Hittite chariots

[Justin Swanton]

The 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?

Also, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

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

[Erpingham]

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

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

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...

[DBS]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

Unless of course we're talking about KTB.

Nah, lets stick with history 

[DBS]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

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.

Infantry are necessary, but individually worthless in this mentality.

If infantry are worthless then why are they necessary?

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.

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. 

[Erpingham]

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).

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.

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. 

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.

[Justin Swanton]

Unless of course we're talking about KTB.

Nah, lets stick with history 

Oi!

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

If 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.