Hittite chariots

[Jim Webster]

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 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

[DBS]

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...

[DBS]

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.

[davidb]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Duncan Head]

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.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[DBS]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.

"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. 

[DBS]

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?

[Justin Swanton]

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.