Hittite chariots

[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 suspect that the suspension was to give the archer as stable a shooting platform as possible, but we really need to see what an archer can do from a recreated chariot. I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

[Jim Webster]

I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

[Cantabrigian]

you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

While two stationary combatants or two moving combatants will have equal accuracy, it's unlikely to be the case if one is moving, and the other is stationary.  The problem for the moving combatant is bumps, while for the stationary combatant it's predicting where the target will be by the time the arrow reaches it.

But in any case, you don't want to be the first chariot on your side to stop, because everyone on the other side will immediately aim at you.

[Justin Swanton]

I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

[Justin Swanton]

you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

While two stationary combatants or two moving combatants will have equal accuracy, it's unlikely to be the case if one is moving, and the other is stationary.  The problem for the moving combatant is bumps, while for the stationary combatant it's predicting where the target will be by the time the arrow reaches it.

But in any case, you don't want to be the first chariot on your side to stop, because everyone on the other side will immediately aim at you.

Three scenarios. In both cases you have two opposing lines of chariots, each chariot line sufficiently spaced from its neighbours so it can countermarch.

Scenario A: one line stops at about 100 yards from its opponents and immediately starts shooting. Its opponents decide to stop and also commence shooting. Archers manage to hit each other with reasonable accuracy at this distance.

Scenario B: one line stops at about 100 yards from its opponents and immediately starts shooting. Its opponents don't stop but keep advancing towards the stationary chariots. The stationary chariots recommence moving before their opponents can get into the shooting range of moving chariots (which has to be less than the shooting range of stationary chariots). The two lines get to within, say 20 yards of each other and caracole, shooting and retiring, coming back, shooting and retiring, and so on.

Scenario C: Neither line stops but keeps moving until within shooting range of moving chariots and then continue as for Scenario B.

IMHO these all work, but which scenario charioteers actually employed on a battlefield is up for endless argument discussion.

[Erpingham]

Talking of chariot archery tactics, I thought we might consider a scene of combat between Egyptian and Hittite chariots shown in the Abu Simbel Kadesh reliefs.  Please excuse the use of a reconstruction - it's hard to find a photo which is any good that shows the whole scene.



Here units of Egyptian and Hittite chariots move toward each other at speed, the Egyptians shoot as they come.  The Hittites are taking damage .  As Andreas pointed out earlier, the horses are a legitimate target and several are down. Crews are also hit.  The Hittites seem to be trying to turn away (rather clumsily handled by the artist because convention is to show the scene in profile). 

Add : After spending forever looking for a photo and giving up, the moment I post, I see one 

[Justin Swanton]

Interesting. The Egyptians' bows outrange the ability of the Hittites to hit back at them. I don't see in the original relief the Hittites' spears/javelins depicted in the reconstruction. They have a 3-man crew: one drives, one holds a shield and the third must have a melee weapon of some kind. A lack of missile weapons makes me wonder how they used their chariots. Is is possible the horses were meant to charge into hapless foot....?

[DBS]

If you had spent any time reading about New Kingdom Egypt, you would know that one of the oddities of Egyptian pictorial representation is the rarity with which their enemies are depicted with bows; enemy chariots sometimes have quivers, but even then the chariot crew usually do not have bows.  The paradox is that the texts from the same period and of the same events very much mention bows - eg the Poem of Pentaur describes how at Kadesh the Hittite charioteers were so scared of Ramses that, despite being well armed with bows, they lost the strength to raise them (or hurl darts or raise spears) against him.  One of the favoured propaganda euphemisms for Pharaoh's assorted foreign enemies - Hittites, Nubians, Libyans, Asiatics, etc -  was The Nine Bows, yet the weapon most rarely depicted in their hands is the bow.

This leads to a very strong suspicion that Egyptian propaganda reliefs may have an ideological issue with showing enemy archers accurately.

No, it is not very credible that the Hittites planned their chariots to charge into hapless foot - I am sorry that you are incapable of accepting the loneliness of your position in that regard.

[Justin Swanton]

If you had spent any time reading about New Kingdom Egypt, you would know that one of the oddities of Egyptian pictorial representation is the rarity with which their enemies are depicted with bows; enemy chariots sometimes have quivers, but even then the chariot crew usually do not have bows.  The paradox is that the texts from the same period and of the same events very much mention bows - eg the Poem of Pentaur describes how at Kadesh the Hittite charioteers were so scared of Ramses that, despite being well armed with bows, they lost the strength to raise them (or hurl darts or raise spears) against him.  One of the favoured propaganda euphemisms for Pharaoh's assorted foreign enemies - Hittites, Nubians, Libyans, Asiatics, etc -  was The Nine Bows, yet the weapon most rarely depicted in their hands is the bow.

This leads to a very strong suspicion that Egyptian propaganda reliefs may have an ideological issue with showing enemy archers accurately.

No, it is not very credible that the Hittites planned their chariots to charge into hapless foot - I am sorry that you are incapable of accepting the loneliness of your position in that regard.

Fine. I don't pretend to be an expert on New Kingdom Egyptian pictography. It did strike me as rather odd that Hittite chariots would engage Egyptian chariots without the Hittites having effective missile weapons, but this is a learning game.

And no, the loneliness of my position doesn't bother me in the least. I would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion. But according to Rich majority opinion puts me in good company.

[Jim Webster]

I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

[Justin Swanton]

I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

100+ yards?

[Erpingham]

I would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion.

I think many people would flip this Justin and ask why the view of the majority of scholars should be overturned by a new theory.  Usually, it involves the discovery of new evidence or a fresh approach to the analysis of the evidence underlying the majority position.  If the latter, the majority should consider it to see if it better fits the data.  While you've launched a new theory - that chariots were regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry to break the enemy's line - you haven't produced any new evidence to support it, or a re-analysis of the existing information. 

Personally, I think I'm reasonably confident that the lighter Egyptian chariots mainly attacked and defended themselves with archery, I'm still not sure about what the Hittites are up to.  What were they armed with?  David has noted the mysterious absence of Hittite bows in the Abu Simbel reliefs, when they frequently turn up equipping gods and men in Hittite images.  The mystery of the spears might be that there is something of an absence of Hittite weapons generally.  That they were painted in is possible - early archeological reports may talk of paint traces - but we are getting into expert Egyptological territory there, not something you can do with a Google image search.

[Justin Swanton]

I would find my position bothersome if it was refuted by solid arguments rather than opposed by majority opinion.

I think many people would flip this Justin and ask why the view of the majority of scholars should be overturned by a new theory.  Usually, it involves the discovery of new evidence or a fresh approach to the analysis of the evidence underlying the majority position.  If the latter, the majority should consider it to see if it better fits the data.  While you've launched a new theory - that chariots were regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry to break the enemy's line - you haven't produced any new evidence to support it, or a re-analysis of the existing information.

A couple of things. First, I don't say chariots regularly rammed into bodies of formed close order infantry; I maintain they did it in the right circumstances. If chariots always charged infantry - with a good expectation of success - then infantry wouldn't dare appear on battlefields. How frequently those circumstances arose is up for debate. Secondly, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there is no evidence chariots never charged infantry, whereas there is some evidence - circumstantial and written - that they did. I produced that evidence. Finally, I don't think my opinion is especially new or unique to me. There seems to be several schools of thought on whether horses charged infantry and if they did, what kind of horses, in what era, as part of what armies, and in what circumstances.

Personally, I think I'm reasonably confident that the lighter Egyptian chariots mainly attacked and defended themselves with archery, I'm still not sure about what the Hittites are up to.  What were they armed with?  David has noted the mysterious absence of Hittite bows in the Abu Simbel reliefs, when they frequently turn up equipping gods and men in Hittite images.  The mystery of the spears might be that there is something of an absence of Hittite weapons generally.  That they were painted in is possible - early archeological reports may talk of paint traces - but we are getting into expert Egyptological territory there, not something you can do with a Google image search.

Following on David, I think it highly unlikely Hittite chariots would have engaged Egyptian chariots if the Hittites weren't equipped with bows, as everyone by then would have known quite well how effective a chariot bow was. News of military innovation gets around. BTW I don't think the lightness of a chariot has anything to do with its efficacity as an infantry battering ram since it is the horses that do the ramming. A light chariot would more easily pass over prone bodies perhaps, whereas a heavy chariot - like the thick-wheel Assyrian variety - would crush the bodies it passed over.

Oh, and a light chariot could outrun a heavier one.

[Jim Webster]

I can see two modes of combat: stationary shooting from a distance combined with a dash up close and then away, firing from the hip. Bearing in mind that in either case the contest is an equal one: you can hit a stationary target if you are stationary just as accurately as he can hit you, and you can hit a moving target up close if you are moving also with equivalent accuracy.

They're not equal, if you're stationary, you are available to be mugged by infantry and chariot runners

If you're stationary at a distance you aren't.

How big a distance? The last thing is that you need is fast moving chariots sweeping in, firing at you and dropping chariot runners on you

100+ yards?

It'll take a chariot moving at 20mph a full ten seconds to close with you :-)
Given the 16 year olds are supposed to throw a javelin 40m,  you might be lucky to have a whole ten seconds before the chariot runners emerge from the dust, notice you and the first javelins start coming in

[RichT]

But according to Rich majority opinion puts me in good company.

Whoa - if Rich is me, I said no such thing. Majority opinion has you as an outlier, as usual.

To quote myself, excerpted:

"[all the usual circumstances in which cavalry/chariots charge AT infantry but without smashing into them, then...]
- in very unusual cases, the mounted troops would keep on going and literally crash into the infantry... Because this was effectively a suicide tactic, most likely to result in the death of many of the attackers and the destruction of their formation, it was not popular or undertaken willingly or often. However, some specialist units were developed specifically to practise it - such as scythed chariots, which were intended to be expendable, one-shot weapons... Some particularly highly motivated or fanatical mounted troops in other periods might also make such attacks - but always as the exception... In the case of ANE archer chariots - my suspicion is that they were skirmish types, but willing and able to make a standard cavalry charge (full of intent and elan) if occasion required, but that cases where they would be crashed into a steady target in the style of suicide (scythed) chariots would be vanishingly rare, because they would have a greater desire to stay alive, because their king/general would find it more useful to retain a powerful, battle winning military force than to throw it away on suicide attacks on infantry, and because no mounted warrior would willingly throw away his life in order to kill a mere footsoldier."

If your "in the right circumstances" equates to my "vanishingly rare" then I suppose it is true, you are in line with majority opinion. But then what is the point of all this? What are you arguing for? That Hittite chariots could, in theory, kill themselves in order to destroy a unit of infantry, but in practice, they probably never did? If so OK, we are done.