option but to ride down the infantry, getting up speed and then knocking them flat them like ninepins. If KTB isn't a thing that puts cavalry and chariot horses in exactly the same boat. If the horse loses its impetus before it gets clear of the infantry then it's all over for the horse and rider/driver.

QuoteIf the horse loses its impetus before it gets clear of the infantry then it's all over for the horse and rider/driver.

It is for the chariot, I would suggest.  If the penetration is shallow, the horseman could turn and pull back.  This seems to be what is described in most encounters of medieval cavalry and infantry.  If the rider goes in too deep and doesn't make the break through, it's good knight Vienna.  Classic descriptions of this include the death of Robert of Artois at Courtrai and Louis de Chateau-Guyon at Grandson.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 11:13:00 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 16, 2022, 10:48:28 AM
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?

nobody can ever know the answer to that question. Some horses will do it multiple times, some will never do it (much like soldiers)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 16, 2022, 01:06:05 PM
Feel free to detail exactly why they are fallacious.

Horses knocking people over like nine pins?  One, assumes that the horse hits the infantry at full pelt.  Two, these are small horses - ponies in size, not modern horses.  Three, still damned stupid thing to do with horses that are worth an entire village or three of peasants.  Four, why, why, why do it?  Five, how many ranks deep are the infantry?  You might flatten the first rank, maybe the second.  By the time you get to the third or fourth, you had better hope they are running or you are now at a standstill, with angry peasants on either side, your horses are REALLY unhappy, and you are in a right pickle.

By extension, the idea that a chariot just knocks over even more peasants than a single horse, and in a manner that just makes the aristocratic crew laugh despicably rather than hanging on for dear life as the vehicle bounces up and down over bodies, shields and spears (hope they don't stick into the horses or the vehicle), the horses get very distressed, and the axle possibly breaks...

Quote
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Defeating chariots wins the battle, but Ramses dare not charge into the undefeated infantry? If you win a battle then you win a battle: the enemy army is beaten meaning it is either dead or routed. If a large part of the enemy army remains on the field then you haven't won the battle. You still have to defeat the part of that army that stands its ground.

Dead or routed is the only definition of victory?  Seriously?

Quote
And infantry can't protect routing chariots. The infantry are pretty much immobile leaving enemy charioteers free to roam around them and chase their defeated counterparts at will.

Depends what state the winning chariots are in.  Horses blown, arrows expended, crews knackered, or simply too busy looting their fallen enemies.  Steady infantry can make all the difference between a merciless pursuit and a "Hey, that is a good enough enough result, now let us loot the enemy charioteer corpses and round up the loose horses before those thieving Sherden catch up."

Quote
If infantry are worthless then why are they necessary?

The point is that all armies in this period deployed significant numbers of infantry in set piece battles, so they must have served a purpose (as cheerleaders?...warning: sarcasm alert). Shooting infantry certainly disorganised them and softened them up, but it still required a knockout blow to send them packing - again, I don't have the sources at hand.  :'(

Infantry are there because any major strategic campaign in the Bronze Age is almost always focused on capturing or defending one or more important towns.  Hittite kings defined their success by taking enemy towns and deporting people, goods, herds.  These are tasks that need infantry.  As the Hittites record, sometimes the enemy tries hiding up a mountain and it needs infantry to flush them out  The infantry do not suddenly disappear from your army because the opposition decides to offer a field action, but does not mean that they will always be assumed to have a major role in that field action.

At Kadesh, the Egyptians seem to have left the Hittite infantry untouched.  Now, we may suspect that Ramses massively exaggerates his success in the battle, but even taken at face value, his account regards the battle won when numbers of the Hittite chariots have either been trapped against the city walls, with their crews forced to abandon them and seek sanctuary inside, or trapped against the rivers and the crews forced to swim or drown.  No mention of engagement with the Hittite infantry is mentioned, let alone any knockout blow to send them packing, but it is still a most glorious victory for Pharaoh.

I see that the last time this topic was beaten to death (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3522) was 16 Aug 2018 - is this International Talk About Chariots Day or something? I'm not surprised to see that nothing was learned from that (20 page) thread.

In 2018 I linked back to a post of mine from 2017 so I'll do so again now (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2557.msg30371#msg30371), rather than boring anyone with new words.

Quote from: RichT on August 16, 2022, 06:21:36 PM
I see that the last time this topic was beaten to death (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3522) was 16 Aug 2018 - is this International Talk About Chariots Day or something? I'm not surprised to see that nothing was learned from that (20 page) thread.

In 2018 I linked back to a post of mine from 2017 so I'll do so again now (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2557.msg30371#msg30371), rather than boring anyone with new words.

Thanks Rich. People may have noticed that I generally avoid contentious topics relating to military history these days as I find (which you may also have) that people have generally made up their minds a long time ago on the topics in question and tend to bring out the same arguments that were aired three or four or five years ago. To answer David Stevens' first point in his last post I suggest clicking on Rich's first link (see the first post there). I substantially agree with what Rich said in his second link. I'll briefly answer the rest of David's post separately.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 05:04:38 PM

Quote
Isn't that a bit of a contradiction? Defeating chariots wins the battle, but Ramses dare not charge into the undefeated infantry? If you win a battle then you win a battle: the enemy army is beaten meaning it is either dead or routed. If a large part of the enemy army remains on the field then you haven't won the battle. You still have to defeat the part of that army that stands its ground.

Dead or routed is the only definition of victory?  Seriously?

Seriously.

Edit: also surrender and conceding the battle like a gentleman. But I think those two were rare enough occurrences on a Fertile Crescent battlefield (if they ever happened there at all) for me not to think of them in the context of chariots. I'm rather reminded of African bush wars, where "prisoner of war" was a funny concept.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 05:04:38 PM

Quote
And infantry can't protect routing chariots. The infantry are pretty much immobile leaving enemy charioteers free to roam around them and chase their defeated counterparts at will.

Depends what state the winning chariots are in.  Horses blown, arrows expended, crews knackered, or simply too busy looting their fallen enemies.  Steady infantry can make all the difference between a merciless pursuit and a "Hey, that is a good enough enough result, now let us loot the enemy charioteer corpses and round up the loose horses before those thieving Sherden catch up."

A horse can gallop for miles without getting seriously winded, and even in a large battle a couple of km is about as far as they need to go. Victorious charioteers will have no trouble seeing their defeated opposite numbers off the field and then turning on the infantry. In later battles where cavalry feature the only way to shelter them is in a hollow infantry square (e.g. Carrhae, Byzantine armies) and as far as I know Egyptians, Assyrians & co. didn't go in for hollow squares.

Quote from: DBS on August 16, 2022, 05:04:38 PM

Quote

Quote
If infantry are worthless then why are they necessary?

The point is that all armies in this period deployed significant numbers of infantry in set piece battles, so they must have served a purpose (as cheerleaders?...warning: sarcasm alert). Shooting infantry certainly disorganised them and softened them up, but it still required a knockout blow to send them packing - again, I don't have the sources at hand.  :'(

Infantry are there because any major strategic campaign in the Bronze Age is almost always focused on capturing or defending one or more important towns.  Hittite kings defined their success by taking enemy towns and deporting people, goods, herds.  These are tasks that need infantry.  As the Hittites record, sometimes the enemy tries hiding up a mountain and it needs infantry to flush them out  The infantry do not suddenly disappear from your army because the opposition decides to offer a field action, but does not mean that they will always be assumed to have a major role in that field action.

At Kadesh, the Egyptians seem to have left the Hittite infantry untouched.  Now, we may suspect that Ramses massively exaggerates his success in the battle, but even taken at face value, his account regards the battle won when numbers of the Hittite chariots have either been trapped against the city walls, with their crews forced to abandon them and seek sanctuary inside, or trapped against the rivers and the crews forced to swim or drown.  No mention of engagement with the Hittite infantry is mentioned, let alone any knockout blow to send them packing, but it is still a most glorious victory for Pharaoh.

If infantry are of little or no use on a battlefield then they will not be deployed on a battlefield, certainly not in the numbers given by the sources (even if one accepts those numbers are exaggerated). Warfare is a hardheaded business. A general learns what works and doesn't work or he pays the price. I'll have a look at Kadesh.

Thinking of chariots as multi-purpose weapons brought up the question: how exactly do chariots fight chariots? They can't charge each other as the horses would either refuse to gallop into each other or if they did the result would be an instant lose-lose. That leaves the archer. It seems obvious that what happened was that the two chariot lines drew close to each other then stopped. The archers would start shooting at the enemy charioteers since killing the charioteer neutralises the chariot. He would also shoot at enemy archers to remove them as a problem. The charioteer can't himself hold a shield as he has his hands full with the reins and daren't let go of them for an instant, so it makes sense that the shieldbearer protects them both. Since the archer also has a spear - in some cases - it makes sense that he could cover the distance between the two chariot lines at a run and take out the enemy archer and charioteer with his spearpoint.

If one side lost more charioteers/archers than the other, the surviving chariots would experience an increasing rate of arrow fire from the enemy archers, now able to concentrate on fewer targets. Their opponents would quickly work out that they were getting more than they were giving and hence were losing the battle. At a critical point they would break and run.

In this scenario the quality of the archer is all-important. Foot-archers don't have to be especially good; they are required to drop arrows into the area covered by enemy troops, and since that area was a large one for Fertile Crescent armies accuracy wasn't a feature. Chariot archers on the other hand had to target individual enemy charioteers and archers and skillful archery was a must. Good bows were also essential. It is perhaps for this reason that Egyptian art emphasises the bow in its depictions of chariots. It would have been a prestige weapon in that context.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 06:53:48 AM
Thinking of chariots as multi-purpose weapons brought up the question: how exactly do chariots fight chariots? They can't charge each other as the horses would either refuse to gallop into each other or if they did the result would be an instant lose-lose. That leaves the archer. It seems obvious that what happened was that the two chariot lines drew close to each other then stopped.

Firstly did chariots advance in lines or columns?
If lines how wide the spacing?
I've seen arguments that the chariots basically drove across each other's front shooting, or drove through each other because the gaps were so wide, or formed small 'cantabrian' circles shooting at each other. Yours is the first time I've ever seen anybody assume they would stop.
(It's not that you're right or wrong, it's just not obvious  ;)  )

Actually I cannot see them stopping because then you're dead meat for anybody who has got infantry or chariot runners with them.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 07:28:59 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 06:53:48 AM
Thinking of chariots as multi-purpose weapons brought up the question: how exactly do chariots fight chariots? They can't charge each other as the horses would either refuse to gallop into each other or if they did the result would be an instant lose-lose. That leaves the archer. It seems obvious that what happened was that the two chariot lines drew close to each other then stopped.

Firstly did chariots advance in lines or columns?
If lines how wide the spacing?
I've seen arguments that the chariots basically drove across each other's front shooting, or drove through each other because the gaps were so wide, or formed small 'cantabrian' circles shooting at each other. Yours is the first time I've ever seen anybody assume they would stop.
(It's not that you're right or wrong, it's just not obvious  ;)  )

Actually I cannot see them stopping because then you're dead meat for anybody who has got infantry or chariot runners with them.

I suspect they would have to stop, even if only momentarily, to enable the archer to target enemy charioteers/archers (think WW2 tanks). A chariot bumping over uneven ground would make serious archery impossible. Or maybe they kept moving but drew really close to each other to make the inaccuracy less of a problem - but then getting too close opens them to being rushed by infantry. It's an iffy thing. Either way it was all about the archer.

I think chariots would form up in line, at least when close to enemy chariots, to allow more chariot archers to target opponents.

Chariot runners...I hadn't though of those. They would be ideal for rushing enemy chariots that had stopped or weren't moving fast enough or couldn't break off fast enough. It fits.

I've been engaging in a bit of nostalgia and rereading the old posts.  There are actually some important differences - no-one believes chariots deliberately rammed each other any more it seems and the scythed suicide machine is no-ones default model for all chariots.  As for people making up their minds already, this is likely to be true unless new evidence comes along or persuasive near interpretations are advanced.  I, for example, have a different view of hoplite warfare than I had before we began to pick away at things, having been exposed to new ideas and evidence. 

On Justin's ideas on chariot v chariot combat, a lot there makes sense and fits with what we have from our sources.  I'm not sure that targeting the charioteer was the priority rather than the archer - a social argument could be made charioteers would target their peers and killing charioteers might not be considered cricket.  My knowledge of the Iliad is shamefully lacking but I believe some have interpreted a set of conventions about charioteers from it, and the much later Irish hero tales also suggest conventions around chariot drivers.  According to Nefedkin's reading of the Mahabharata, the primary target for chariot heroes were other chariot heroes.

Another question is why not target horses?  Disable a horse and a chariot can no longer sustain the fight - it might be recovered to its own lines at best.  Again, there may have been conventions about this among chariot crews, possibly with an eye to future loot - though this may not have applied to infantry, who may have taken a more pragmatic "It's Dobbin or me" approach.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:12:14 AM
Another question is why not target horses?  Disable a horse and a chariot can no longer sustain the fight - it might be recovered to its own lines at best.

That ANE chariot horses were commonly armoured surely implies they were commonly targeted.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 09:31:46 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:12:14 AM
Another question is why not target horses?  Disable a horse and a chariot can no longer sustain the fight - it might be recovered to its own lines at best.

That ANE chariot horses were commonly armoured surely implies they were commonly targeted.

Yes, but by whom?  As I've already suggested, the PBI are unlikely to be part of any social convention to preserve horses.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 09:31:46 AM
That ANE chariot horses were commonly armoured surely implies they were commonly targeted.

Yes, but by whom?

Ramses II (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Battle_scene_from_the_Great_Kadesh_reliefs_of_Ramses_II_on_the_Walls_of_the_Ramesseum.jpg)?

Among the fleeing and fallen Hittites before the (literally) great man in the relief, I see at least two horses with arrows sticking out of them.

I dug out last night my copy of Crouwel's opus magnus on pre-Roman wheeled vehicles in Italy.  Now, of course, this is largely focused on the Iron Age, and Crouwel himself cautions against drawing excessive inferences from the Bronze Age Near East and vice versa.  But given that Prof Crouwel is the greatest living authority on the subject, some of his general discussion points on chariotry are interesting, especially where he notes that his own views have changed over time thanks to further research and testing.

1) He took part in the reconstruction of Assyrian chariots and was surprised by the result.  He had previously assumed that such a heavy chariot would have less manoeuvrability than earlier vehicles, but this proved to be to a less dramatic extent than he had expected.  He states that he had hitherto assumed that the Assyrian chariots must have made firing runs across the front of enemy forces, because it would be suicidally insane to drive actually into the enemy lines, and the chariots would want to keep moving because that is their raison d'etre.  Following this reconstruction, he realised that it would be possible for even an Assyrian chariot to advance towards the enemy to close within range, fire a shot or two, then turn away before it became exposed unacceptably to return fire.  A caracole if one wishes to use the later term.

2) He still regards the thought of thrusting spears as a primary weapon from a chariot as preposterous - excessively long lances would be required, how do you hold such a long thing steady to be able to aim meaningfully, and if you do somehow hit something or someone, the chap wielding it is likely to be propelled backwards out of the chariot by the impact unless his grip is so loose that he is able to let it fly out of his hand... which not only means that aiming with a loose grip is even more difficult, but also means it is a one shot weapon.  Jousting charioteers do not have a nice saddle to hold them in place!

3) A lot of ancient chariots have damned big axle protrusions.  These mean that you really do not want to get too close to anything else, enemy or friendly, lest you smash the axle.  So again, close passes on each other is severely sub optimal.  By extension, line abreast is probably pretty open order as well.  Not too allow interlacing with enemy chariots, but to avoid collisions with one's own vehicles and to allow greater safe turning space.

4) Trampling one's enemies underfoot is metaphorical, because equids really, really do not like treading on people or animals, not least because they risk serious injury to their own legs.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 10:17:53 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:40:28 AM

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 09:31:46 AM
That ANE chariot horses were commonly armoured surely implies they were commonly targeted.

Yes, but by whom?

Ramses II (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Battle_scene_from_the_Great_Kadesh_reliefs_of_Ramses_II_on_the_Walls_of_the_Ramesseum.jpg)?

Among the fleeing and fallen Hittites before the (literally) great man in the relief, I see at least two horses with arrows sticking out of them.

That seems reasonable evidence that horses could be targeted in Egyptian practice, and would support armouring horses for chariot v. chariot actions.  Thanks Andreas.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:12:14 AM
On Justin's ideas on chariot v chariot combat, a lot there makes sense and fits with what we have from our sources.  I'm not sure that targeting the charioteer was the priority rather than the archer - a social argument could be made charioteers would target their peers and killing charioteers might not be considered cricket.  My knowledge of the Iliad is shamefully lacking but I believe some have interpreted a set of conventions about charioteers from it, and the much later Irish hero tales also suggest conventions around chariot drivers.  According to Nefedkin's reading of the Mahabharata, the primary target for chariot heroes were other chariot heroes.

Bearing in mind that cricket was invented in Britain and the Ancient Middle East never heard of it nor probably of the concept of "playing cricket." Honourable warfare applied only to some cultures and then only to an extent. I mentioned African bush wars. Taking prisoners in those wars (except for interrogation then execution) was something nobody ever thought of doing. In the case of the Rhodesian Army (and we were quite Britishy in our colonial way) the only unit that took prisoners with any intention of keeping them alive were the Selous Scouts, who selected suitable candidates and then offered them a position in the Scouts. If they refused they were executed - with a boot in the head rather than a bullet. If you really hate your enemy then that justifies anything you do to him.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 09:12:14 AMAnother question is why not target horses?  Disable a horse and a chariot can no longer sustain the fight - it might be recovered to its own lines at best.  Again, there may have been conventions about this among chariot crews, possibly with an eye to future loot - though this may not have applied to infantry, who may have taken a more pragmatic "It's Dobbin or me" approach.

As Andreas said, shooting horses was a thing in Egyptian art. Horses though are much harder to kill than men, especially from the front. We humans are terribly badly designed for warfare.

Quote from: DBS on August 17, 2022, 10:20:36 AM
2) He still regards the thought of thrusting spears as a primary weapon from a chariot as preposterous - excessively long lances would be required, how do you hold such a long thing steady to be able to aim meaningfully, and if you do somehow hit something or someone, the chap wielding it is likely to be propelled backwards out of the chariot by the impact unless his grip is so loose that he is able to let it fly out of his hand... which not only means that aiming with a loose grip is even more difficult, but also means it is a one shot weapon.  Jousting charioteers do not have a nice saddle to hold them in place!

Aren't these pretty much the same arguments against, say, the Sarmatians using long spears from horse back?

QuoteBearing in mind that cricket was invented in Britain and the Ancient Middle East never heard of it nor probably of the concept of "playing cricket."

I shall assume a missing emoji here :)

QuoteHonourable warfare applied only to some cultures and then only to an extent.

True but assuming that rules and conventions don't exist is probably wrong in most cases, even if we can't figure them out. 

Every culture has rules and conventions it applies to warfare, usually with a view to bolstering and protecting some privileged in-group. Naturally, how well these conventions are observed (particularly by the out-group) varies. The in-group is usually defined economically and socially, or as demonstrated, racially.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 07:33:02 AM

I suspect they would have to stop, even if only momentarily, to enable the archer to target enemy charioteers/archers (think WW2 tanks). A chariot bumping over uneven ground would make serious archery impossible. Or maybe they kept moving but drew really close to each other to make the inaccuracy less of a problem - but then getting too close opens them to being rushed by infantry. It's an iffy thing. Either way it was all about the archer.

Horse archers seem to have managed shooting at speed, I just wish Nigel was about because I'm sure he did trials of the stability of a chariot as a missile platform.

Indeed as far as I can tell the original illustrations of chariot archery shows the horses in motion

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 07:33:02 AM

I suspect they would have to stop, even if only momentarily, to enable the archer to target enemy charioteers/archers (think WW2 tanks). A chariot bumping over uneven ground would make serious archery impossible. Or maybe they kept moving but drew really close to each other to make the inaccuracy less of a problem - but then getting too close opens them to being rushed by infantry. It's an iffy thing. Either way it was all about the archer.

Horse archers seem to have managed shooting at speed, I just wish Nigel was about because I'm sure he did trials of the stability of a chariot as a missile platform.

Indeed as far as I can tell the original illustrations of chariot archery shows the horses in motion

As far as I can see that's a hunting scene, with the chariot right on top of the lions hence shooting at point blank range. But don't know if monumental imagery always showed the horses galloping and the archer at full draw as a matter of convention.

The galloping chariot running down enemies/animals is a pretty widespread convention.  It may be unwise to dismiss it as imaginary in the absence of alternative evidence.

I spotted this little sketch, partially following the convention in how it shows the chariot in motion but featuring an archery battle between chariots.

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vivienne-Gae-Callender/publication/300767631/figure/fig4/AS:739582488371200@1553341614240/An-Egyptian-queen-mounted-on-a-war-chariot-fi-res-arrows-at-a-male-opponent-on-a.ppm)

One horse (left) may have been hit (or maybe its just part of the arrowstorm).  I admit it is a quirky piece - the warrior on the left seems to be a queen - but an interesting example of chariots going head to head.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 01:11:46 PM
The galloping chariot running down enemies/animals is a pretty widespread convention.  It may be unwise to dismiss it as imaginary in the absence of alternative evidence.

I spotted this little sketch, partially following the convention in how it shows the chariot in motion but featuring an archery battle between chariots.

(https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vivienne-Gae-Callender/publication/300767631/figure/fig4/AS:739582488371200@1553341614240/An-Egyptian-queen-mounted-on-a-war-chariot-fi-res-arrows-at-a-male-opponent-on-a.ppm)

One horse (left) may have been hit (or maybe its just part of the arrowstorm).  I admit it is a quirky piece - the warrior on the left seems to be a queen - but an interesting example of chariots going head to head.

Interesting. The horses appear to be rearing rather than galloping though it's impossible to tell what was in the artist's mind. If the horses are rearing (from excitement, arrow wounds, elegant artistic pose?) then that's pretty much how I envisage a chariot fight.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 12:45:07 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 07:33:02 AM

I suspect they would have to stop, even if only momentarily, to enable the archer to target enemy charioteers/archers (think WW2 tanks). A chariot bumping over uneven ground would make serious archery impossible. Or maybe they kept moving but drew really close to each other to make the inaccuracy less of a problem - but then getting too close opens them to being rushed by infantry. It's an iffy thing. Either way it was all about the archer.

Horse archers seem to have managed shooting at speed, I just wish Nigel was about because I'm sure he did trials of the stability of a chariot as a missile platform.

Indeed as far as I can tell the original illustrations of chariot archery shows the horses in motion

As far as I can see that's a hunting scene, with the chariot right on top of the lions hence shooting at point blank range. But don't know if monumental imagery always showed the horses galloping and the archer at full draw as a matter of convention.

It is a hunting scene because the spearmen at the back are fending lions off as well  8)
But they were happy to fire bow whilst chariot was moving. Most horse archers use short range shooting as well (ignoring massed shower shooting)
At one international horse archery competition "The challenge of this track is the constantly changing range: from shooting 45m forward, 9m to the side, then a 45m Parthian shot at the end "

In some of the events you're expected to "nock and accurately shoot whilst moving at 40km/h, "

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 01:20:09 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 12:45:07 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 12:23:18 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 07:33:02 AM

I suspect they would have to stop, even if only momentarily, to enable the archer to target enemy charioteers/archers (think WW2 tanks). A chariot bumping over uneven ground would make serious archery impossible. Or maybe they kept moving but drew really close to each other to make the inaccuracy less of a problem - but then getting too close opens them to being rushed by infantry. It's an iffy thing. Either way it was all about the archer.

Horse archers seem to have managed shooting at speed, I just wish Nigel was about because I'm sure he did trials of the stability of a chariot as a missile platform.

Indeed as far as I can tell the original illustrations of chariot archery shows the horses in motion

As far as I can see that's a hunting scene, with the chariot right on top of the lions hence shooting at point blank range. But don't know if monumental imagery always showed the horses galloping and the archer at full draw as a matter of convention.

It is a hunting scene because the spearmen at the back are fending lions off as well  8)
But they were happy to fire bow whilst chariot was moving. Most horse archers use short range shooting as well (ignoring massed shower shooting)
At one international horse archery competition "The challenge of this track is the constantly changing range: from shooting 45m forward, 9m to the side, then a 45m Parthian shot at the end "

In some of the events you're expected to "nock and accurately shoot whilst moving at 40km/h, "

I suspect that shooting from horseback is easier than shooting from a chariot car. A horse moves with a fluid, regular motion that is easy to predict, allowing the archer to time his release for when the horse, say, is at its highest point. A chariot car moves over irregular ground and it's impossible to predict when the bumps will occur - and there are many of them. if a chariot is moving over absolutely flat ground then maybe, but just one stone in the wrong place and the arrow goes wide.

But has anyone tried it?

Edit: I consulted the Oracle (YouTube) and yes, one can shoot (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_7nYDjHnw) from a moving chariot but only at very short range it seems. But seeing how the chariot jiggles I can't imagine an archer attempting to hit anything at 50 or 100 yards.

Second edit: pipped at the post by Duncan.

I was looking for the documentary on reconstructing chariots that was on UK TV some years ago, which I think was the project Nigel Tallis was involved in (don't think he appeared on screen though). But so far all I have is a couple of clips with Mike Loades demonstrating chariot archery:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_7nYDjHnw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

And other weapons carried in an Egyptian chariot https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XX-Y7ETWUA8

Someone else shooting from a war-wagon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpM3V6YxDfQ

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 01:17:32 PM
The horses appear to be rearing rather than galloping though it's impossible to tell what was in the artist's mind.

The rearing pose is common in Egyptian art. I've sort of assumed it's meant to indicate a gallop, similar to those classical English paintings with all four legs stretched out (a pose never actually assumed by a galloping horse), but as you say it's hard to know for sure.

The horses of the last (bottom right) battle-wagon of the Standard of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_Ur#/media/File:Standard_of_Ur_-_War.jpg) assume a similar pose. Since the preceeding ones seem to be shown at increasing speed, this might support the idea it's a convention for galloping. Or maybe the last ones are done trampling and being reined in in a suitably impressive victory pose.

From a practical point of view, it seems daft to have your horses rear just as you loose the arrow, but there might be another artistic convention at work here, transposing parade ground trick shooting to the battlefield. (Cf depictions of pharaohs shooting while steering their chariot with reins tied to their waist.)

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 02:09:39 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 01:17:32 PM
The horses appear to be rearing rather than galloping though it's impossible to tell what was in the artist's mind.

The rearing pose is common in Egyptian art. I've sort of assumed it's meant to indicate a gallop, similar to those classical English paintings with all four legs stretched out (a pose never actually assumed by a galloping horse), but as you say it's hard to know for sure.

The horses of the last (bottom right) battle-wagon of the Standard of Ur (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_Ur#/media/File:Standard_of_Ur_-_War.jpg) assume a similar pose. Since the preceeding ones seem to be shown at increasing speed, this might support the idea it's a convention for galloping. Or maybe the last ones are done trampling and being reined in in a suitably impressive victory pose.

The onagers' back legs are extended backwards, which would seem to indicate they are moving. The horses in that chariot shootout have back legs splayed forwards, which looks to me like a rearing pose.

Edit: the three battlecars on the right are trampling enemies underfoot, so they are definitely moving.

Quote from: Andreas Johansson on August 17, 2022, 02:09:39 PMFrom a practical point of view, it seems daft to have your horses rear just as you loose the arrow, but there might be another artistic convention at work here, transposing parade ground trick shooting to the battlefield. (Cf depictions of pharaohs shooting while steering their chariot with reins tied to their waist.)

It may just be an artistic convention showing stationary horses in a dramatic situation, or maybe overexcited horses, who knows?

QuoteThe rearing pose is common in Egyptian art.

Pretty ubiquitous to show fast moving chariots.  What may be throwing Justin off here is that the horses rear legs are shown apart, normal when all four feet are shown on the ground i.e. standing or walking, rather than glued together in the gallop pose.    What I think we are seeing is an Amarna period variation of the rearing galloping pose, which looks just like this (see examples from Meyre tomb).  I'd also suggest the pose of the two drivers suggests urging the horses forward, rather than rearing.

(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/02/50/04/10/1000_F_250041031_WDVTIaeao2kiJkRzRtth9pDZrpsz6qeT.jpg)

QuoteI consulted the Oracle (YouTube) and yes, one can shoot from a moving chariot but only at very short range it seems. But seeing how the chariot jiggles I can't imagine an archer attempting to hit anything at 50 or 100 yards.

Is it therefore conceivable that archers engaged at under 50 yards?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 02:30:09 PM

QuoteI consulted the Oracle (YouTube) and yes, one can shoot from a moving chariot but only at very short range it seems. But seeing how the chariot jiggles I can't imagine an archer attempting to hit anything at 50 or 100 yards.

Is it therefore conceivable that archers engaged at under 50 yards?

Sure they can engage at less that 50 yards. My understanding is that horse archers generally shot at much less than that. The point is that to shoot accurately from a moving chariot the charioteer will need to get very close to his target, inviting a sortie of infantrymen from enemy chariots. Much safer to shoot from a decent distance, buuuuut then you are stationary hence an easier target for enemy archers so what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabout.

BTW infantry catching horse archers who get a little too close is a thing: that's how Venditius defeated the Parthians, twice.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 02:26:40 PM

QuoteThe rearing pose is common in Egyptian art.

Pretty ubiquitous to show fast moving chariots.  What may be throwing Justin off here is that the horses rear legs are shown apart, normal when all four feet are shown on the ground i.e. standing or walking, rather than glued together in the gallop pose.    What I think we are seeing is an Amarna period variation of the rearing galloping pose, which looks just like this (see examples from Meyre tomb).  I'd also suggest the pose of the two drivers suggests urging the horses forward, rather than rearing.

(https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/02/50/04/10/1000_F_250041031_WDVTIaeao2kiJkRzRtth9pDZrpsz6qeT.jpg)

Is this a battle scene or an army on the march?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 02:49:08 PM

Sure they can engage at less that 50 yards. My understanding is that horse archers generally shot at much less than that. The point is that to shoot accurately from a moving chariot the charioteer will need to get very close to his target, inviting a sortie of infantrymen from enemy chariots. Much safer to shoot from a decent distance, buuuuut then you are stationary hence an easier target for enemy archers so what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabout.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38545625

"The result is a remarkable level of softness and comfort. Even at speeds of about 25 miles per hour on Egypt's irregular soil, King Tut's chariots were efficient and pleasant to ride."

If your chariot is doing 25 mph as you bail out and your target chariot is doing 25mph you've got a long chase. Apparently Usain Bolt hit 27.5mph but wasn't carrying sword, shield and javelins.

There's no point in being stationary. If you're stationary, yes you get an easy shot at your target, but even a mediocre archer has a decent shot at you. And infantry can swamp you. Whereas if you can move faster than infantry and you're well trained and competent, you can shoot down those less well trained than you are

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 03:00:24 PM

Is this a battle scene or an army on the march?

It would appear to be a procession, with foot soldiers running ahead of the pharaoh and the chariots.  It is logical (IMO) that the chariots are moving to keep up with the infantry.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 03:12:49 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 03:00:24 PM

Is this a battle scene or an army on the march?

It would appear to be a procession, with foot soldiers running ahead of the pharaoh and the chariots.  It is logical (IMO) that the chariots are moving to keep up with the infantry.

Could it then be an attempt to show spirited horses rearing as they process along? i.e. they would like to break into full gallop and stretch their legs but decorum oblige.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 02:49:08 PM

Sure they can engage at less that 50 yards. My understanding is that horse archers generally shot at much less than that. The point is that to shoot accurately from a moving chariot the charioteer will need to get very close to his target, inviting a sortie of infantrymen from enemy chariots. Much safer to shoot from a decent distance, buuuuut then you are stationary hence an easier target for enemy archers so what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabout.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38545625

"The result is a remarkable level of softness and comfort. Even at speeds of about 25 miles per hour on Egypt's irregular soil, King Tut's chariots were efficient and pleasant to ride."

If your chariot is doing 25 mph as you bail out and your target chariot is doing 25mph you've got a long chase. Apparently Usain Bolt hit 27.5mph but wasn't carrying sword, shield and javelins.

There's no point in being stationary. If you're stationary, yes you get an easy shot at your target, but even a mediocre archer has a decent shot at you. And infantry can swamp you. Whereas if you can move faster than infantry and you're well trained and competent, you can shoot down those less well trained than you are

I would say there's every point in being stationary if you are an archer and want to get an accurate shot. What we need to see is an Egyptian chariot replica (surely we can do even better than the Egyptians?) and a champion archer on it trying to hit targets at different distances whilst the chariot moves at full speed.

There is no question that accurate archery was possible from a chariot at speed.  After all, we have the text of Amenhotep II declaring his assiduous practice, where he routinely penetrated four copper targets engaged at the gallop.  Interestingly, there is a view that the specific choice of "ox-hide" copper ingots as the targets may have a significance as these were associated with Cyprus and Syria in the Egyptian mentality.  Thus the targets are perhaps akin to the British military Figure 11 rifle  target, still in use decades on, which portrays a rather generic enemy soldier, but who bears a bit of a resemblance to both a WWII German or a Cold War Soviet...

There is also a depiction of Ay shooting at such ingot targets from his chariot, with - to ensure the symbolism is not lost on anyone - a couple of Asiatic slaves tied to the pole beneath the target.  Now, given the suspected age of Ay when he became pharaoh, there is a suspicion that this is possibly a case of the old boy remembering his vigour and excellence as a young officer, rather than the reality of his days as pharaoh, but no reason to think that of Amenhotep who was in the prime of his life.  Yes, a propaganda element of course, but surely something like this has to have been credible to his audience, so no different than, say, a medieval monarch being seen to be assiduous in his knightly exercises?

Quote from: DBS on August 17, 2022, 03:28:02 PM
There is no question that accurate archery was possible from a chariot at speed.  After all, we have the text of Amenhotep II declaring his assiduous practice, where he routinely penetrated four copper targets engaged at the gallop.  Interestingly, there is a view that the specific choice of "ox-hide" copper ingots as the targets may have a significance as these were associated with Cyprus and Syria in the Egyptian mentality.  Thus the targets are perhaps akin to the British military Figure 11 rifle  target, still in use decades on, which portrays a rather generic enemy soldier, but who bears a bit of a resemblance to both a WWII German or a Cold War Soviet...

There is also a depiction of Ay shooting at such ingot targets from his chariot, with - to ensure the symbolism is not lost on anyone - a couple of Asiatic slaves tied to the pole beneath the target.  Now, given the suspected age of Ay when he became pharaoh, there is a suspicion that this is possibly a case of the old boy remembering his vigour and excellence as a young officer, rather than the reality of his days as pharaoh, but no reason to think that of Amenhotep who was in the prime of his life.  Yes, a propaganda element of course, but surely something like this has to have been credible to his audience, so no different than, say, a medieval monarch being seen to be assiduous in his knightly exercises?

A couple of questions: what was the size of the copper targets and what was the range Amenhotep II shot from? Ditto for Ay and the gold ingots.

Gosh, sorry, but Amenhotep outrageously forgot to say other than that the targets which he penetrated were a palm in depth.  He was clearly making a point that it was not just hitting the target that was important, but scoring a decisive, deep penetrating hit.

That said, a copper oxhide ingot from Cyprus in the BM measures 71cm by 41cm, and that is at the heavier end of the range of surviving ingots as I understand it.

I would also observe that relying on reconstruction as evidence is extremely dubious, as it is always going to massive underplay capabilities.  Even the finest experts today can only be very pale shadows of people who dedicated their lives to mastering horse, chariot and bow.  So do not fall into the trap of thinking that just because an experimental archaeologist finds marksmanship from a moving chariot difficult means that the ancients did not know what they were talking about when they stated that was exactly what they were able to achieve...  Just as few modern archery enthusiasts are likely to match even average yeoman archers of the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries.

Quotewhat was the size of the copper targets

These are the dimensions of one in the BM. 

Dimensions
    Length: Length: 70.50 centimetres
    Weight: Weight: 36.92 kilograms
    Thickness: Thickness: 5.20 centimetres
    Width: Width: 41.50 centimetres

This fits well enough with images of tribute bearers in Egyptian art e.g.

(https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/544617/1170010/main-image)

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 03:55:44 PM

Quotewhat was the size of the copper targets

These are the dimensions of one in the BM. 

Dimensions
    Length: Length: 70.50 centimetres
    Weight: Weight: 36.92 kilograms
    Thickness: Thickness: 5.20 centimetres
    Width: Width: 41.50 centimetres

This fits well enough with images of tribute bearers in Egyptian art e.g.

(https://collectionapi.metmuseum.org/api/collection/v1/iiif/544617/1170010/main-image)

That's not little, and I'm guessing he hit it from the distance of a few metres as his chariot passed by. Try hitting a target measuring a foot square from a hundred yards. Champion archers regularly achieve that (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwLMebFa9IM).

QuoteThat's not little, and I'm guessing he hit it from the distance of a few metres as his chariot passed by. Try hitting a target measuring 20x20cm from a hundred yards. Champion target range archers regularly achieve that.
Modify message

I'm not sure where you are going with this, Justin.  David has provided evidence that Egyptian charioteers trained to shoot targets on the move.  You counter that they can't hit a small target like an archer with a modern target bow.  Why did they need to? 

1) The ingot equates easily to the torso of a man, perhaps a bit smaller.  So it is in fact not dissimilar to a British Figure 11 of the 20th and 21st centuries.  Hitting the torso of a man is really what a military marksman is aiming to achieve, whatever his weapon.

2) You do not know the range at which Amenhotep was firing, you are just making assumptions that match your prejudices.

3) There is probably no champion archer alive today who practised as hard and as regularly as some of these warriors.  That was the whole point of being an elite warrior - you were raised to it from birth, almost certainly bent your first bow as a prepubescent child, and had the time afforded to you by your privileged position to dedicate yourself to mastering your art.  Furthermore, there is no champion archer alive today who has used a bow in real combat.  So champion archers are utterly irrelevant.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 17, 2022, 05:13:22 PM

QuoteThat's not little, and I'm guessing he hit it from the distance of a few metres as his chariot passed by. Try hitting a target measuring 20x20cm from a hundred yards. Champion target range archers regularly achieve that.
Modify message

I'm not sure where you are going with this, Justin.  David has provided evidence that Egyptian charioteers trained to shoot targets on the move.  You counter that they can't hit a small target like an archer with a modern target bow.  Why did they need to?

OK, the question is whether chariots can shoot accurately whilst on the move at safe distances or whether they have to get close in order to hit their targets. My contention is that a chariot archer could hit a man whilst the chariot was moving provided he was no more than a few metres away, whilst an archer on a stationary chariot who knew his business could easily hit a man 50 or 100 yards away. Since getting too close to enemy chariots is dangerous as infantry from or accompanying the enemy chariots could then rush the attacking chariots, it makes sense that chariots - at least part of the time - would shoot from a distance whilst stationary even if stationary only for a few moments.

It's a moot point really. What matters is the importance of the chariot archer, much more for chariot vs chariot than chariot vs infantry combat.

This experimental reconstruction (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iZcyjfXGOg) shows an archer on a moving chariot can hit a human target accurately at about 10-15m. The chariot isn't going too fast though.

Oh, and the ground is a nice, flat football field. So ideal conditions.

Quote from: DBS on August 17, 2022, 05:21:10 PM
1) The ingot equates easily to the torso of a man, perhaps a bit smaller.  So it is in fact not dissimilar to a British Figure 11 of the 20th and 21st centuries.  Hitting the torso of a man is really what a military marksman is aiming to achieve, whatever his weapon.

True.

Quote from: DBS on August 17, 2022, 05:21:10 PM2) You do not know the range at which Amenhotep was firing, you are just making assumptions that match your prejudices.

Not really. Nobody knows the range Amenhotep shot from since he didn't tell us, but I'm making an educated guess from seeing videos of chariots jiggling as they move over ground and also from my experience in archery (which I practised for several years). I cannot imagine an archer, no matter how good, successfully pulling off long range shots from a bumping chariot. Nor have I seen anyone attempt it in reenactments.

Quote from: DBS on August 17, 2022, 05:21:10 PM3) There is probably no champion archer alive today who practised as hard and as regularly as some of these warriors.  That was the whole point of being an elite warrior - you were raised to it from birth, almost certainly bent your first bow as a prepubescent child, and had the time afforded to you by your privileged position to dedicate yourself to mastering your art.  Furthermore, there is no champion archer alive today who has used a bow in real combat.  So champion archers are utterly irrelevant.

As above.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 17, 2022, 03:10:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 17, 2022, 02:49:08 PM

Sure they can engage at less that 50 yards. My understanding is that horse archers generally shot at much less than that. The point is that to shoot accurately from a moving chariot the charioteer will need to get very close to his target, inviting a sortie of infantrymen from enemy chariots. Much safer to shoot from a decent distance, buuuuut then you are stationary hence an easier target for enemy archers so what you gain on the swings you lose on the roundabout.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna38545625

"The result is a remarkable level of softness and comfort. Even at speeds of about 25 miles per hour on Egypt's irregular soil, King Tut's chariots were efficient and pleasant to ride."

If your chariot is doing 25 mph as you bail out and your target chariot is doing 25mph you've got a long chase. Apparently Usain Bolt hit 27.5mph but wasn't carrying sword, shield and javelins.

There's no point in being stationary. If you're stationary, yes you get an easy shot at your target, but even a mediocre archer has a decent shot at you. And infantry can swamp you. Whereas if you can move faster than infantry and you're well trained and competent, you can shoot down those less well trained than you are

I suspect that the suspension was to give the archer as stable a shooting platform as possible, but we really need to see what an archer can do from a recreated chariot. I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

While two stationary combatants or two moving combatants will have equal accuracy, it's unlikely to be the case if one is moving, and the other is stationary.  The problem for the moving combatant is bumps, while for the stationary combatant it's predicting where the target will be by the time the arrow reaches it.

But in any case, you don't want to be the first chariot on your side to stop, because everyone on the other side will immediately aim at you.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 08:34:10 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 18, 2022, 09:00:34 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

While two stationary combatants or two moving combatants will have equal accuracy, it's unlikely to be the case if one is moving, and the other is stationary.  The problem for the moving combatant is bumps, while for the stationary combatant it's predicting where the target will be by the time the arrow reaches it.

But in any case, you don't want to be the first chariot on your side to stop, because everyone on the other side will immediately aim at you.

Three scenarios. In both cases you have two opposing lines of chariots, each chariot line sufficiently spaced from its neighbours so it can countermarch.

Scenario A: one line stops at about 100 yards from its opponents and immediately starts shooting. Its opponents decide to stop and also commence shooting. Archers manage to hit each other with reasonable accuracy at this distance.

Scenario B: one line stops at about 100 yards from its opponents and immediately starts shooting. Its opponents don't stop but keep advancing towards the stationary chariots. The stationary chariots recommence moving before their opponents can get into the shooting range of moving chariots (which has to be less than the shooting range of stationary chariots). The two lines get to within, say 20 yards of each other and caracole, shooting and retiring, coming back, shooting and retiring, and so on.

Scenario C: Neither line stops but keeps moving until within shooting range of moving chariots and then continue as for Scenario B.

IMHO these all work, but which scenario charioteers actually employed on a battlefield is up for endless argument discussion.

Talking of chariot archery tactics, I thought we might consider a scene of combat between Egyptian and Hittite chariots shown in the Abu Simbel Kadesh reliefs.  Please excuse the use of a reconstruction - it's hard to find a photo which is any good that shows the whole scene.

(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/trwwrtb.jpg?w=584)

Here units of Egyptian and Hittite chariots move toward each other at speed, the Egyptians shoot as they come.  The Hittites are taking damage .  As Andreas pointed out earlier, the horses are a legitimate target and several are down. Crews are also hit.  The Hittites seem to be trying to turn away (rather clumsily handled by the artist because convention is to show the scene in profile). 

Add : After spending forever looking for a photo and giving up, the moment I post, I see one  ::)

(https://images-cdn.bridgemanimages.com/api/1.0/image/600wm.XXX.0168190.7055475/915431.jpg)

Interesting. The Egyptians' bows outrange the ability of the Hittites to hit back at them. I don't see in the original relief the Hittites' spears/javelins depicted in the reconstruction. They have a 3-man crew: one drives, one holds a shield and the third must have a melee weapon of some kind. A lack of missile weapons makes me wonder how they used their chariots. Is is possible the horses were meant to charge into hapless foot....?

If you had spent any time reading about New Kingdom Egypt, you would know that one of the oddities of Egyptian pictorial representation is the rarity with which their enemies are depicted with bows; enemy chariots sometimes have quivers, but even then the chariot crew usually do not have bows.  The paradox is that the texts from the same period and of the same events very much mention bows - eg the Poem of Pentaur describes how at Kadesh the Hittite charioteers were so scared of Ramses that, despite being well armed with bows, they lost the strength to raise them (or hurl darts or raise spears) against him.  One of the favoured propaganda euphemisms for Pharaoh's assorted foreign enemies - Hittites, Nubians, Libyans, Asiatics, etc -  was The Nine Bows, yet the weapon most rarely depicted in their hands is the bow.

This leads to a very strong suspicion that Egyptian propaganda reliefs may have an ideological issue with showing enemy archers accurately.

No, it is not very credible that the Hittites planned their chariots to charge into hapless foot - I am sorry that you are incapable of accepting the loneliness of your position in that regard.

Quote from: DBS on August 18, 2022, 12:48:14 PM
If you had spent any time reading about New Kingdom Egypt, you would know that one of the oddities of Egyptian pictorial representation is the rarity with which their enemies are depicted with bows; enemy chariots sometimes have quivers, but even then the chariot crew usually do not have bows.  The paradox is that the texts from the same period and of the same events very much mention bows - eg the Poem of Pentaur describes how at Kadesh the Hittite charioteers were so scared of Ramses that, despite being well armed with bows, they lost the strength to raise them (or hurl darts or raise spears) against him.  One of the favoured propaganda euphemisms for Pharaoh's assorted foreign enemies - Hittites, Nubians, Libyans, Asiatics, etc -  was The Nine Bows, yet the weapon most rarely depicted in their hands is the bow.

This leads to a very strong suspicion that Egyptian propaganda reliefs may have an ideological issue with showing enemy archers accurately.

No, it is not very credible that the Hittites planned their chariots to charge into hapless foot - I am sorry that you are incapable of accepting the loneliness of your position in that regard.

Fine. I don't pretend to be an expert on New Kingdom Egyptian pictography. It did strike me as rather odd that Hittite chariots would engage Egyptian chariots without the Hittites having effective missile weapons, but this is a learning game.

And no, the loneliness of my position doesn't bother me in the least. I would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion. But according to Rich majority opinion puts me in good company. ;)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:08:35 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 08:34:10 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 02:27:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:08:35 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 08:34:10 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

100+ yards?

QuoteI would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion.

I think many people would flip this Justin and ask why the view of the majority of scholars should be overturned by a new theory.  Usually, it involves the discovery of new evidence or a fresh approach to the analysis of the evidence underlying the majority position.  If the latter, the majority should consider it to see if it better fits the data.  While you've launched a new theory - that chariots were regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry to break the enemy's line - you haven't produced any new evidence to support it, or a re-analysis of the existing information. 

Personally, I think I'm reasonably confident that the lighter Egyptian chariots mainly attacked and defended themselves with archery, I'm still not sure about what the Hittites are up to.  What were they armed with?  David has noted the mysterious absence of Hittite bows in the Abu Simbel reliefs, when they frequently turn up equipping gods and men in Hittite images.  The mystery of the spears might be that there is something of an absence of Hittite weapons generally.  That they were painted in is possible - early archeological reports may talk of paint traces - but we are getting into expert Egyptological territory there, not something you can do with a Google image search.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 18, 2022, 02:42:36 PM

QuoteI would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion.

I think many people would flip this Justin and ask why the view of the majority of scholars should be overturned by a new theory.  Usually, it involves the discovery of new evidence or a fresh approach to the analysis of the evidence underlying the majority position.  If the latter, the majority should consider it to see if it better fits the data.  While you've launched a new theory - that chariots were regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry to break the enemy's line - you haven't produced any new evidence to support it, or a re-analysis of the existing information.

A couple of things. First, I don't say chariots regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry; I maintain they did it in the right circumstances. If chariots always charged infantry - with a good expectation of success - then infantry wouldn't dare appear on battlefields. How frequently those circumstances arose is up for debate. Secondly, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there is no evidence chariots never charged infantry, whereas there is some evidence - circumstantial and written - that they did. I produced that evidence. Finally, I don't think my opinion is especially new or unique to me. There seems to be several schools of thought on whether horses charged infantry and if they did, what kind of horses, in what era, as part of what armies, and in what circumstances.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 18, 2022, 02:42:36 PMPersonally, I think I'm reasonably confident that the lighter Egyptian chariots mainly attacked and defended themselves with archery, I'm still not sure about what the Hittites are up to.  What were they armed with?  David has noted the mysterious absence of Hittite bows in the Abu Simbel reliefs, when they frequently turn up equipping gods and men in Hittite images.  The mystery of the spears might be that there is something of an absence of Hittite weapons generally.  That they were painted in is possible - early archeological reports may talk of paint traces - but we are getting into expert Egyptological territory there, not something you can do with a Google image search.

Following on David, I think it highly unlikely Hittite chariots would have engaged Egyptian chariots if the Hittites weren't equipped with bows, as everyone by then would have known quite well how effective a chariot bow was. News of military innovation gets around. BTW I don't think the lightness of a chariot has anything to do with its efficacity as an infantry battering ram since it is the horses that do the ramming. A light chariot would more easily pass over prone bodies perhaps, whereas a heavy chariot - like the thick-wheel Assyrian variety - would crush the bodies it passed over.

Oh, and a light chariot could outrun a heavier one.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 02:35:00 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 02:27:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:08:35 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 08:34:10 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

100+ yards?

It'll take a chariot moving at 20mph a full ten seconds to close with you :-)
Given the 16 year olds are supposed to throw a javelin 40m,  you might be lucky to have a whole ten seconds before the chariot runners emerge from the dust, notice you and the first javelins start coming in 8)

Quote
But according to Rich majority opinion puts me in good company.

Whoa - if Rich is me, I said no such thing. Majority opinion has you as an outlier, as usual.

To quote myself, excerpted:

"[all the usual circumstances in which cavalry/chariots charge AT infantry but without smashing into them, then...]
- in very unusual cases, the mounted troops would keep on going and literally crash into the infantry... Because this was effectively a suicide tactic, most likely to result in the death of many of the attackers and the destruction of their formation, it was not popular or undertaken willingly or often. However, some specialist units were developed specifically to practise it - such as scythed chariots, which were intended to be expendable, one-shot weapons... Some particularly highly motivated or fanatical mounted troops in other periods might also make such attacks - but always as the exception... In the case of ANE archer chariots - my suspicion is that they were skirmish types, but willing and able to make a standard cavalry charge (full of intent and elan) if occasion required, but that cases where they would be crashed into a steady target in the style of suicide (scythed) chariots would be vanishingly rare, because they would have a greater desire to stay alive, because their king/general would find it more useful to retain a powerful, battle winning military force than to throw it away on suicide attacks on infantry, and because no mounted warrior would willingly throw away his life in order to kill a mere footsoldier."

If your "in the right circumstances" equates to my "vanishingly rare" then I suppose it is true, you are in line with majority opinion. But then what is the point of all this? What are you arguing for? That Hittite chariots could, in theory, kill themselves in order to destroy a unit of infantry, but in practice, they probably never did? If so OK, we are done.

QuoteThere seems to be several schools of thought on whether horses charged infantry and if they did, what kind of horses, in what era, as part of what armies, and in what circumstances.

As a general statement this is true but it is rather general.  I think it may reflect a distorted focus on the horse, rather than the weapon system (rider/crew, vehicles, equipment, protection).   To just stick to chariots, we know some chariots at the later end of the chariots career charged formed infantry, so with the weapon system of the time, it must have been possible.  We lack evidence that Hittite or Egyptian chariots were the same weapon system - in fact, what we do have suggests they weren't, in at least the scythes aspect. So does the fact that a  horse-powered weapon system could do this mean earlier different horse-powered weapon systems could do it?  Even if they could, we have no evidence they did.  Ultimately, it is a bit of a sterile debate. 

However, might I ask Justin, why you dislike the consensus view so much?  Obviously, you'd like to shift it to consider the occassional possibility of an equid ram attack in certain circumstances and you have a scepticism about the effective use of mounted archer while moving but, other than that is it OK.  Chariots confer mobility, they can fight other chariots without ramming them, they can run down skirmishers and disordered/fearful types (and strike a heroic pose for a monument after)?

Quote from: RichT on August 18, 2022, 03:58:04 PM

Quote
But according to Rich majority opinion puts me in good company.

Whoa - if Rich is me, I said no such thing. Majority opinion has you as an outlier, as usual.

To quote myself, excerpted:

"[all the usual circumstances in which cavalry/chariots charge AT infantry but without smashing into them, then...]
- in very unusual cases, the mounted troops would keep on going and literally crash into the infantry... Because this was effectively a suicide tactic, most likely to result in the death of many of the attackers and the destruction of their formation, it was not popular or undertaken willingly or often. However, some specialist units were developed specifically to practise it - such as scythed chariots, which were intended to be expendable, one-shot weapons... Some particularly highly motivated or fanatical mounted troops in other periods might also make such attacks - but always as the exception... In the case of ANE archer chariots - my suspicion is that they were skirmish types, but willing and able to make a standard cavalry charge (full of intent and elan) if occasion required, but that cases where they would be crashed into a steady target in the style of suicide (scythed) chariots would be vanishingly rare, because they would have a greater desire to stay alive, because their king/general would find it more useful to retain a powerful, battle winning military force than to throw it away on suicide attacks on infantry, and because no mounted warrior would willingly throw away his life in order to kill a mere footsoldier."

If your "in the right circumstances" equates to my "vanishingly rare" then I suppose it is true, you are in line with majority opinion. But then what is the point of all this? What are you arguing for? That Hittite chariots could, in theory, kill themselves in order to destroy a unit of infantry, but in practice, they probably never did? If so OK, we are done.

Well, I was thinking of the entirety of your post.

To clarify my position first: nobody knows for sure just how effectively a charging horse can bowl over standing infantrymen. I think horses were more effective than many believe. I put forward some tentative calculations on the inertia of a charging horse weighing a quarter-ton (about the mass of horses then) vs the stability of a standing man, and IMHO a galloping horse could knock down eight men easily before being brought to a halt. Theoretical I know, but better than the argument of imagination.

So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep. If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point. This more-or-less matches what you said:

Quote- ideally (for the cavalry) the infantry would lose their nerve and turn en masse and start to run away - in this case the cavalry would charge up to, into and amongst them, cutting them down from behind as they fled.
   
   - steadier infantry, but not completely steady, might stand, but with hesitation, uncertainty and reluctance. Individuals might turn and run, or back away, or flinch, all of which would open gaps in the solid wall of infantry. The bulk of the cavalry would have to rein in, halt or turn away as they came up to the infantry line, but where gaps had opened up individual cavalrymen would be able to barge in, spearing or sabring those in reach, widening the gap. Other cavalrymen would follow. This might well, except with the deepest or steadiest infantry, cause the whole mass to give way and start to run.
   
   - if the cavalry approached a flank of the infantry, things would be easier for them. The infantry would be considerably more alarmed by the attack, and more likely to break and run. If they did stand, they would not be presenting a solid front (of men or weapons) and more opportunities would be offered for penetrating gaps or spearing, sabring or knocking down individuals, opening up more gaps.

Charging determined formed heavy infantry, especially if those infantry had adopted an anti-cavalry formation like packing together, was generally a bad idea, as you said. Nevertheless it could sometimes work:

Quote- in very unusual cases, the mounted troops would keep on going and literally crash into the infantry. The likelihood of this happening would itself depend on many factors, most particularly the depth and density of the infantry formation (so how solid a mass they appeared to be). The impact would most likely cause considerable harm to the infantry (men trampled, speared, sabred, knocked over) but also to the cavalry (horses tripped, horses injured or killed, riders dismounted and killed). Whether the infantry or the cavalry came off worse would depend on circumstances and would vary from case to case, but neither side could be certain of 'winning' such an encounter, and most likely both sides would lose - lots of disorder, lots of casualties.

Can I come in from the cold?

OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 07:36:11 PM
OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards (https://youtu.be/0Loti-WBK_k?t=2708), which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 03:42:20 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 02:35:00 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 02:27:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:08:35 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 08:34:10 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 07:25:59 AM
I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

100+ yards?

It'll take a chariot moving at 20mph a full ten seconds to close with you :-)
Given the 16 year olds are supposed to throw a javelin 40m,  you might be lucky to have a whole ten seconds before the chariot runners emerge from the dust, notice you and the first javelins start coming in 8)

A horse doesn't need 10 seconds to get up to a full gallop, and the idea would be to charge towards the approaching chariots and play a game of chicken with them. And you have your chariot runners too, who would probably end up fighting your opponents' runners.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 05:06:39 PM
So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep.

If you're right, then infantry would normally deploy more than 10 ranks deep simply because that's what's needed to protect you from a chariot charge.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 05:06:39 PM
If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point.

The thing is as a chariot driver you could never be quite sure whether morale had been reduced enough or not.  The infantry might role an inconvenient double six, and stay in place.  So the only safe tactic is to charge them, but be ready to stop if they don't run.  OK, that means that there's a set of occasions where the infantry might have run if only you'd carried on a little further into contact, but given the cost of getting  it wrong is so huge, you're not going to risk it.

An alternative might be to not charge until the infantry had started to run away, but that would be negating a lot of the point of having a chariot unit.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 19, 2022, 12:38:28 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 05:06:39 PM
So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep.

If you're right, then infantry would normally deploy more than 10 ranks deep simply because that's what's needed to protect you from a chariot charge.

Exactly. The minimum attested habitual depth for infantry on a battlefield is 8 ranks (though they could occasionally deploy shallower in special circumstances) and that was for Greek hoplite phalanxes. Cavalry weren't a major feature of Greek armies. Elsewhere it appears to have been more, or infantry were deployed in multiple lines which comes to the same thing. Cavalry was an important factor in determining infantry depth, keeping in mind that only the front rank or two of an infantry line did the actual fighting.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 05:06:39 PM
If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 19, 2022, 12:38:28 AMThe thing is as a chariot driver you could never be quite sure whether morale had been reduced enough or not.  The infantry might role an inconvenient double six, and stay in place.  So the only safe tactic is to charge them, but be ready to stop if they don't run.  OK, that means that there's a set of occasions where the infantry might have run if only you'd carried on a little further into contact, but given the cost of getting  it wrong is so huge, you're not going to risk it.

An alternative might be to not charge until the infantry had started to run away, but that would be negating a lot of the point of having a chariot unit.

Well, dice never featured on a real battlefield. ::)  Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 18, 2022, 04:49:24 PM

QuoteThere seems to be several schools of thought on whether horses charged infantry and if they did, what kind of horses, in what era, as part of what armies, and in what circumstances.

As a general statement this is true but it is rather general.  I think it may reflect a distorted focus on the horse, rather than the weapon system (rider/crew, vehicles, equipment, protection).   To just stick to chariots, we know some chariots at the later end of the chariots career charged formed infantry, so with the weapon system of the time, it must have been possible.  We lack evidence that Hittite or Egyptian chariots were the same weapon system - in fact, what we do have suggests they weren't, in at least the scythes aspect. So does the fact that a  horse-powered weapon system could do this mean earlier different horse-powered weapon systems could do it?  Even if they could, we have no evidence they did.  Ultimately, it is a bit of a sterile debate. 

However, might I ask Justin, why you dislike the consensus view so much?  Obviously, you'd like to shift it to consider the occassional possibility of an equid ram attack in certain circumstances and you have a scepticism about the effective use of mounted archer while moving but, other than that is it OK.  Chariots confer mobility, they can fight other chariots without ramming them, they can run down skirmishers and disordered/fearful types (and strike a heroic pose for a monument after)?

We know that scythed chariots charged infantry because they weren't designed to do anything else, but we don't know that earlier chariots didn't charge infantry, and I would argue that the later use was a refinement of an earlier use as is habitually the case with military innovation. If chariots are just missile platforms then they are less effective than LH since chariot archers are more dispersed than LH archers (each chariot taking up more space than a cavalry horse) and I then have a real problem understanding why they had such a fearsome reputation. Even British chariots with their pony-like horses would charge Roman legionaries in the right circumstances (I'll find the reference). Plenty of Egyptian images show chariots running over prone infantry, so clearly the prone infantry didn't seriously inconvenience the chariot. Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies. And so on. It's case of several facts dovetailing into a plausible construction of how chariots were used. I think one can accept that chariots as shock weapons from day one were a thing, but to what extent is up for debate.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2022, 06:42:25 AM
Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

I'm not sure how visible "wavering" was from a distance - an organised, careful withdrawal would not itself be a good sign of poor morale.  But even if you believe that it is visible, then there has to be something that made them "waver".   Well unless you believe that battle is full of purely random events, which I don't think you do.

So why, if you're a chariot force, wouldn't you have a go at being the thing that tips them over into wavering?  After all, a huge number of chariots galloping towards you at full speed is likely to be a little disconcerting.  The chariots have little to lose, so why wait for someone else to do the hard work of getting the infantry to waver?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2022, 06:52:12 AM
We know that scythed chariots charged infantry because they weren't designed to do anything else

I think that logic is flawed.  If the main aim of a chariot charge was to get the opponent to run away, then making your chariots look scary is a big plus, even if you never actually come into contact with a formed enemy. 

In fact your own arguments count against you here - you've said that in terms of a contact shock attack it's the horses that do the damage not the chariot, so there's no point in upgrading the chariot.  A scythed chariot will be able to penetrate less ranks of infantry than a chariot without scythes.

If scythed wheels only had a morale impact, then scythed chariots are pretty strong evidence that actual contact with a formed enemy never took place in a chariot charge.

I wonder if horses for scythed chariots were trained in a different manner to other chariot horses?  I suppose you could accustom them to galloping a formed bodies of men who then obligingly scattered.  Once deployed in action they would do what they had learned in the expectation that their target would disperse before impact.

I cannot recollect any instance of scythed chariots refusing to close.

As with every other time we have this 'discussion', you [edit - to be clear, 'you' means Justin] are using 'charge infantry' to cover a number of different phenomena, and your main use of it differs from that of the majority.

In the majority view, when mounted units 'charge infantry' it does not mean they collided with formed facing infantry at full speed (though this might have happened in a few, special occasions), it means they charged AT infantry (I have tried to use this expression to make the distinction clear between a charge that necessarily results in full contact, and one that does not). As I said in my previous long post, a charge AT infantry might result in the infantry being broken (that is, losing formation, opening gaps, perhaps starting to run away), in which case the chargers could get in amongst them in the familiar, uncontroversial way, or it might result in the infantry standing firm, in which case (all the evidence we have suggests) the usual outcome was for the cavalry/chariots to abort their charge (pulling up, swerving away), though on a few, special occasions, some forces might have been able to continue into full contact. But if they did so, it would have taken the form of (effectively) a suicide attack with high mutual casualties.

Perhaps we could agree to refer to charges AT infantry (the usual type I have described), and charges INTO infantry (where full frontal contact is made).

Now, all the literary examples which you claim support your theory that charges INTO infantry were frequent and normal can in fact be understood to be referring to charges AT infantry. "Even British chariots with their pony-like horses would charge Roman legionaries in the right circumstances" - yes, they would charge AT Roman legionaries. "Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies" - yes, Indian chariots too could charge AT infantry (thereby sometimes breaking them, which is the nature of shock combat). There is no evidence in these examples that the chariots charged INTO infantry.

The reasons for doubting that cavalry/chariots routinely charged INTO infantry are those we have gone over so many times, including: the argument from equine psychology (horses will avoid running into solid or solid-seeming objects if they can); the argument from evidence and analogy (better attested cavalry in other periods are known to have mostly charged AT and only rarely if ever charged INTO); the argument from practicality (a suicide attack is a costly way to use any military force); the argument from social status (noble or elite cavalry are unlikely to be willing to destroy themselves in suicide attacks on infantry); and so on. The majority have always found these arguments compelling, and continue to do so.

Scythed chariots do indeed seem to be specifically designed to charge INTO infantry (though there is an argument (as Mike/Cantabrigian says) that the scythes etc were intended to make a charge AT infantry even more effective, by making them more terrifying). The description in Xenophon of their ideal (imagined) use shows them charging INTO infantry, resulting in their own destruction, as we would expect. However, the examples of their use in practice confirms all the arguments against a charge INTO; either they are used against open order or broken formations (where the job of breaking up the formation has already been done), or they are easily countered by opening gaps and allowing equine psychology to take its course (the horses head for the gaps).

In addition, scythed chariots are fielded by monarchs wielding enormous resources, who are able to equip and train special suicide units of (we would hope) volunteers. I don't know much about Hittites, but my understanding is that their chariotry was formed from the social elite, like most cavalry forces, so a suicide role of this sort is unlikely. It's not impossible, but given that it would be unusual, we need some evidence that it was the case; "we don't know that earlier chariots didn't charge [INTO] infantry" won't do - in order to support the hypothesis (that they did), you need to provide evidence, not just rely on the absence of evidence that they didn't (and quite what form such negative evidence would take I can't imagine).

As for the argument from physics (that a charging horse will bowl over eight men without being slowed or impeded in any way itself), I think your understanding of the physics is fatally flawed, but even if we grant that your calculations are valid, that is not enough. If you can provide a single example of this actually happening in practice (one example from anywhere in human history will be enough), then we will concede the point.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 08:53:57 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 07:36:11 PM
OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards (https://youtu.be/0Loti-WBK_k?t=2708), which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

why?
What's the point of shooting people at 100 yards when they're not going to stand there and let you

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:19:37 PM

A horse doesn't need 10 seconds to get up to a full gallop, and the idea would be to charge towards the approaching chariots and play a game of chicken with them. And you have your chariot runners too, who would probably end up fighting your opponents' runners.

So you're not going to be firing much at 100yards anyway but at shorter ranger whilst moving at speed

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 19, 2022, 09:23:48 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2022, 06:42:25 AM
Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

I'm not sure how visible "wavering" was from a distance - an organised, careful withdrawal would not itself be a good sign of poor morale.  But even if you believe that it is visible, then there has to be something that made them "waver".   Well unless you believe that battle is full of purely random events, which I don't think you do.

So why, if you're a chariot force, wouldn't you have a go at being the thing that tips them over into wavering?  After all, a huge number of chariots galloping towards you at full speed is likely to be a little disconcerting.  The chariots have little to lose, so why wait for someone else to do the hard work of getting the infantry to waver?

Also if you're going to within 15 yards of the infantry to shoot at them (as the video) then you've probably got a pretty good feel for how close they are to wavering

I'll get back to this chaps. I tend to suffer combat fatigue from time to time.

No need. I'm sure everyone is happy to leave it at that.

Quote from: RichT on August 19, 2022, 07:35:15 PM
No need. I'm sure everyone is happy to leave it at that.

Oh, I think they're enjoying themselves. Be seeing you. :)

Five page rule Justin.

If it's you disagreeing with everyone after five pages, it's time to stop

Quote from: Mark G on August 20, 2022, 09:41:20 AM
Five page rule Justin.

If it's you disagreeing with everyone after five pages, it's time to stop

Wait, wait. I'm going to convince Rich I agree with him.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 20, 2022, 09:59:08 AM
Wait, wait. I'm going to convince Rich I agree with him.

And I wanted to ask how this is all affected by the New Chronology?

My take on Bronze age chariots is that they operate as missile platforms and first target the opposing chariotry. When that is defeated they then turn on the enemy infantry, darting into range , shooting and retiring and using their own infantry to pressure them Eventually the infantry without chariot support, abandoned by their social betters, will crack. At that point tge chariots can test charge towards the infantry and ride down those who flee. The chariots are well protected horse archers against mainly spear armed foot who carry less ammo that the chariots and have much more mobility.  There is never a need or point for the chariots to fight formed, fresh, infantry frontally.
Roy

Quote from: aligern on August 20, 2022, 11:39:00 AM
My take on Bronze age chariots is that they operate as missile platforms and first target the opposing chariotry. When that is defeated they then turn on the enemy infantry, darting into range , shooting and retiring and using their own infantry to pressure them Eventually the infantry without chariot support, abandoned by their social betters, will crack. At that point tge chariots can test charge towards the infantry and ride down those who flee. The chariots are well protected horse archers against mainly spear armed foot who carry less ammo that the chariots and have much more mobility.  There is never a need or point for the chariots to fight formed, fresh, infantry frontally.
Roy

I think this captures one conventional model quite well.  I'd call this the "chariot superiority" model, where chariots contend for dominance which will allow them to pick their targets to pressure the enemy infantry or offer mobile support to their own infantry in attack or defence.  The chariotry can then deliver the coup de grâce against demoralised or no-longer-cohesive infantry.   
We must note, though, that it is no more solidly evidenced than Justin's theory, even if it appears more reasonable.  It may also underestimate the agency of Bronze Age infantry (also an issue with Justin's model).  Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2022, 12:52:42 PM
Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

This may find parallels in medieval texts where infantry were often overlooked. It is entirely possible that there is a parallel in the hoplite period when light infantry may also have been overlooked.

If we continue the Medieval analogy, the men at arms/knights were important. In some armies, some infantry were important, but we do tend to know about them.
So who were the Engish Longbowmen and the Flemish Pikemen of the chariot period? Egyptian/Nubian archers do get coverage, Syrian city states were happy if Pharaoh sent them even a couple of hundred archers.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 20, 2022, 02:41:51 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 20, 2022, 12:52:42 PM
Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

This may find parallels in medieval texts where infantry were often overlooked. It is entirely possible that there is a parallel in the hoplite period when light infantry may also have been overlooked.

If we continue the Medieval analogy, the men at arms/knights were important. In some armies, some infantry were important, but we do tend to know about them.

Always up for a good medieval analogy  :)  One of the things about more modern takes on Early and High Medieval warfare is that the uselessness of infantry has been been greatly exaggerated.  Some (e.g. the Bachrachs) would even see it as a dominant force.

Going back to the Bronze Age, I was interested to find this (https://www.jstor.org/stable/643127#metadata_info_tab_contents) quite old paper by Hans van Wees on infantry in the Iliad which makes the point that the focus on the deeds of chariot mounted heroes, while dramatically and socially understandable, might distort our view of the infantry role.

I think are at risk of equating an apparent low importance of infantry in set piece field actions with a supposed low importance in operational necessity.  This was the point I was trying to explain to Justin several pages ago; even if at, say, Kadesh, the Hittite infantry seem to have played a fairly passive role, they were still there, a long way from home, so must have served some strategic purpose, even if not a major tactical purpose when it came to a field action.

There seem to be four things for which infantry are incontrovertibly essential:
- chasing enemies up mountains (other difficult terrain doubtless also relevant);
- besieging cities;
- defending cities;
- escorting deported populations, cattle / flocks, and assorted loot back home.

All of these can be found very clearly in Hittite records.  None are needed for a field action save the first, which is where a field action is halfway or more up a mountain.  Now, there is at least one reference to sending out just chariots, in Tudhaylia (III)'s letter to an official in Tapikka that he has sent the requested chariots.  However, to my mind this suggests perhaps that Kassu, the recipient, has infantry, whether regular or militia, already available, but needs a mobile or match winning force to see off the threat from the Kaskans.  If so, perhaps either the infantry can hold the city but chariots are needed to chase down raiders devastating the agricultural hinterland, or Kassu will be able to take out the infantry into the field to confront the Kaskans if he has a squadron of chariotry able to pin down an elusive enemy.  Speculation of course, but to my mind it possibly highlights the different operational roles of infantry and chariotry - both are needed, but may serve different purposes, one is more important in the field, but the other is absolutely essential in strategic terms.

With the Egyptians, worth noting that the Sherden are often differentiated from the rest of the infantry, in turn differentiated from the chariotry.  Thus the Poem of Pentaur has Ramses preparing "his infantry, his chariotry and the Sherden of his captivity."  Two possible reasons (not exclusive) as to why there this differentiation of the Sherden from the infantry spring to mind: 1) the Sherden are a splendid bunch of thugs and particularly effective, so Ramses emphasises their role as superior (even if no one is going to say it explicitly) to that of native Egyptian infantry; and 2) the Sherden are of course captured raiders, so Ramses is emphasising how those who once sought to despoil Egypt are now being used cleverly by him to kill and be killed for the glory of Pharaoh and Egypt, just as Roman sycophants praised emperors in the 4th and 5th centuries for expending Goths rather than Romans.  As I say, to my mind, probably a bit of both.  The Sherden get a pretty good showing in the victory reliefs of Ramses II, III and Merneptah - who knows whether because they were exotic, or because they were seen as genuinely tactically important - but to be fair, the presumed-native other Egyptian infantry also get a pretty good showing.  Both native and Sherden infantry are all important of course for slaughtering or capturing the enemies routed by Pharoah and his chariots; even if Pharaoh's chariot dominates the true combat scenes, the infantry can follow in his wake and mop up.

Also, though I do not have my copy of Bryce's work on the letters of the Great Kings to hand, I am 99% confident that the Amarna correspondence includes letters to Akhenaten from distressed vassals in Syria asking him to send archers to ward off predation by rivals.  This is perhaps the flipside of Kassu in Hittite Tapikka - he needs chariots perhaps because he has infantry, but needs chariotry to deal with the horrible actuality of Kaskan raiders, but the Syrian vassals need Egyptian archers as a deterrent, perhaps for their military capability, but perhaps more likely as a political deterrent to stop raiders before they even start; any attack on a city with a company of Akhenaten's archers as part of the garrison is an attack on the Great King's direct statement of power and control.  If a rival local warlord is stupid enough to cross that line, he might THEN get Egyptian chariotry headed north to administer a spanking... but even token infantry forces are going to be more affordable yet still a very powerful deterrent in the immediate and possibly long term as the Pharaonic tripwire.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 19, 2022, 09:37:05 AM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 19, 2022, 06:52:12 AM
We know that scythed chariots charged infantry because they weren't designed to do anything else

I think that logic is flawed.  If the main aim of a chariot charge was to get the opponent to run away, then making your chariots look scary is a big plus, even if you never actually come into contact with a formed enemy. 

In fact your own arguments count against you here - you've said that in terms of a contact shock attack it's the horses that do the damage not the chariot, so there's no point in upgrading the chariot.  A scythed chariot will be able to penetrate less ranks of infantry than a chariot without scythes.

If scythed wheels only had a morale impact, then scythed chariots are pretty strong evidence that actual contact with a formed enemy never took place in a chariot charge.

Warfare is a hardheaded business. If you can't perform then don't posture: it won't be long before your opponent works out that all you can do is bluff.

Scythes are meant to cut off infantry at the knees, not to look like they could cut them off at the knees. As I understand it, they were a one-shot weapon, designed to plough into an infantry line and cause maximum shock and damage, at the very least rattling the infantry and making them vulnerable to a knockout blow by other infantry or cavalry. Since they could be used only once, they had to have maximum impact, hence the scythes.

Quote from: RichT on August 19, 2022, 10:17:53 AM
As with every other time we have this 'discussion', you [edit - to be clear, 'you' means Justin] are using 'charge infantry' to cover a number of different phenomena, and your main use of it differs from that of the majority.

In the majority view, when mounted units 'charge infantry' it does not mean they collided with formed facing infantry at full speed (though this might have happened in a few, special occasions), it means they charged AT infantry (I have tried to use this expression to make the distinction clear between a charge that necessarily results in full contact, and one that does not). As I said in my previous long post, a charge AT infantry might result in the infantry being broken (that is, losing formation, opening gaps, perhaps starting to run away), in which case the chargers could get in amongst them in the familiar, uncontroversial way, or it might result in the infantry standing firm, in which case (all the evidence we have suggests) the usual outcome was for the cavalry/chariots to abort their charge (pulling up, swerving away), though on a few, special occasions, some forces might have been able to continue into full contact. But if they did so, it would have taken the form of (effectively) a suicide attack with high mutual casualties.

Perhaps we could agree to refer to charges AT infantry (the usual type I have described), and charges INTO infantry (where full frontal contact is made).

Now, all the literary examples which you claim support your theory that charges INTO infantry were frequent and normal can in fact be understood to be referring to charges AT infantry. "Even British chariots with their pony-like horses would charge Roman legionaries in the right circumstances" - yes, they would charge AT Roman legionaries. "Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies" - yes, Indian chariots too could charge AT infantry (thereby sometimes breaking them, which is the nature of shock combat). There is no evidence in these examples that the chariots charged INTO infantry.

The reasons for doubting that cavalry/chariots routinely charged INTO infantry are those we have gone over so many times, including: the argument from equine psychology (horses will avoid running into solid or solid-seeming objects if they can); the argument from evidence and analogy (better attested cavalry in other periods are known to have mostly charged AT and only rarely if ever charged INTO); the argument from practicality (a suicide attack is a costly way to use any military force); the argument from social status (noble or elite cavalry are unlikely to be willing to destroy themselves in suicide attacks on infantry); and so on. The majority have always found these arguments compelling, and continue to do so.

Scythed chariots do indeed seem to be specifically designed to charge INTO infantry (though there is an argument (as Mike/Cantabrigian says) that the scythes etc were intended to make a charge AT infantry even more effective, by making them more terrifying). The description in Xenophon of their ideal (imagined) use shows them charging INTO infantry, resulting in their own destruction, as we would expect. However, the examples of their use in practice confirms all the arguments against a charge INTO; either they are used against open order or broken formations (where the job of breaking up the formation has already been done), or they are easily countered by opening gaps and allowing equine psychology to take its course (the horses head for the gaps).

In addition, scythed chariots are fielded by monarchs wielding enormous resources, who are able to equip and train special suicide units of (we would hope) volunteers. I don't know much about Hittites, but my understanding is that their chariotry was formed from the social elite, like most cavalry forces, so a suicide role of this sort is unlikely. It's not impossible, but given that it would be unusual, we need some evidence that it was the case; "we don't know that earlier chariots didn't charge [INTO] infantry" won't do - in order to support the hypothesis (that they did), you need to provide evidence, not just rely on the absence of evidence that they didn't (and quite what form such negative evidence would take I can't imagine).

As for the argument from physics (that a charging horse will bowl over eight men without being slowed or impeded in any way itself), I think your understanding of the physics is fatally flawed, but even if we grant that your calculations are valid, that is not enough. If you can provide a single example of this actually happening in practice (one example from anywhere in human history will be enough), then we will concede the point.

I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry. If you charge to contact then you charge to contact and you do it as hard as you can - the impact of a galloping horse on standing men is very impressive. I can provide links to several videos to prove the point if you like - showing a horse levelling a standing man with hardly any effect on its speed. Horses have no problem knocking down people who are in their way, making no effort to dodge around those people. Again, I have video evidence to prove this point. I can't supply a video of 8 men being knocked down in neat succession by a charging horse, but I did calculate the physics of it (please prove my calculations wrong rather than just affirm they are wrong - affirmations mean very little). Certainly there is no evidence that a charging horse can't flatten 8 men. Evidence. Evidence and common sense. A horse is big, heavy and fast and a standing man is inherently unstable.

Re examples from human history, I can't do better than refer you to the example you provided me of Republican Roman cavalry charging through steady heavy infantry. I've cited it many times.

I thought the notion of horses working their way through gaps in infantry is something that most here had discounted in the discussions we had on KTB (and a file gap of a typical infantry line in intermediate formation - 3 feet per file - is certainly wide enough for a horse to pass through, nudging infantrymen out the way). If infantry are apprehensive they don't form gaps (evidence that they do?). They tend to bunch more closely together and avoid creating gaps, e.g. the Greek mercenaries at the Granicus. And if you happen to find any gaps and move - at a sedate speed - into them, you will be surrounded by infantry and cut down in short order, something which nearly happened to Alexander, again at the Granicus. Unless you're a cataphract it is crucial when combatting infantry as a cavalryman to keep up your speed. An immobile cavalryman is quickly dead. Moving at a sedate pace among already routed infantry that are running for their lives and have no thought about turning to face the cavalry is fine, but your post doesn't confine itself to routed infantry.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2022, 03:11:08 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 08:53:57 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 07:36:11 PM
OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards (https://youtu.be/0Loti-WBK_k?t=2708), which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

why?
What's the point of shooting people at 100 yards when they're not going to stand there and let you

Good point. If you have stopped and are being approached head on by an enemy chariot can you time your shot to hit the charioteer? I think it is possible but have no examples to prove it.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2022, 03:12:33 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 09:19:37 PM

A horse doesn't need 10 seconds to get up to a full gallop, and the idea would be to charge towards the approaching chariots and play a game of chicken with them. And you have your chariot runners too, who would probably end up fighting your opponents' runners.

So you're not going to be firing much at 100yards anyway but at shorter ranger whilst moving at speed

Shooting still at 100 yards works since you then outrange an archer on a moving chariot - depends if you can hit him whilst he is moving. Should be possible (see previous post).

Quote from: aligern on August 20, 2022, 11:39:00 AM
My take on Bronze age chariots is that they operate as missile platforms and first target the opposing chariotry. When that is defeated they then turn on the enemy infantry, darting into range , shooting and retiring and using their own infantry to pressure them Eventually the infantry without chariot support, abandoned by their social betters, will crack. At that point tge chariots can test charge towards the infantry and ride down those who flee. The chariots are well protected horse archers against mainly spear armed foot who carry less ammo that the chariots and have much more mobility.  There is never a need or point for the chariots to fight formed, fresh, infantry frontally.
Roy

If this is true then my eternal question: why did chariots never have less than 2 horses, and often 4 or even 5 (the Indian variety)? Horses were expensive as has been pointed out several times on this thread. Surely one horse is enough to pull a mobile archer platform around the place? And enough to ride down fleeing troops?

Nice to see you rested and back in the fray swinging Justin :)

QuoteI think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry. If you charge to contact then you charge to contact and you do it as hard as you can - the impact of a galloping horse on standing men is very impressive.

You may have a point Justin in the first sentence, less so in the second.  I've read a lot of stuff on cavalry v. infantry over the years (you sort of have to if you want to understand medieval warfare) and, while impacts between cavalry and foot are more common than some would allow - those who talk of horse psychology when they should be thinking about rider psychology - they are rarely at full speed and usual involve tangling up in the first few ranks.  I suspect it is a mistake to equate what happens when a horse collides with an individual with what happens when horses with riders collectively with a mass of men actively trying to harm said horses.  It is an error to assume that the target would be passive in the face of a charge, rather organised and aggressive.

Quote
I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry.

I (and the majority of people) think the distinction does exist (based on evidence, analogy, and argument). Note, not "charging at (with contact)", that is not the distinction I am making. I make a distinction between "charging at without contact" and "charging into (at with contact)". As to how common charging into was - well opinions vary - it certainly happened, but in the context of this particular discussion (Hittite chariots) there are good reasons to think it didn't happen in this case.

Quote
please prove my calculations wrong

Nope. It's your theory - you prove it right. Anyway, I don't think your calculations (as to kinetic energy etc) are wrong. I think your whole premise is wrong.

Quoteaffirm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anyway I'm bored with this now and I suggest Mark G's rule be applied at this point. It's you against the world again, nothing anyone says will ever convince you, I don't feel any need or desire to convince you, and the discussion is stale and tedious.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2022, 04:52:34 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 19, 2022, 03:11:08 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 18, 2022, 08:53:57 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 18, 2022, 07:36:11 PM
OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards (https://youtu.be/0Loti-WBK_k?t=2708), which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

why?
What's the point of shooting people at 100 yards when they're not going to stand there and let you

Good point. If you have stopped and are being approached head on by an enemy chariot can you time your shot to hit the charioteer? I think it is possible but have no examples to prove it.

If the chariot is running straight at you and the charioteer is dead, the chariot isn't going to stop. It's all down to how open the lines are. Chariots on either flank of the one with the dead charioteer would keep the horses moving forward. It's not a tactic I would like to try.

Quote from: RichT on August 21, 2022, 05:57:22 PM

Quote
I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry.

I (and the majority of people) think the distinction does exist (based on evidence, analogy, and argument). Note, not "charging at (with contact)", that is not the distinction I am making. I make a distinction between "charging at without contact" and "charging into (at with contact)".

Really? "Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies" - yes, Indian chariots too could charge AT infantry (thereby sometimes breaking them, which is the nature of shock combat)." Clearly I need a new definition of shock combat, as my layman's understanding is that if Indian chariots are shock troops and break infantry lines by charging them then they charge into contact with them. And as a final point: if chariots never, ever charged into formed infantry unless those infantry were beginning to rout or already routing, then it follows that reasonably steady infantry would just show the middle finger to chariots who rushed up close and then, inevitably, turned aside (as legionaries did to Pontic chariots). Don't posture if you can't perform.

But I get your point about frightening (?) infantry into a rout by charging at them, and then pursuing the routers. It just wasn't clear to me that you meant that in every case you cited.

Quote from: RichT on August 21, 2022, 05:57:22 PM

Quote
please prove my calculations wrong

Nope. It's your theory - you prove it right. Anyway, I don't think your calculations (as to kinetic energy etc) are wrong. I think your whole premise is wrong.

My premise is that horses could knock down several men - up to 8 or so - in succession. My calculations show that from the POV of kinetic energy it is quite possible. Nothing so far has been produced to show it is impossible. Therefore I maintain it is plausible as a theory and not to be discarded just because I don't have a time machine and can't show video footage from Antiquity of horses knocking down men, or can't find obliging volunteers willing to sacrifice their lives for the experiment.

Quote from: RichT on August 21, 2022, 05:57:22 PM

Quoteaffirm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means discounting what I say without making any attempt to provide contradictory evidence. Clear enough?

Quote from: RichT on August 21, 2022, 05:57:22 PMAnyway I'm bored with this now and I suggest Mark G's rule be applied at this point. It's you against the world again, nothing anyone says will ever convince you, I don't feel any need or desire to convince you, and the discussion is stale and tedious.

Prove me wrong and I'll be content.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 21, 2022, 06:28:44 PMIf the chariot is running straight at you and the charioteer is dead, the chariot isn't going to stop. It's all down to how open the lines are. Chariots on either flank of the one with the dead charioteer would keep the horses moving forward. It's not a tactic I would like to try.

Maybe, maybe not. We're both speculating at this point. I think though that what matters remains true: in chariot vs chariot combat the bow was all-important, however it was used, along with chariot runners if they had the chance to get close enough to a slowly moving or stationary enemy chariot.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2022, 05:35:32 PM
Nice to see you rested and back in the fray swinging Justin :)

Just warming up. (https://i.imgur.com/cEANZqV.gif)

Quote from: Erpingham on August 21, 2022, 05:35:32 PM

QuoteI think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry. If you charge to contact then you charge to contact and you do it as hard as you can - the impact of a galloping horse on standing men is very impressive.

You may have a point Justin in the first sentence, less so in the second.  I've read a lot of stuff on cavalry v. infantry over the years (you sort of have to if you want to understand medieval warfare) and, while impacts between cavalry and foot are more common than some would allow - those who talk of horse psychology when they should be thinking about rider psychology - they are rarely at full speed and usual involve tangling up in the first few ranks.  I suspect it is a mistake to equate what happens when a horse collides with an individual with what happens when horses with riders collectively with a mass of men actively trying to harm said horses.  It is an error to assume that the target would be passive in the face of a charge, rather organised and aggressive.

I be interested in some historical examples. As I understand it, mediaeval knights' horses didn't charge as they were just too big and heavily burdened, but rather cantered into contact with the enemy. Is that true? Could a knight stop when he had reached the enemy and fight whilst stationary? I've worked on the assumption that cavalrymen, unless they and their horses are well-armoured (knights?), have to keep moving so as not to provide an easy target for nearby infantry but - to cheer Rich up - I'm ready to be proven wrong. ;)

Size is unlikely to be a limiting factor in the size of a medieval warhorse.
Recent research puts the size of the horses around 14 to 15 hands. I don't know the details enough to know how the distinguish destriers from palfreys etc, but even the outliers don't seem to be huge. See below though.

Whether they charged headlong or pressed forwards, the medieval knights needed to get in close to act. Any economic argument about the value of Bronze Age horses ought to apply across the ages.

The cost of the horse reflects the cost of imports in many case, the intensive care, the expense of food.
The value of the horse - which makes the cost worthwhile - also reflects various things. If transport is the only value, then there is no need to have different sized horses for transport and for combat. Prestige is a big part of such things. But a major part of the value of the horse is its use in battle. Various mentions have been made of the undesirability of putting at risk such an economic investment, but that investment has less value if it is not used.

This is a lesser part of the equation, but there could even be an emotional value to the animal which a rider could put at risk. Verbruggen says that Robert of Artois begged that the Flemish burghers spared his horse*, even once his own surrender was refused. They killed it anyway. The point of this is that it shows riders could put at risk an animal with both monetary and emotional value.

At Kortrijk, the French were limited in their ability to charge at full tilt, even if they had wanted to. Despite this, Artois had reached deep into Flemish lines (just how deep the lines were is another question!). The French doubtless hadn't expected the Flemish to stand so firmly, but still pressed their attack when the infantry didn't run.

Valued by the French king at 1000 livres plus 100 a year income. The size of this horse does seem to have been far larger than the mentioned research - supposedly 14' long which is about 50% longer than a typical horse. I dare say there was some exaggeration.

QuoteAs I understand it, mediaeval knights' horses didn't charge as they were just too big and heavily burdened, but rather cantered into contact with the enemy. Is that true?

It's a bit difficult to be sure, as the language medieval authors used for various gaits differed from that we use.  In English, pricking was to ride fast (from applying spurs) but how fast is less clear.  We also have references to men at arms responding to the command "Poingniés!" (Spur (your horse)!".  And, of course, in the later period, jousters would accelerate at each other at some pace.  So, it is probably fair to assume that medieval cavalry could do what heavy cavalry in later periods could do - deliver a full blooded charge from a decision point 30-50 yds out (As described in Matt Bennetts's classic paper on the subject).  How often they did that against infantry is less clear though.

QuoteCould a knight stop when he had reached the enemy and fight whilst stationary? I've worked on the assumption that cavalrymen, unless they and their horses are well-armoured (knights?), have to keep moving so as not to provide an easy target for nearby infantry

Keeping a horse moving does not mean pushing forward into the enemy - it might mean moving across or circling.  Chariots have more difficulty with this, of course.

QuoteI be interested in some historical examples

How about this from the battle of Bannockburn?

They spurred their horses and galloped at them boldly, and [the Scots] met them hardily so that at their meeting there was such a smashing of spears that men could hear it far away. (508) At their encounter, not a doubt, many a steed was impaled, and many a good man borne down and killed; and many a valiant deed was done there bravely, for they assaulted each other stoutly with many [kinds of] weapons. (514) Some of the horses that were stabbed reared and fell right roughly. But the rest, nonetheless, who could get to the encounter, did not hold back because of that hindrance, but attacked very strongly. (520) And [the Scots] met them sturdily, with spears that were cutting-sharp, and axes that were well ground, with which many a blow was struck. The fight there was so hard and fierce that many a worthy and brave man was felled in that struggle, and had no strength to rise again. (528)

Barbour, John. The Bruce (Canongate Classics)

Barbour's fight descriptions in this battle are quite consistent - impacts, broken spears, physical contact.

Peter has already mentioned the death of Robert of Artois at the Battle of the Golden Spurs.  It should be noted that the best account of his death has him charging into the men of Ghent "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" - he keeps moving.  The Ghent militia don't break, even with him in and amongst them.  Eventually his horse knocked down with a strong goedendag blow and he is unhorsed and killed.  We might also mention the death of Geoffrey de Brabant, who charged into a Flemish formation against the Flemish commander, Willem van Julich.  He knocked Willem off his feet but unfortunately it brought his horse down and he was apparently killed in the fall (van Julich survived).  These examples from Lodewijk van Veltham's chronicle.

There are also examples from the account of Hastings where fighting takes place mixing it with the outer ranks of the shieldwall without a breakthrough.  Duke William had at least two horses killed under him which, given the paucity of archery on the English side, suggests close contact - at least in spear throwing distance.   I could find more (e.g. Crecy) where contact occurs and there is some mounted to foot combat.  However, most accounts don't go into detail about mechanics.

This, of course, reflects on medieval, not Bronze Age, conditions.  But accounts of cavalry fighting infantry are pretty consistent through history - if the infantry stand firm in good order, the result is very messy for the cavalry.  I suspect that lesson was already known to Egyptian and Hittite charioteers.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 22, 2022, 11:12:51 AM

QuoteI be interested in some historical examples

How about this from the battle of Bannockburn?

They spurred their horses and galloped at them boldly, and [the Scots] met them hardily so that at their meeting there was such a smashing of spears that men could hear it far away. (508) At their encounter, not a doubt, many a steed was impaled, and many a good man borne down and killed; and many a valiant deed was done there bravely, for they assaulted each other stoutly with many [kinds of] weapons. (514) Some of the horses that were stabbed reared and fell right roughly. But the rest, nonetheless, who could get to the encounter, did not hold back because of that hindrance, but attacked very strongly. (520) And [the Scots] met them sturdily, with spears that were cutting-sharp, and axes that were well ground, with which many a blow was struck. The fight there was so hard and fierce that many a worthy and brave man was felled in that struggle, and had no strength to rise again. (528)

Barbour, John. The Bruce (Canongate Classics)

Barbour's fight descriptions in this battle are quite consistent - impacts, broken spears, physical contact.

Peter has already mentioned the death of Robert of Artois at the Battle of the Golden Spurs.  It should be noted that the best account of his death has him charging into the men of Ghent "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" - he keeps moving.  The Ghent militia don't break, even with him in and amongst them.  Eventually his horse knocked down with a strong goedendag blow and he is unhorsed and killed.  We might also mention the death of Geoffrey de Brabant, who charged into a Flemish formation against the Flemish commander, Willem van Julich.  He knocked Willem off his feet but unfortunately it brought his horse down and he was apparently killed in the fall (van Julich survived).  These examples from Lodewijk van Veltham's chronicle.

There are also examples from the account of Hastings where fighting takes place mixing it with the outer ranks of the shieldwall without a breakthrough.  Duke William had at least two horses killed under him which, given the paucity of archery on the English side, suggests close contact - at least in spear throwing distance.   I could find more (e.g. Crecy) where contact occurs and there is some mounted to foot combat.  However, most accounts don't go into detail about mechanics.

This, of course, reflects on medieval, not Bronze Age, conditions.  But accounts of cavalry fighting infantry are pretty consistent through history - if the infantry stand firm in good order, the result is very messy for the cavalry.  I suspect that lesson was already known to Egyptian and Hittite charioteers.

This is what we need on a thread like this.

Bannockburn: the Scottish infantry were armed with pikes and formed schiltroms. I never though cavalry, even heavy cavalry, would dare charge pikes but here we have knights attempting it, albeit at great cost to themselves and without much success. What about cavalry/chariots charging infantry armed with much smaller spears, e.g. Fertile Crescent infantry? See below.

Battle of the Golden Spurs: Robert of Artois successfully charges right through Ghentish infantry. The infantry aren't panicking, they don't break and eventually they kill him when he tries it again. Just how I envisaged it.

Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

More please. :)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 11:32:52 AM


Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 12:20:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 11:32:52 AM


Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

Indeed, but the shieldwall is attested in the sources. If the men kept their arms up they might manage something with the axes Of course if they were in the front rank they wouldn't have a problem.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 12:24:38 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 12:20:53 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 11:32:52 AM


Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Or perhaps shield wall wasn't all that close together. Especially with axe using troops.
Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

Indeed, but the shieldwall is attested in the sources. If the men kept their arms up they might manage something with the axes Of course if they were in the front rank they wouldn't have a problem.

Actually, if you read, say, William of Jumieges' account - one may of course question its accuracy - you will note that in his description of noteworthy individual combats at Hastings, the emphasis is on the way the Englishmen with their axes move around, ducking and stepping to the side to land blows on their Norman opponents - eg the chap who bashes William on the head, or the chap eventually dispatched by Roger of Montgomery.  These are not Norman knights bowling over eight ranks of men with their horse, nor are they English thegns or huscarles sticking rigidly shoulder to shoulder unable to move, let alone unable to fall down when killed.  As I say, one can dismiss the detail in William's account, given he was probably not an eyewitness, but a bookish cleric.  However, one might also apply that test to John Barbour who had probably not even been born when Bannockburn was fought.  Oh, and before you mention it, William describes these individual actions before the English are taken in by the feigned-or-otherwise flight that famously draws some of them down the hill.  One also needs to be careful with prepositions in descriptions such as the account of Robert of Artois' death - there is an inherent contradiction in, "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again"; he retreated, but charged through again?  If he really had charged through the Flemish, he would a) find it difficult to retreat, and b) find it difficult to charge them again...  And given this subsequent "charge" did not actually pass "through", since he was killed, there just might be a bit of loose or hyperbolic language on which it would be dangerous to build too much.

Furthermore the key point that Erpingham is making is that in the three medieval battles he mentions, the cavalry cannot dent the infantry.  Stupidity or over confidence on the part of the knights and/or their commanders (and yes I include William the Bastard in that) does not mean that other horsed forces have to be stupid or overconfident.  They might actually have a reasonable appreciation of their capabilities, and unless truly desperate, not do something reckless.

All that said, I still believe that it is quite fatuous to compare medieval knights armed only with melee weapons with Bronze Age chariotry armed with bows.  The economic equivalence of horses is not the same - Bronze Age horse supply for most if not all of the Great Kingdoms was probably limited, at least in terms of those animals truly suited for use in chariot teams.  The horses are smaller, weaker, lighter.  The chariot itself is potentially fragile.  The warrior in it is an archer, not a knight with a big pointy stick.  Even if he has a long spear, he cannot use it against anyone in front of his horses, and can probably only bring it to bear quickly on one side, unlike a horseman who can turn in his saddle and use his weapon on either side without bopping a driver on the back of the head, and also can turn his horse much more easily - in or out of a press of infantry - than a chariot.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but have the intellectual honesty, please, to admit that this is not a period of which, by your own admission, you have deep knowledge, and recognise that the model you are proposing runs against those proposed by people like Crouwel and Littauer with very real expertise and experience in equestrian matters and the reconstruction and testing of chariots.

I really am bored of this nonsense now.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PM
The economic equivalence of horses is not the same - Bronze Age horse supply for most if not all of the Great Kingdoms was probably limited, at least in terms of those animals truly suited for use in chariot teams.

very much so, captured chariot teams (and charioteers) were cherished, the Hittites settled them as military settlers. Also Kings gave them as gifts to each other

We might also take Wace's account of Hastings.  It is late and perhaps designed primarily to feature the exploits of individuals but it too is full of axe armed Englishmen fighting combats with Normans before the shieldwall.  So, an idea of a looser combat zone with a solid core behind does occur.

QuoteOne also needs to be careful with prepositions in descriptions such as the account of Robert of Artois' death - there is an inherent contradiction in, "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again"; he retreated, but charged through again?

I had read this that he is coming in and out of the formation more or less continuously.  Verbruggen sees it more as a series of attacks.

As Justin has asked, here are a few more examples of infantry/cavalry combat from the Middle Ages.  I'll stress these have all been mentioned before, so prior apologies of those who are bored.

The leaders  of  his  enemies,  in  a  state  of  consternation,  than  urged  on
a  host  of  people  who  had  come  there  with  lances,  pitchforks,  axes,
and  halberds,  to  surround  the  marshal,  kill  his  horse,  and  bring
him  to  the  ground  ;  and  they  at  once  surrounded  and  overwhelmed
him,  piercing  his  horse  with  many  wounds  ;  they  could  not  even
then  however  dismount  him,  they  therefore  cut  off  the  horse's  feet
with  their  axes  ;  the  marshal  then  fell  with  his  horse,  overcome
with  fatigue,  having  been  engaged  fighting  from  the  first  hour  of
the  day  till  the  eleventh,  and  his  enemies,  rushing  on  him,  lifted
up  his  armour  and  mortally  wounded  him  in  the  back.

Death of Richard Marshal by Roger of Wendover

The advanced guard of the French avoided the lance points at the first encounter, moving round the ranks of the English, who had dismounted, [but] coming so close that every Englishman who chose to strike slew a horse with his lance, the Frenchmen being thrown out of their saddles to the ground.

The second troop of the French charged the English on horseback. Many of the English who were overthrown rose up and rallied on foot, having killed many of the Frenchmen's horses as they passed ; and these Frenchmen, thrown from their horses, ran with the others, their comrades of the advanced guard who had been thrown already, to the Englishmen's horses, nearly all of which they took and mounted.

The battle of Lunalongue from Thomas Gray's Scalachronica

While flight had entirely emptied the field of battle on both wings, the Count of Boulogne still remained in the center, frequently retreating into the midst of his foot soldiers, furiously and ceaselessly striking with his murderous sword ......

The count kept on retreating with impunity behind the wall of his foot soldiers; he did not need to fear being hit with a mortal blow by the enemy. Indeed, as our knights were fighting on their own with their swords and their short weapons, they would have feared attacking the foot soldiers equipped with lances: these, with their lances longer than knives and swords, and moreover lined up in an unbreachable formation of triple layers of walls, were so cleverly disposed that there was no way that they could be breached.




Battle of Bouvines from William Le Breton's Philippiad

What learning points do we have here?

1. Don't get surrounded by infantry
2. A fight with charging cavalry does not necessarily mean full contact, especially against confident, aggressive types
3. Infantry can shield mounted troops.  A successful anti-cavalry formation can be organised three deep.  Attacking with short weapons against long is problematic.

So what lessons can we take, if we make the assumption that medieval cavalry tactics tell us anything about chariot fighting?

The obvious one is be wary of tangling with unbroken infantry.  Chariots are not as manoueverable as cavalry at close quarters and the crewman has two horses to protect.  The chariot crew do have an advantage over a knight in they have a ranged weapon that can out reach a spearman in a close, but not entangled, fight.  The use of mobility and concentrated firepower at close range may break the cohesion of enemy formations (which I seem to recall was a task Indian chariots undertook) allowing a successful break in or isolation of parts of the enemy army.   

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PM

Furthermore the key point that Erpingham is making is that in the three medieval battles he mentions, the cavalry cannot dent the infantry.  Stupidity or over confidence on the part of the knights and/or their commanders (and yes I include William the Bastard in that) does not mean that other horsed forces have to be stupid or overconfident.  They might actually have a reasonable appreciation of their capabilities, and unless truly desperate, not do something reckless.

They had the confidence because in other circumstances beforehand, the charges succeeded, and would do so again on later occasions. At Kortrijk, the knights certainly _dented_ the Flemish line, since they made incursions into it. They didn't break it on this occasion.

The relevance of these events is that we have better (though by no means perfect) accounts than we do for the Bronze Age. Much of what I have read in the thread is based on the logic of what horses or their owners would or wouldn't do - these accounts show that the logical assumptions cannot be entirely relied upon.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PM
Actually, if you read, say, William of Jumieges' account - one may of course question its accuracy - you will note that in his description of noteworthy individual combats at Hastings, the emphasis is on the way the Englishmen with their axes move around, ducking and stepping to the side to land blows on their Norman opponents - eg the chap who bashes William on the head, or the chap eventually dispatched by Roger of Montgomery.  These are not Norman knights bowling over eight ranks of men with their horse, nor are they English thegns or huscarles sticking rigidly shoulder to shoulder unable to move, let alone unable to fall down when killed.

Feel free to reread my post, where I point out that a shieldwall was an anti-cavalry formation that prevented cavalry from charging through an infantry line. Also feel free to reread my reply to Anthony where I hypothesise that the front rank troops of the Saxon shieldwall were free to wield their weapons without hindrance.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PMAs I say, one can dismiss the detail in William's account, given he was probably not an eyewitness, but a bookish cleric.  However, one might also apply that test to John Barbour who had probably not even been born when Bannockburn was fought.  Oh, and before you mention it, William describes these individual actions before the English are taken in by the feigned-or-otherwise flight that famously draws some of them down the hill.  One also needs to be careful with prepositions in descriptions such as the account of Robert of Artois' death - there is an inherent contradiction in, "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again"; he retreated, but charged through again?  If he really had charged through the Flemish, he would a) find it difficult to retreat, and b) find it difficult to charge them again...  And given this subsequent "charge" did not actually pass "through", since he was killed, there just might be a bit of loose or hyperbolic language on which it would be dangerous to build too much.

One can dismiss accounts, sure, but then one can give up doing history. I prefer not dismissing accounts but accepting them insofar as they don't contradict other reliable accounts (and trying to reconcile them if they do), external evidence and common sense.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PMFurthermore the key point that Erpingham is making is that in the three medieval battles he mentions, the cavalry cannot dent the infantry.  Stupidity or over confidence on the part of the knights and/or their commanders (and yes I include William the Bastard in that) does not mean that other horsed forces have to be stupid or overconfident.  They might actually have a reasonable appreciation of their capabilities, and unless truly desperate, not do something reckless.

Again, feel free to reread my post. I point out that cavalry charging pikes and shieldwalls is a really bad idea as these precisely are anti-cavalry formations. But a knight had no problem charging right through an infantry line that wasn't pikes or a shieldwall - if one doesn't dismiss the account.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PMAll that said, I still believe that it is quite fatuous to compare medieval knights armed only with melee weapons with Bronze Age chariotry armed with bows.  The economic equivalence of horses is not the same - Bronze Age horse supply for most if not all of the Great Kingdoms was probably limited, at least in terms of those animals truly suited for use in chariot teams.  The horses are smaller, weaker, lighter.  The chariot itself is potentially fragile.  The warrior in it is an archer, not a knight with a big pointy stick.  Even if he has a long spear, he cannot use it against anyone in front of his horses, and can probably only bring it to bear quickly on one side, unlike a horseman who can turn in his saddle and use his weapon on either side without bopping a driver on the back of the head, and also can turn his horse much more easily - in or out of a press of infantry - than a chariot.

My calculations for the impact of a horse against a line of infantry were for a horse of that period, i.e. weighing about 250kg. Chariots are fragile but chariots don't impact against infantry since there at least 2 horses to clear the path for them, and plenty of Egyptian images show chariots passing over prone infantry without a problem (unless one dismisses those sources).

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PMYou are entitled to your opinion, of course, but have the intellectual honesty, please, to admit that this is not a period of which, by your own admission, you have deep knowledge, and recognise that the model you are proposing runs against those proposed by people like Crouwel and Littauer with very real expertise and experience in equestrian matters and the reconstruction and testing of chariots.

Sure, I don't have deep knowledge of the mediaeval period, but I am entitled to look at the source material other posters provide and comment on it. For me the argument of authority means nothing more than that people who have spent a great deal of time and effort on the topic have amassed a good deal of relevant source material. We are permitted to study that material and come to our own conclusions. I have already come to the conclusion that many distinguished academics and authors may have a good grasp of the material, but don't necessarily make a good analysis of it. Line relief for example (no, we won't talk about that here!).

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PMI really am bored of this nonsense now.

For someone who is bored of this nonsense that's quite an impressive post. ;)

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 01:57:58 PM

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 01:33:32 PM
The economic equivalence of horses is not the same - Bronze Age horse supply for most if not all of the Great Kingdoms was probably limited, at least in terms of those animals truly suited for use in chariot teams.

very much so, captured chariot teams (and charioteers) were cherished, the Hittites settled them as military settlers. Also Kings gave them as gifts to each other

One might also note that in the Egyptian accounts of Kadesh, the only personal names that Ramses deigns to mention are his own charioteer... and his two horses.  I am sure his nobility did not take that as a slight  :)

Justin - before you lecture other people on reading what you have written, how about you try reading carefully what you yourself have written, and carefully what others have written.

I will stop there before I lose civility.

Quote from: DBS on August 22, 2022, 02:34:02 PMJustin - before you lecture other people on reading what you have written, how about you try reading carefully what you yourself have written, and carefully what others have written.

OK, let's have a closer look at what you wrote. Sure we can keep this civil. Nothing personal and it's an interesting discussion. If anyone finds it tedious he's welcome to look at other threads.

QuoteActually, if you read, say, William of Jumieges' account - one may of course question its accuracy - you will note that in his description of noteworthy individual combats at Hastings, the emphasis is on the way the Englishmen with their axes move around, ducking and stepping to the side to land blows on their Norman opponents - eg the chap who bashes William on the head, or the chap eventually dispatched by Roger of Montgomery.  These are not Norman knights bowling over eight ranks of men with their horse, nor are they English thegns or huscarles sticking rigidly shoulder to shoulder unable to move, let alone unable to fall down when killed.  As I say, one can dismiss the detail in William's account, given he was probably not an eyewitness, but a bookish cleric.

A bookish clerk who was much nearer the events than we are and had more source material to draw from. Given that his account fits what we can imagine would happen if a determined cavalry force met a solid shieldwall it couldn't pierce and of which the front rank could fight freely, is there any objective reason to reject it?

QuoteHowever, one might also apply that test to John Barbour who had probably not even been born when Bannockburn was fought.  Oh, and before you mention it, William describes these individual actions before the English are taken in by the feigned-or-otherwise flight that famously draws some of them down the hill.

Sure, the first part of the battle involved the Norman cavalry engaging the English foot without success. The point of this?

QuoteOne also needs to be careful with prepositions in descriptions such as the account of Robert of Artois' death - there is an inherent contradiction in, "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again"; he retreated, but charged through again?  If he really had charged through the Flemish, he would a) find it difficult to retreat, and b) find it difficult to charge them again...  And given this subsequent "charge" did not actually pass "through", since he was killed, there just might be a bit of loose or hyperbolic language on which it would be dangerous to build too much.

It would help to have the complete account and in the original French (Anthony, can you help?), but let's take Anthony's extract and summary:

'Peter has already mentioned the death of Robert of Artois at the Battle of the Golden Spurs.  It should be noted that the best account of his death has him charging into the men of Ghent "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" - he keeps moving.  The Ghent militia don't break, even with him in and amongst them.  Eventually his horse knocked down with a strong goedendag blow and he is unhorsed and killed.'

One can understand the bit about "he advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" in the sense that Robert charged through the Ghentians from the front, then charged through them again from the back ("retreating" to his own lines), and then charged a third time from the front. This doesn't do violence to the text and allows us to accept it as is, rather than discard it or snip offending pieces from it. I prefer treating texts this way as it prevents me from imposing my presuppositions on them, distorting or discarding a passage if it doesn't fit those presuppositions. Keeping in mind that the author would know perfectly well if what he wrote didn't make sense and would clarify it - if he didn't clarify it here perhaps a contemporary reader would understand quite well what 'retreated' meant.

Edit: of course texts can be wrong or corrupted. But having the a priori assumption that they aren't (until proven otherwise) is IMHO a much more illuminating way of proceeding than approaching them with a pair of scissors at the ready.

QuoteI will stop there before I lose civility.

Wise move.  I feel some tension here between standard academic practice and the Swanton method simmering again, so beware shooting from the hip all and consider what is actually being said. 

Moderator hat off, I will repeat what I've said previously - I'm always up for a discussion of medieval analogies but we must keep turning back to our primary purpose - the use of Hittite chariots - and seeing what application is there.

If we wish to continue, perhaps analogies from other chariot-using armies (not Persian) might be more fruitful.   

QuoteIt would help to have the complete account and in the original French (Anthony, can you help?)

Van Velthem was a Brabanter and wrote in his native tongue, so Dutch.  Unfortunately, I have only Verbruggen's precis of his account (its a verse account and Verbruggen summarises it in prose). 

Just prior to the bit we were discussing, he states "Artois rode so deep into those men (the Ghent contingent) that he reached the banner, wrenching and ripping a piece from it".  The banner was presumably in the middle of the formation, as usual, rather than behind it, so he doesn't seem to have gone clean through.  He either is driven completely out and charges again (Verbruggen's view) or he is involved in a to-and-fro tussle inside or on the edges of the formation.

Again, we must be careful what we draw from this when applying it to chariot fighting.  A chariot in Artois's position would have no chance of getting out.

What I will say to Jim, since it is directly related to his original post, is that Crouwel is dubious about the Mycenaeans using chariots as true mounted combat platforms, as opposed to battle taxis for elite infantry leaders.  Basically, he is not convinced that the Mycenaeans practised archery from them in warfare as opposed to hunting, but equally finds the idea of using spears as the primary armament preposterous for the good reasons I listed earlier.  Furthermore, he questions whether the terrain in Greece would ever allow meaningful chariot combat in the manner allowed to the Near Eastern armies.  He therefore regards "western" (ie Greek and early Italian) chariots as rather different in purpose than the Hittites and Near Eastern types.  (I get the impression that he regards Iron Age Celtic chariotry as a separate issue again, a tad sui generis by the time we get any accounts of them).

Now, this is the one area where I do question the Professor's conclusions.  Firstly, the Linear B tablets do show palatial holdings of hundreds of chariots, especially at Knossos and Tiryns.  This seems quite a lot for a prestige transport rather than an elite combat arm, but one must allow the possibility for prestige triumphing over utility in an age where status was evidently an obsession for rulers.

Secondly, his conclusions about terrain may be relevant in Greece - and we do not know how frequent conflict was between Mycenaean culture cities - but we have the Hittite evidence of at least 100 or so Ahhiyawan chariots raiding in Anatolia along with infantry.  However one judges the Hittite chariots to be armed - principally bows as I believe, in line with much modern opinion, or just spears and javelins as per the original opinions based on the Egyptian reliefs of Kadesh - it is very clear that the Hittites fought mounted from their vehicles.

So,  when the Hittites encountered Ahhiyawans (assuming that they are Achaeans, where I side with Bryce and others in the argument that if they are not Achaeans, who on earth are they and where on earth quite literally do they fit into the jigsaw of western Anatolia), that would seem to present the following possibilities:

1) We have dissimilar basic usage of chariots - the Hittites stay in their vehicles to fight, the Ahhiyawans get out of their vehicles and form up with the infantry - perhaps difficult to be beaten, but surely much harder to win?

2) Crouwel and others underplay the utility of the Achaean chariots as mounted combat vehicles, and they are able to mix it if necessary with their Hittite opponents in Near Eastern style;

3) Ahhiyawans in Anatolia are different from Ahhiyawans in Greece - either the charioteers they use are indigenous natives, though this seems a fragile basis for power for supposed Mycenaean elites, or they simply exploit the opportunity to practise and use the vehicles in the manner they should, that is perhaps constrained for those in mainland Greece.  Put another way, you perhaps do not get to hold onto places like Millawanda if you do not utilise available assets to the full.

Personally, my suspicion is a bit of 2) and a bit of 3).  But that is very subjective.  I suppose there is a 4) which is that the Ahhiyawans turn up with their shiny battle taxis and get a nasty shock the first time they come up against Hittites or others with no intention of debussing from their vehicles, but given the longevity of the careers of some of the pesky Ahhiyawans in Anatolia, I should think that either this was not the case, or they learned damned quickly.

Yes, 2 with a touch of 3.
I was never impressed with the 'battle taxi' argument when you discover how many chariots there were mentioned
It is a lot of horses being maintained for no real purpose

Quote from: Erpingham on August 22, 2022, 02:11:03 PMAs Justin has asked, here are a few more examples of infantry/cavalry combat from the Middle Ages.  I'll stress these have all been mentioned before, so prior apologies of those who are bored.

Many thanks. Not bored!

QuoteThe leaders of his enemies, in a state of consternation, than urged on a host of people who had come there with lances, pitchforks, axes, and halberds, to surround the marshal, kill  his horse, and bring him to the ground; and they at once surrounded and overwhelmed him, piercing his horse with many wounds; they could not even then however dismount him, they therefore cut off the horse's feet with their axes; the marshal then fell with his horse, overcome with fatigue, having been engaged fighting from the first hour of the day till the eleventh, and his enemies, rushing on him, lifted up his armour and mortally wounded him in the back.

An interesting picture of the difficulty in killing a heavily armored cavalryman, even after his horse had been brought to a halt. I'm reminded of cataphracts that must have been similarly hard for infantry to kill.

QuoteThe advanced guard of the French avoided the lance points at the first encounter, moving round the ranks of the English, who had dismounted, [but] coming so close that every Englishman who chose to strike slew a horse with his lance, the Frenchmen being thrown out of their saddles to the ground.

The second troop of the French charged the English on horseback. Many of the English who were overthrown rose up and rallied on foot, having killed many of the Frenchmen's horses as they passed ; and these Frenchmen, thrown from their horses, ran with the others, their comrades of the advanced guard who had been thrown already, to the Englishmen's horses, nearly all of which they took and mounted.

The battle of Lunalongue from Thomas Gray's Scalachronica

What I see here is the English armed with lances, hence equipped like pikemen. The first troop of French blinks and goes around the English. The second troop nearly or partially charges right through the English line: they knock down the English foot but many are themselves thrown - nevertheless they can reach the far end of the line and continue on to the English horses that are kept at the rear. Throwing mounted men does look like lance work; lances, like pikes, will stop horses dead in their tracks, especially if they are grounded.

Quote[/i]While flight had entirely emptied the field of battle on both wings, the Count of Boulogne still remained in the center, frequently retreating into the midst of his foot soldiers, furiously and ceaselessly striking with his murderous sword ......

The count kept on retreating with impunity behind the wall of his foot soldiers; he did not need to fear being hit with a mortal blow by the enemy. Indeed, as our knights were fighting on their own with their swords and their short weapons, they would have feared attacking the foot soldiers equipped with lances: these, with their lances longer than knives and swords, and moreover lined up in an unbreachable formation of triple layers of walls, were so cleverly disposed that there was no way that they could be breached.

Battle of Bouvines from William Le Breton's Philippiad

Of course. A well-formed pike formation is a guaranteed horse-stopper. But not infantry equipped with spears or other shorter melee weapons.

QuoteWhat learning points do we have here?

1. Don't get surrounded by infantry

Yep.

Quote2. A fight with charging cavalry does not necessarily mean full contact, especially against confident, aggressive types

I would say, if you're going to charge, charge home. Don't charge and then break off at the last moment, passing close by the enemy and inviting retribution.

Quote3. Infantry can shield mounted troops.  A successful anti-cavalry formation can be organised three deep.  Attacking with short weapons against long is problematic.

Yep. However I suspect it wasn't their own short weapons that put the knights off, but rather the fact that the infantry were armed with lances and in a solid formation.

QuoteSo what lessons can we take, if we make the assumption that medieval cavalry tactics tell us anything about chariot fighting?

The obvious one is be wary of tangling with unbroken infantry.  Chariots are not as manoueverable as cavalry at close quarters and the crewman has two horses to protect.  The chariot crew do have an advantage over a knight in they have a ranged weapon that can out reach a spearman in a close, but not entangled, fight.  The use of mobility and concentrated firepower at close range may break the cohesion of enemy formations (which I seem to recall was a task Indian chariots undertook) allowing a successful break in or isolation of parts of the enemy army.

The lesson I draw is if you are going to charge, make sure you can burst right through the infantry line. If you can't you might make it out but you might just as well get stopped in your tracks and slaughtered. I don't think it's so much about manoeuvrability as about impetus. Once a horse stops - be it a chariot or cavalry horse - there is very little the rider/charioteer can do to save himself. I'm also getting the impression a horse, especially a Mediaeval horse, could burst through way more than 8 ranks.

The second lesson I draw from these and your other examples is that knights were sometimes prepared to charge infantry equipped with pikes or lances. For me that settles the question of cavalry charging into infantry equipped with lighter and shorter weapons.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 22, 2022, 03:59:29 PM

QuoteIt would help to have the complete account and in the original French (Anthony, can you help?)

Van Velthem was a Brabanter and wrote in his native tongue, so Dutch.  Unfortunately, I have only Verbruggen's precis of his account (its a verse account and Verbruggen summarises it in prose). 

Just prior to the bit we were discussing, he states "Artois rode so deep into those men (the Ghent contingent) that he reached the banner, wrenching and ripping a piece from it".  The banner was presumably in the middle of the formation, as usual, rather than behind it, so he doesn't seem to have gone clean through.  He either is driven completely out and charges again (Verbruggen's view) or he is involved in a to-and-fro tussle inside or on the edges of the formation.

Again, we must be careful what we draw from this when applying it to chariot fighting.  A chariot in Artois's position would have no chance of getting out.

Do we know the banner wasn't at the rear of the formation? You've already supplied a couple of examples of knights charging clean through infantry. Wouldn't this be another example? I seriously think Artois couldn't afford to stop (hence just grabbing a piece of the banner as he passed by) and so he couldn't execute any about turns in the middle of the formation which would require him stopping.

Thinking about it, the banner may well have been in the middle of the formation and Artois snatched at it as he rode through.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 06:19:41 PM
Yes, 2 with a touch of 3.
I was never impressed with the 'battle taxi' argument when you discover how many chariots there were mentioned
It is a lot of horses being maintained for no real purpose

The Britons generally used their chariots as battle taxis and they had a lot of them:

Cassivellaunus, as we have stated above, all hope [rising out] of battle being laid aside, the greater part of his forces being dismissed, and about 4000 charioteers only being left... - Gallic Wars: 5.19

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 meantime 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. - Gallic Wars: 4.33

Though they could charge infantry at a pinch (we discussed this passage some time ago):

The horse and charioteers of the enemy contended vigorously in a skirmish with our cavalry on the march; yet so that our men were conquerors in all parts, and drove them to their woods and hills; but, having slain a great many, they pursued too eagerly, and lost some of their men. But the enemy, after some time had elapsed, when our men were off their guard, and occupied in the fortification of the camp, rushed out of the woods, and making an attack upon those who were placed on duty before the camp, fought in a determined manner; and two cohorts being sent by Caesar to their relief, and these severally the first of two legions, when these had taken up their position at a very small distance from each other, as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle, the enemy broke through the middle of them most courageously, and retreated thence in safety. - Gallic Wars: 5.15

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 06:19:41 PM
Yes, 2 with a touch of 3.
I was never impressed with the 'battle taxi' argument when you discover how many chariots there were mentioned
It is a lot of horses being maintained for no real purpose

That is assuming moving elite forces about isn't a real purpose.  I think we are perhaps a little put off by the Homeric model of use, as described.  Not only may the warfare and chariot use described be from Homer's own time, so not reflective of Bronze Age practice, but, even if it does preserve genuine traditions, it is a story about the activities of heroes, which may skew the description of chariot actions.

As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.  Again, an emphasis on the mobility aspects of chariotry rather than physical shock.  Though I wouldn't say Achaean chariots were used in the same way, it does give us another way of viewing things.  If we are willing to consider Indian chariots and medieval knights, why not?

Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2022, 10:25:17 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 22, 2022, 06:19:41 PM
Yes, 2 with a touch of 3.
I was never impressed with the 'battle taxi' argument when you discover how many chariots there were mentioned
It is a lot of horses being maintained for no real purpose

That is assuming moving elite forces about isn't a real purpose.  I think we are perhaps a little put off by the Homeric model of use, as described.  Not only may the warfare and chariot use described be from Homer's own time, so not reflective of Bronze Age practice, but, even if it does preserve genuine traditions, it is a story about the activities of heroes, which may skew the description of chariot actions.

As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.  Again, an emphasis on the mobility aspects of chariotry rather than physical shock.  Though I wouldn't say Achaean chariots were used in the same way, it does give us another way of viewing things.  If we are willing to consider Indian chariots and medieval knights, why not?

I see chariots, like cavalry, as flexible multi-purpose instruments, useful as mobile archers platforms, battle taxis and shock weapons. I don't think they charged infantry all the time or even often, but they had to be able to do it in order to exert a real terror over them.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2022, 10:25:17 AM
As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.

My major hesitation is that said use by the Britons is specifically against Caesar, who had almost zero cavalry with him, and even then they used javelin fire and psychological intimidation first.  Furthermore, they seem to have been used primarily in harassment of the Romans, rather than pitched battles, forcing fights with the Romans when they were attempting to forage or pitch camp.  At Mons Graupius, Tacitus says the chariots, which before the battle seem to have manoeuvred between the two armies, attempted to intervene in the infantry battle, having some initial psychological effect but became disastrously tangled up amongst the opposing foot and ended up causing more confusion on their own side than to the Romans.  (Note that his description does not imply "shock" action as such.)  Pretty much the only other mention we have of western Celtic use of chariots is Telamon two centuries earlier, and there they are merely reported by Polybius to be on the extreme flanks of the main army, the cavalry having gone forward to contest an important hill with the Roman cavalry.

Of course, all, this begs the question of whether the Celtic, certainly the British, chariot, was really conceived as a weapon for large scale combats, as opposed to good old tribal raiding and feuding... and against the Romans you rarely got a second chance to reconsider correct tactical usage!

Cassius Dio specifically has Boudica's chariots charging Roman archers; but that may be more for rhetorical effect than accurate narration since, having paired off cavalry against cavalry, infantry against infantry, he has the chariots "left over".

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2022, 11:31:27 AM
Cassius Dio specifically has Boudica's chariots charging Roman archers; but that may be more for rhetorical effect than accurate narration since, having paired off cavalry against cavalry, infantry against infantry, he has the chariots "left over".

I had forgotten Dio's account, thank you.  If it is accurate, then it is perhaps worthy of note that almost every time Tacitus does mention archers on the Roman side (eg Germanicus vs Arminius, or Corbulo vs the Parthians), they are either on the flanks with the cavalry, or part of an advanced guard when actions develop on the march - Arminius, for example, tangles with them with his cavalry.  Which does suggest that if Suetonius Paulinus did have archers at the battle with Boudicca, they may have been off on the flanks and the chariots were also there, along with any British cavalry.

Tacitus has "His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops (levis armatura), and the cavalry in dense array on the wings" which might suggest archers, with other auxiliaries, between the legionary centre and the cavalry wings.

Quote from: Duncan Head on August 23, 2022, 11:59:36 AM
Tacitus has "His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops (levis armatura), and the cavalry in dense array on the wings" which might suggest archers, with other auxiliaries, between the legionary centre and the cavalry wings.

Were Principate Roman archers capable of melee combat against mounted troops? I seem to recall they had swords.

Edit: they were:

(https://i.imgur.com/R9HCIba.jpg)

Quote from: DBS on August 23, 2022, 11:06:02 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 23, 2022, 10:25:17 AM
As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.

My major hesitation is that said use by the Britons is specifically against Caesar, who had almost zero cavalry with him, and even then they used javelin fire and psychological intimidation first.  Furthermore, they seem to have been used primarily in harassment of the Romans, rather than pitched battles, forcing fights with the Romans when they were attempting to forage or pitch camp.  At Mons Graupius, Tacitus says the chariots, which before the battle seem to have manoeuvred between the two armies, attempted to intervene in the infantry battle, having some initial psychological effect but became disastrously tangled up amongst the opposing foot and ended up causing more confusion on their own side than to the Romans.  (Note that his description does not imply "shock" action as such.)  Pretty much the only other mention we have of western Celtic use of chariots is Telamon two centuries earlier, and there they are merely reported by Polybius to be on the extreme flanks of the main army, the cavalry having gone forward to contest an important hill with the Roman cavalry.

Of course, all, this begs the question of whether the Celtic, certainly the British, chariot, was really conceived as a weapon for large scale combats, as opposed to good old tribal raiding and feuding... and against the Romans you rarely got a second chance to reconsider correct tactical usage!

I would agree that British chariots were not really meant to act in a shock role though it seems they could if in a tight corner or up against lighter troops like archers. Caesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

QuoteCaesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

I am loath to raise it, but it seems to me Caesar's meaning is ambiguous

"......the first of two legions, when these had taken up their position at a very small distance from each other, as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle, the enemy broke through the middle of them most courageously, and retreated thence in safety. "

Does he mean "smashed their way through the ranks" or "passed between the two forces"?  It is a consideration before we chalk this up as a shock action against formed close-order foot by light chariots.

Also, what are we currently thinking of British chariots as a possible example of?  We started off with battle taxis but there must be a suspicion that what is actually going on is that, in certain circumstances (e.g. holding ground or stiffening the PBI), mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2022, 01:49:07 PM

QuoteCaesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

I am loath to raise it, but it seems to me Caesar's meaning is ambiguous

"......the first of two legions, when these had taken up their position at a very small distance from each other, as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle, the enemy broke through the middle of them most courageously, and retreated thence in safety. "

Does he mean "smashed their way through the ranks" or "passed between the two forces"?  It is a consideration before we chalk this up as a shock action against formed close-order foot by light chariots.

Also, what are we currently thinking of British chariots as a possible example of?  We started off with battle taxis but there must be a suspicion that what is actually going on is that, in certain circumstances (e.g. holding ground or stiffening the PBI), mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

I read it as smashed through. "These" refers to the cohorts which were a very small distance from each other in that one was behind the other but very close to it: the usual gap between the lines of the 3-line Marian legion was less than normal. Cohorts did not have gaps between them side-by-side. Also the charioteers and cavalry are "very courageous" in their breaking through, which wouldn't fit skipping through a wide enough gap (which "very small" hardly suggests) between one cohort and another, thumbing their noses at the legionaries as they passed.

I really doubt the Britons could have smashed through the cohorts if they were fighting on foot. If they could have then Cassivelaunus would have crushed Caesar in a pitched battle.

The point of this example is that even smaller chariots with smaller horses were capable of charging foot if necessary, i.e. it was an integral component of a chariot's repertoire.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 24, 2022, 02:23:31 PM


I really doubt the Britons could have smashed through the cohorts if they were fighting on foot. If they could have then Cassivelaunus would have crushed Caesar in a pitched battle.

I don't think I suggested this - I assumed they were mounted.  The bit about comparison to to dismounted cavalry was a different discussion topic. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

Quote
The point of this example is that even smaller chariots with smaller horses were capable of charging foot if necessary, i.e. it was an integral component of a chariot's repertoire.

I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2022, 02:42:20 PM
I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

The legionaries seem to be well enough formed up, sufficiently in regular formation that one can talk about a "very small gap" between cohorts.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 24, 2022, 02:53:19 PM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2022, 02:42:20 PM
I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

The legionaries seem to be well enough formed up, sufficiently in regular formation that one can talk about a "very small gap" between cohorts.

given the frontage of a legion, a very small distance might still be 40 or 50 yards
I think that if the chariots had broken the ranks of a legion Caesar would be likely to mention it. After all, at Zela

"Caesar, astonished at his incredible rashness and confidence, and finding himself suddenly and unexpectedly attacked, called off his soldiers from the works, ordered them to arms, opposed the legions to the enemy, and ranged his troops in order of battle. The suddenness of the thing occasioned some terror at first. Our ranks were not yet formed, when the scythed chariots disordered and confused our soldiers. However, the multitude of darts discharged against them soon put a stop to their advance."

Quote from: Erpingham on August 24, 2022, 01:49:07 PM
... mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

It is a literary trope, accurate or otherwise, for Roman cavalry from "Romulus" through the Pyrrhic wars, to Cannae, where Polybius has not only the Romans dismounting but also the Spanish and Gauls, and is often used to denote just how vicious the fight was.  If victorious, the cavalry then remounts for pursuit or, as with Hasdrubal at Cannae, moving around to the other flank.  When Polybius' criticises early Republican cavalry equipment as too light and flimsy compared to Greek kit, he remarks its only virtue was the ease of mounting and dismounting with it.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2022, 04:29:46 PM
Warfare is a hardheaded business. If you can't perform then don't posture: it won't be long before your opponent works out that all you can do is bluff.

I think you're being over-analytical in a way that wouldn't happen on a battlefield.  You'll be telling me next that there's no randomness in warfare...

A though experiment for you.  Go to the viewing platform on top of a very tall building, and look down at the streets below the building.  99% of people will feel apprehensive, even though no-one has ever fallen from there.

So infantry seeing a chariot charging towards them at high speed will feel anxious.  They'll feel even more anxious if it's a big chariot with four horses rather than two, especially if they're not 100% sure how quickly it can stop.  And yet more anxiety if there are big blades on the ends of the axles, or the driver is wearing a big plume of feathers in his helmet.  This has very little to do with rational calculations of risk. 

Plus there's always the risk that the opposition chariots are commanded by some sort of ancient Justin Swanton who doesn't realise what a daft idea it is for chariots to charge into infantry.  Yes, the chariots may get repelled with heavy losses, but that's not a lot of consolation to you if you're the guy crushed under the chariot.

In addition, I tend to lean towards the Tiger Joke theory of unit morale.

[Tiger Joke:  Two men walking down a track see a tiger coming towards them.  One of them starts to run away.  The other one says "Don't be stupid, you can't outrun a tiger!".  The first one replies "I don't need to - I just need to outrun you".]

So if you're in an infantry unit being charged by chariots, it's not the chariots that you're scared of.   What you're really scared about is that the guys standing next to you might start running before you, and leave you alone to be run down.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 06:56:12 AM
My premise is that horses could knock down several men - up to 8 or so - in succession. My calculations show that from the POV of kinetic energy it is quite possible.

I haven't seen your calculations, but I'd be surprised if you could do such a calculation based on kinetic energy alone.  A standing human is in a state of unstable equilibrium so you'd have to take into account their ability to recover from an impulse, which would depend a lot on things like the exact stance they were in.  Plus of course you need to consider momentum if you want to work out the energy transfer.  And chariots and humans are far from perfectly elastic objects.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 25, 2022, 02:43:21 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 22, 2022, 06:56:12 AM
My premise is that horses could knock down several men - up to 8 or so - in succession. My calculations show that from the POV of kinetic energy it is quite possible.

I haven't seen your calculations, but I'd be surprised if you could do such a calculation based on kinetic energy alone.  A standing human is in a state of unstable equilibrium so you'd have to take into account their ability to recover from an impulse, which would depend a lot on things like the exact stance they were in.  Plus of course you need to consider momentum if you want to work out the energy transfer.  And chariots and humans are far from perfectly elastic objects.

I laid it out in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4CiZMX81E), giving the  man the stablest standing stance.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 25, 2022, 02:26:45 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 21, 2022, 04:29:46 PM
Warfare is a hardheaded business. If you can't perform then don't posture: it won't be long before your opponent works out that all you can do is bluff.

I think you're being over-analytical in a way that wouldn't happen on a battlefield.  You'll be telling me next that there's no randomness in warfare...

There's no randomness in warfare!*

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 25, 2022, 02:26:45 PMA thought experiment for you.  Go to the viewing platform on top of a very tall building, and look down at the streets below the building.  99% of people will feel apprehensive, even though no-one has ever fallen from there.

So infantry seeing a chariot charging towards them at high speed will feel anxious.  They'll feel even more anxious if it's a big chariot with four horses rather than two, especially if they're not 100% sure how quickly it can stop.  And yet more anxiety if there are big blades on the ends of the axles, or the driver is wearing a big plume of feathers in his helmet.  This has very little to do with rational calculations of risk.

Sure, no-one has fallen from that tall building, but plenty of people have fallen from high places and they have to pick up their bodies with a spade. It's quite possible, if circumstances are right, to fall to your death from a high building, cliff, tree, ladder or whatever. This is why we are instinctively apprehensive of high places - instinct isn't stupid.

Try another thought experiment: imagine you are standing in the open and a huge fog bank approaches you. Do you feel apprehensive? No, and why? Because a fog bank can never hurt you no matter what the circumstances.

Now which thought experiment best fits chariots? Fog bank or high places?

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 25, 2022, 02:26:45 PMPlus there's always the risk that the opposition chariots are commanded by some sort of ancient Justin Swanton who doesn't realise what a daft idea it is for chariots to charge into infantry.  Yes, the chariots may get repelled with heavy losses, but that's not a lot of consolation to you if you're the guy crushed under the chariot.

Or the chariots are crewed and commanded by the most experienced soldiers in the army, who are perfectly aware of the capabilities of their chariots and know when the moment is right or wrong to charge infantry.

Quote from: Cantabrigian on August 25, 2022, 02:26:45 PM[Tiger Joke:  Two men walking down a track see a tiger coming towards them.  One of them starts to run away.  The other one says "Don't be stupid, you can't outrun a tiger!".  The first one replies "I don't need to - I just need to outrun you".]

So if you're in an infantry unit being charged by chariots, it's not the chariots that you're scared of.   What you're really scared about is that the guys standing next to you might start running before you, and leave you alone to be run down.

If you're veteran infantry you're less likely to run as you know the tiger will probably chomp your mate and you in the bargain. Better to stand your ground.


*there's imperfect intel which is not the same thing and who ever heard of a unit throwing a 6 in one turn and killing the best enemy unit and then throwing a 1 in the next turn and getting clobbered by trash and stop-start movement from command pips totally unrelated to the battlefield situation and terrain being generated by completely arbitrary dice throws as if a general couldn't choose his battlefield and the whole thing is tosh and...

QuoteThere's no randomness in warfare!

"Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.  The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . .  This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. . . .  Moreover, every war is rich in unique episodes."  Clausewitz.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 26, 2022, 09:00:26 AM

QuoteThere's no randomness in warfare!

"Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.  The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . .  This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. . . .  Moreover, every war is rich in unique episodes."  Clausewitz.

It depends. If a gunpowder stash blows up on a battlefield and frightens the army into a precipitate a rout then, fine, you call that a chance event that is big enough to affect the outcome of the battle. But this is precisely the kind of thing we don't simulate in wargaming. A chance event we could simulate is if the kink in the intestines is wrong and the augurs predict a gloomy future and the army is demoralised as a result and fights badly. Then one simply begins the battle by downgrading the combat effectiveness of the troops, reclassifying veterans as average and average as levy, or whatever. If a chance event has an ongoing effect on the battle then it can be represented by a combat modifier.

Outside of this Clausewitz doesn't apply. Friction averages out when enough individuals are involved, and you can quantify it. I can't offhand think of any real-life chance events that have a significantly variable effect on troops' combat effectiveness from one quarter-hour to the next, making them fight like lions in one moment and like lambs in the next. The only imponderable left is intel, not having perfect knowledge of where the enemy units are and what they are doing. In that case dice are a very poor substitute for fog of war.

Having been lucky enough to visit Abu Simbel and having seen the reliefs showing Kadesh, apart from a 'pinch of salt' regarding the actual outcome and course of the battle and the involvement of Pharaoh himself, I do not see any reason to question the depiction of the Hittite chariots with respect to those of the Egyptian ones (and Canaanite/Syrian bow-armed chariots as well).

There are a variety of 'styles' of Hittite, 'allied' and Egyptian chariots depicted.

Looking at the depictions, it is readily apparent that some of the Hittite chariots are shown with rectangular cabs with the axle located under the cabs rather than along the rear edge This is presumably to 'save the horses' due to the extra weight of the vehicle wrt. the Egyptian chariots which do tend to have their axle shown to be located at the rear edge of the base of the cab. There are also (some) Hittite chariots depicted with crews of 3; in the cab.

Now the actual duties of the individual crew members must remain a mystery (in detail) and I tend to agree wrt. the use of 'lances' but spears could be used to defend the charioteers from enemy infantry/runners rather than against enemy charioteers. So, they could well have carried thrusting spears in addition to the usual javelins and bows.

What seems to be likely to me though, is that the Egyptian artists at Abu Simbel have  indeed accurately highlighted differences between Egyptian and Hittite chariots and that these differences include (some of) the Hittites  having 3 crew as opposed to the Egyptian 2 and  that these Hittite chariots were heavier (i.e. square cabs with axle beneath) than their Egyptian opposition (and so were likely to have been a little less manoeuvrable).

Always, always we need to be aware that although to our 'modern' eyes  the technology and social structures of the ancient world may seem  to be somewhat simpler than ours, this is probably illusory in some respects at least. So much knowledge of ancient technology, techniques and the use of materials has been forgotten. In fact, in some matters such as the organisation of large bodies of men under arms, the ancients may well have been more expert than our modern societies. They were sophisticated in their own ways.

So, I feel that we should definitely believe what the Egyptian artists actually show of the materials and equipment differences at Kadesh as well as being just as sceptical of the 'spin' of the 'political' messages.

Cheers
Simon

QuoteOutside of this Clausewitz doesn't apply. Friction averages out when enough individuals are involved, and you can quantify it.

Wise commanders minimise friction and plan to mitigate its effects.  Getting your tabletop commander to confront and overcome friction is part of the generalship experience, IMO.  However, I think, as has been proven several times before, we do have a fundamental disagreement in this area and I don't think there's any purpose in derailing things here.

Quote from: Erpingham on August 27, 2022, 08:50:21 AM

QuoteOutside of this Clausewitz doesn't apply. Friction averages out when enough individuals are involved, and you can quantify it.

Wise commanders minimise friction and plan to mitigate its effects.  Getting your tabletop commander to confront and overcome friction is part of the generalship experience, IMO.  However, I think, as has been proven several times before, we do have a fundamental disagreement in this area and I don't think there's any purpose in derailing things here.

Might be worth a separate thread, what do you think?

Quote from: Justin Swanton on August 27, 2022, 09:35:39 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on August 27, 2022, 08:50:21 AM

QuoteOutside of this Clausewitz doesn't apply. Friction averages out when enough individuals are involved, and you can quantify it.

Wise commanders minimise friction and plan to mitigate its effects.  Getting your tabletop commander to confront and overcome friction is part of the generalship experience, IMO.  However, I think, as has been proven several times before, we do have a fundamental disagreement in this area and I don't think there's any purpose in derailing things here.

Might be worth a separate thread, what do you think?

We've done it before, but if you think there is more to learn, by all means.

I think that until somebody invents a time machine, we will just have to accept that ancient armies used chariots in battle. so:

1. They must have been effective in some contexts
2.  We know that they were generally high-prestige troop types , not the least because of the expense of their development, training and maintenance
3. Numerous artistic and textual records are available that  would suggest that they could be effective against at least some infantry formations
4. Experimental archaeological research has shown that they can be ridden up to and across the face of infantry formations discharging missiles against a stationary target (infantry) whilst themselves being harder to hit (critically)
5. They were the most mobile arm of the army (in suitable terrain)
6. they were used in large numbers (1000s) at times.
6. They generally increased in size, heaviness, horse team numbers and crew numbers with time; akin in some ways to armoured fighting vehicles in WW2
7. When cavalry became effective, chariots were rendered largely redundant; certainly in most of their roles. The main reason for this is probably the increased mobility of a single horse and rider as compared with a chariot and the relatively decreased expense (no actual chariot needs to be built).

So perhaps wargames rules should simply just treat them as a cavalry 'equivalent' with one or two additional movement constraints. Which is what they seem to do, by and large.

There are light cavalry with bow, javelins even lance, medium cavalry, heavy cavalry and cataphracts. These seem to be reasonably 'translatable' to the various chariot types that we know of.

I would therefore tend to propose the 'Anatolian' type Hittite chariot to be a Medium to  'Heavy cavalry equivalent and the Egyptian style chariot as a Light to Medium Cavalry' equivalent.

Cheers
Simon

Simon's suggestion does seem to be the way rules covering a broad time span cope with chariots.

Thinking about 'battle taxi' chariots, I confess I remain entirely unconvinced. If you take Mycenaean and then Hellenic Greece, in Hellenic Greece you had 'cavalry' who were mounted infantry who just wanted to ride their own horse into combat. I cannot remember reading that they were numbered in thousands in any army.
With the Mycenaean state, it was the state providing the battle taxi. Whilst I could see them providing one for senior commanders who might gain from speed and height, I cannot see the state feeling the need to provide large numbers to prevent quite low ranking gentry from having to walk  ;)

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 29, 2022, 03:25:14 PM
Simon's suggestion does seem to be the way rules covering a broad time span cope with chariots.

Triumph would be an exception. They've got two basic troop-types for chariots, "Chariots" and "Battle Taxi". The latter is rather a misnomer, as it in practice means more like  "chariots we don't think were good enough to ride down decent infantry" (yes, they're Swantonians of a sort), whether they dismounted or not.

Quote from: Jim Webster on August 29, 2022, 03:25:14 PM
Thinking about 'battle taxi' chariots, I confess I remain entirely unconvinced. If you take Mycenaean and then Hellenic Greece, in Hellenic Greece you had 'cavalry' who were mounted infantry who just wanted to ride their own horse into combat. I cannot remember reading that they were numbered in thousands in any army.
With the Mycenaean state, it was the state providing the battle taxi. Whilst I could see them providing one for senior commanders who might gain from speed and height, I cannot see the state feeling the need to provide large numbers to prevent quite low ranking gentry from having to walk  ;)

It is, of course, possible Homer is describing the use of chariots in his own time, rather than the time the poem is set.  Another possibility, already mentioned, is that, in representing a sea-borne attack, there are less chariots and their use is out of the ordinary because of this.

On the general "battle taxi" idea, I think it is ill-served by it's off-hand name.  If we called them mobile strike forces or some such (which seems to fit Caesar's description), would we think differently about them? 

Quote from: Erpingham on August 29, 2022, 05:40:25 PM
On the general "battle taxi" idea, I think it is ill-served by it's off-hand name.  If we called them mobile strike forces or some such (which seems to fit Caesar's description), would we think differently about them?

Definitely ill-served by the name.  It is not clear that they ever really existed anyway.  I think I am correct to say that the only culture for which we have incontrovertible proof of chariot warriors routinely dismounting to fight (as opposed to sometimes having to get out because the terrain is awful) is that of the Britons, thanks to Caesar's detailed account.

As I said above, I think they are (probably by extension other Western Celts, though again, that is an assumption, not a demonstrable fact) are possibly sui generis.  They may not have been conceived as a weapon for large pitched battles, because we do not know whether, before the coming of the Romans, whether the Britons ever had cause to fight large pitched battles.  So it may be that their usage of the vehicle reflected feuding, raiding, duelling in an heroic but small scale style.  It is noteworthy that the only times they seem to have caused the Romans any real difficulties was when being used to harass or skirmish, albeit sometimes on a grand scale.

Otherwise, the only other so-called battle taxis are those credited to the Archaic Greeks.  But the assumptions surrounding those are an amalgam of suppositions based upon pottery depictions of "elite infantry" getting in or out of a vehicle, but not in combat, plus their armament (spears, not a good primary armament for a chariot being used as a chariot), and more than a dash of Homer. Even if this interpretation is correct, there is no evidence that they were used en masse, so, unless playing a 1:1 skirmish game, one could  question whether they are even worthy of depiction on the table, if they simply represent one or two noble warriors leading their retinue of infantry.

Can't disagree there David. I would note, though, that European, as opposed to Mediterranean or Near Eastern, are not well served with evidence.  How, for example, were Bronze Age chariots in Scandinavia used?  I find it unlikely they were used en masse .  So, for all we know, we could have a wider "battle taxi" culture in Europe. 

Jim's point about Homer's chariots being a poor fit for Mycenaean palace culture, which suggests a centralised chariot force rather than a  "fuedal" type of heroes with their own chariots, is interesting.  Unfortunately, the complexities of social structure and land owning in that period is a mystery to me.