Hittite chariots

[Swampster]

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?

[Erpingham]

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."

I shall assume a missing emoji here

Honourable 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. 

[RichT]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.



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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.



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.

[Jim Webster]

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 
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, "

[Justin Swanton]

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 
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 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.

[Duncan Head]

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

[Andreas Johansson]

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 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.)

[Justin Swanton]

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 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.

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.)

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

[Erpingham]

The 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.

[Erpingham]

I 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?

[Justin Swanton]

I 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.