Hittite chariots

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

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?

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.   

[Swampster]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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!).

I really am bored of this nonsense now.

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

[DBS]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

I 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.   

[Erpingham]

It 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.

[DBS]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Many thanks. Not 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.

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.

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

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.

[/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.

What learning points do we have here?

1. Don't get surrounded by infantry

Yep.

2. 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.

3. 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.

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

It 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.

[Justin Swanton]

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

[Erpingham]

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?

[Justin Swanton]

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.