Hittite chariots

[Erpingham]

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.

As a general statement this is true but it is rather general.  I think it may reflect a distorted focus on the horse, rather than the weapon system (rider/crew, vehicles, equipment, protection).   To just stick to chariots, we know some chariots at the later end of the chariots career charged formed infantry, so with the weapon system of the time, it must have been possible.  We lack evidence that Hittite or Egyptian chariots were the same weapon system - in fact, what we do have suggests they weren't, in at least the scythes aspect. So does the fact that a  horse-powered weapon system could do this mean earlier different horse-powered weapon systems could do it?  Even if they could, we have no evidence they did.  Ultimately, it is a bit of a sterile debate. 

However, might I ask Justin, why you dislike the consensus view so much?  Obviously, you'd like to shift it to consider the occassional possibility of an equid ram attack in certain circumstances and you have a scepticism about the effective use of mounted archer while moving but, other than that is it OK.  Chariots confer mobility, they can fight other chariots without ramming them, they can run down skirmishers and disordered/fearful types (and strike a heroic pose for a monument after)?

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Well, I was thinking of the entirety of your post.

To clarify my position first: nobody knows for sure just how effectively a charging horse can bowl over standing infantrymen. I think horses were more effective than many believe. I put forward some tentative calculations on the inertia of a charging horse weighing a quarter-ton (about the mass of horses then) vs the stability of a standing man, and IMHO a galloping horse could knock down eight men easily before being brought to a halt. Theoretical I know, but better than the argument of imagination.

So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep. If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point. This more-or-less matches what you said:

- ideally (for the cavalry) the infantry would lose their nerve and turn en masse and start to run away - in this case the cavalry would charge up to, into and amongst them, cutting them down from behind as they fled.
   
   - steadier infantry, but not completely steady, might stand, but with hesitation, uncertainty and reluctance. Individuals might turn and run, or back away, or flinch, all of which would open gaps in the solid wall of infantry. The bulk of the cavalry would have to rein in, halt or turn away as they came up to the infantry line, but where gaps had opened up individual cavalrymen would be able to barge in, spearing or sabring those in reach, widening the gap. Other cavalrymen would follow. This might well, except with the deepest or steadiest infantry, cause the whole mass to give way and start to run.
   
   - if the cavalry approached a flank of the infantry, things would be easier for them. The infantry would be considerably more alarmed by the attack, and more likely to break and run. If they did stand, they would not be presenting a solid front (of men or weapons) and more opportunities would be offered for penetrating gaps or spearing, sabring or knocking down individuals, opening up more gaps.

Charging determined formed heavy infantry, especially if those infantry had adopted an anti-cavalry formation like packing together, was generally a bad idea, as you said. Nevertheless it could sometimes work:

- in very unusual cases, the mounted troops would keep on going and literally crash into the infantry. The likelihood of this happening would itself depend on many factors, most particularly the depth and density of the infantry formation (so how solid a mass they appeared to be). The impact would most likely cause considerable harm to the infantry (men trampled, speared, sabred, knocked over) but also to the cavalry (horses tripped, horses injured or killed, riders dismounted and killed). Whether the infantry or the cavalry came off worse would depend on circumstances and would vary from case to case, but neither side could be certain of 'winning' such an encounter, and most likely both sides would lose - lots of disorder, lots of casualties.

Can I come in from the cold?

[Jim Webster]

OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

[Justin Swanton]

OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards, which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

[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?

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

A horse doesn't need 10 seconds to get up to a full gallop, and the idea would be to charge towards the approaching chariots and play a game of chicken with them. And you have your chariot runners too, who would probably end up fighting your opponents' runners.

[Cantabrigian]

So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep.

If you're right, then infantry would normally deploy more than 10 ranks deep simply because that's what's needed to protect you from a chariot charge.

If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point.

The thing is as a chariot driver you could never be quite sure whether morale had been reduced enough or not.  The infantry might role an inconvenient double six, and stay in place.  So the only safe tactic is to charge them, but be ready to stop if they don't run.  OK, that means that there's a set of occasions where the infantry might have run if only you'd carried on a little further into contact, but given the cost of getting  it wrong is so huge, you're not going to risk it.

An alternative might be to not charge until the infantry had started to run away, but that would be negating a lot of the point of having a chariot unit.

[Justin Swanton]

So I believe a horse could smash its way through a line of, say, 8-10 ranks, but it couldn't get through a line of 20 or more ranks. Fertile Crescent armies were large and the infantry probably deployed deep.

If you're right, then infantry would normally deploy more than 10 ranks deep simply because that's what's needed to protect you from a chariot charge.

Exactly. The minimum attested habitual depth for infantry on a battlefield is 8 ranks (though they could occasionally deploy shallower in special circumstances) and that was for Greek hoplite phalanxes. Cavalry weren't a major feature of Greek armies. Elsewhere it appears to have been more, or infantry were deployed in multiple lines which comes to the same thing. Cavalry was an important factor in determining infantry depth, keeping in mind that only the front rank or two of an infantry line did the actual fighting.

If a charioteer charged an infantry line of this kind he had to panic the infantrymen into a rout otherwise he was dead. That meant whittling down the morale of the infantry first before attempting the charge, or hitting them at a weak point.

The thing is as a chariot driver you could never be quite sure whether morale had been reduced enough or not.  The infantry might role an inconvenient double six, and stay in place.  So the only safe tactic is to charge them, but be ready to stop if they don't run.  OK, that means that there's a set of occasions where the infantry might have run if only you'd carried on a little further into contact, but given the cost of getting  it wrong is so huge, you're not going to risk it.

An alternative might be to not charge until the infantry had started to run away, but that would be negating a lot of the point of having a chariot unit.

Well, dice never featured on a real battlefield.   Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

As a general statement this is true but it is rather general.  I think it may reflect a distorted focus on the horse, rather than the weapon system (rider/crew, vehicles, equipment, protection).   To just stick to chariots, we know some chariots at the later end of the chariots career charged formed infantry, so with the weapon system of the time, it must have been possible.  We lack evidence that Hittite or Egyptian chariots were the same weapon system - in fact, what we do have suggests they weren't, in at least the scythes aspect. So does the fact that a  horse-powered weapon system could do this mean earlier different horse-powered weapon systems could do it?  Even if they could, we have no evidence they did.  Ultimately, it is a bit of a sterile debate. 

However, might I ask Justin, why you dislike the consensus view so much?  Obviously, you'd like to shift it to consider the occassional possibility of an equid ram attack in certain circumstances and you have a scepticism about the effective use of mounted archer while moving but, other than that is it OK.  Chariots confer mobility, they can fight other chariots without ramming them, they can run down skirmishers and disordered/fearful types (and strike a heroic pose for a monument after)?

We know that scythed chariots charged infantry because they weren't designed to do anything else, but we don't know that earlier chariots didn't charge infantry, and I would argue that the later use was a refinement of an earlier use as is habitually the case with military innovation. If chariots are just missile platforms then they are less effective than LH since chariot archers are more dispersed than LH archers (each chariot taking up more space than a cavalry horse) and I then have a real problem understanding why they had such a fearsome reputation. Even British chariots with their pony-like horses would charge Roman legionaries in the right circumstances (I'll find the reference). Plenty of Egyptian images show chariots running over prone infantry, so clearly the prone infantry didn't seriously inconvenience the chariot. Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies. And so on. It's case of several facts dovetailing into a plausible construction of how chariots were used. I think one can accept that chariots as shock weapons from day one were a thing, but to what extent is up for debate.

[Cantabrigian]

Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

I'm not sure how visible "wavering" was from a distance - an organised, careful withdrawal would not itself be a good sign of poor morale.  But even if you believe that it is visible, then there has to be something that made them "waver".   Well unless you believe that battle is full of purely random events, which I don't think you do.

So why, if you're a chariot force, wouldn't you have a go at being the thing that tips them over into wavering?  After all, a huge number of chariots galloping towards you at full speed is likely to be a little disconcerting.  The chariots have little to lose, so why wait for someone else to do the hard work of getting the infantry to waver?

[Cantabrigian]

We know that scythed chariots charged infantry because they weren't designed to do anything else

I think that logic is flawed.  If the main aim of a chariot charge was to get the opponent to run away, then making your chariots look scary is a big plus, even if you never actually come into contact with a formed enemy. 

In fact your own arguments count against you here - you've said that in terms of a contact shock attack it's the horses that do the damage not the chariot, so there's no point in upgrading the chariot.  A scythed chariot will be able to penetrate less ranks of infantry than a chariot without scythes.

If scythed wheels only had a morale impact, then scythed chariots are pretty strong evidence that actual contact with a formed enemy never took place in a chariot charge.

[Anton]

I wonder if horses for scythed chariots were trained in a different manner to other chariot horses?  I suppose you could accustom them to galloping a formed bodies of men who then obligingly scattered.  Once deployed in action they would do what they had learned in the expectation that their target would disperse before impact.

I cannot recollect any instance of scythed chariots refusing to close.

[RichT]

As with every other time we have this 'discussion', you [edit - to be clear, 'you' means Justin] are using 'charge infantry' to cover a number of different phenomena, and your main use of it differs from that of the majority.

In the majority view, when mounted units 'charge infantry' it does not mean they collided with formed facing infantry at full speed (though this might have happened in a few, special occasions), it means they charged AT infantry (I have tried to use this expression to make the distinction clear between a charge that necessarily results in full contact, and one that does not). As I said in my previous long post, a charge AT infantry might result in the infantry being broken (that is, losing formation, opening gaps, perhaps starting to run away), in which case the chargers could get in amongst them in the familiar, uncontroversial way, or it might result in the infantry standing firm, in which case (all the evidence we have suggests) the usual outcome was for the cavalry/chariots to abort their charge (pulling up, swerving away), though on a few, special occasions, some forces might have been able to continue into full contact. But if they did so, it would have taken the form of (effectively) a suicide attack with high mutual casualties.

Perhaps we could agree to refer to charges AT infantry (the usual type I have described), and charges INTO infantry (where full frontal contact is made).

Now, all the literary examples which you claim support your theory that charges INTO infantry were frequent and normal can in fact be understood to be referring to charges AT infantry. "Even British chariots with their pony-like horses would charge Roman legionaries in the right circumstances" - yes, they would charge AT Roman legionaries. "Chariots are attested in the sources as shock weapons in Indian armies" - yes, Indian chariots too could charge AT infantry (thereby sometimes breaking them, which is the nature of shock combat). There is no evidence in these examples that the chariots charged INTO infantry.

The reasons for doubting that cavalry/chariots routinely charged INTO infantry are those we have gone over so many times, including: the argument from equine psychology (horses will avoid running into solid or solid-seeming objects if they can); the argument from evidence and analogy (better attested cavalry in other periods are known to have mostly charged AT and only rarely if ever charged INTO); the argument from practicality (a suicide attack is a costly way to use any military force); the argument from social status (noble or elite cavalry are unlikely to be willing to destroy themselves in suicide attacks on infantry); and so on. The majority have always found these arguments compelling, and continue to do so.

Scythed chariots do indeed seem to be specifically designed to charge INTO infantry (though there is an argument (as Mike/Cantabrigian says) that the scythes etc were intended to make a charge AT infantry even more effective, by making them more terrifying). The description in Xenophon of their ideal (imagined) use shows them charging INTO infantry, resulting in their own destruction, as we would expect. However, the examples of their use in practice confirms all the arguments against a charge INTO; either they are used against open order or broken formations (where the job of breaking up the formation has already been done), or they are easily countered by opening gaps and allowing equine psychology to take its course (the horses head for the gaps).

In addition, scythed chariots are fielded by monarchs wielding enormous resources, who are able to equip and train special suicide units of (we would hope) volunteers. I don't know much about Hittites, but my understanding is that their chariotry was formed from the social elite, like most cavalry forces, so a suicide role of this sort is unlikely. It's not impossible, but given that it would be unusual, we need some evidence that it was the case; "we don't know that earlier chariots didn't charge [INTO] infantry" won't do - in order to support the hypothesis (that they did), you need to provide evidence, not just rely on the absence of evidence that they didn't (and quite what form such negative evidence would take I can't imagine).

As for the argument from physics (that a charging horse will bowl over eight men without being slowed or impeded in any way itself), I think your understanding of the physics is fatally flawed, but even if we grant that your calculations are valid, that is not enough. If you can provide a single example of this actually happening in practice (one example from anywhere in human history will be enough), then we will concede the point.

[Jim Webster]

OK so they built a chariot and tried the archery at speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Loti-WBK_k

(It worked)

Sigh...from about 10-15 yards, which I keep saying, again and again. Now let him try it from 100 yards.

why?
What's the point of shooting people at 100 yards when they're not going to stand there and let you

[Jim Webster]

A horse doesn't need 10 seconds to get up to a full gallop, and the idea would be to charge towards the approaching chariots and play a game of chicken with them. And you have your chariot runners too, who would probably end up fighting your opponents' runners.

So you're not going to be firing much at 100yards anyway but at shorter ranger whilst moving at speed

[Jim Webster]

Bluff charging was a thing, sure, but one could determine if an enemy infantry line was wavering and ready to be charged for real: if it was backing off for example that was reliable sign.

I'm not sure how visible "wavering" was from a distance - an organised, careful withdrawal would not itself be a good sign of poor morale.  But even if you believe that it is visible, then there has to be something that made them "waver".   Well unless you believe that battle is full of purely random events, which I don't think you do.

So why, if you're a chariot force, wouldn't you have a go at being the thing that tips them over into wavering?  After all, a huge number of chariots galloping towards you at full speed is likely to be a little disconcerting.  The chariots have little to lose, so why wait for someone else to do the hard work of getting the infantry to waver?

Also if you're going to within 15 yards of the infantry to shoot at them (as the video) then you've probably got a pretty good feel for how close they are to wavering