Hittite chariots

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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

[Jim Webster]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[DBS]

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?

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[DBS]

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.

[Erpingham]

what 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.

[Justin Swanton]

what 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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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 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? 

[DBS]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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 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.

[Justin Swanton]

This experimental reconstruction 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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

2) 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.

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.

As above.