Hittite chariots

[Justin Swanton]

I'll get back to this chaps. I tend to suffer combat fatigue from time to time.

[RichT]

No need. I'm sure everyone is happy to leave it at that.

[Justin Swanton]

No need. I'm sure everyone is happy to leave it at that.

Oh, I think they're enjoying themselves. Be seeing you.

[Mark G]

Five page rule Justin.

If it's you disagreeing with everyone after five pages, it's time to stop

[Justin Swanton]

Five page rule Justin.

If it's you disagreeing with everyone after five pages, it's time to stop

Wait, wait. I'm going to convince Rich I agree with him.

[Cantabrigian]

Wait, wait. I'm going to convince Rich I agree with him.

And I wanted to ask how this is all affected by the New Chronology?

[aligern]

My take on Bronze age chariots is that they operate as missile platforms and first target the opposing chariotry. When that is defeated they then turn on the enemy infantry, darting into range , shooting and retiring and using their own infantry to pressure them Eventually the infantry without chariot support, abandoned by their social betters, will crack. At that point tge chariots can test charge towards the infantry and ride down those who flee. The chariots are well protected horse archers against mainly spear armed foot who carry less ammo that the chariots and have much more mobility.  There is never a need or point for the chariots to fight formed, fresh, infantry frontally.
Roy

[Erpingham]

My take on Bronze age chariots is that they operate as missile platforms and first target the opposing chariotry. When that is defeated they then turn on the enemy infantry, darting into range , shooting and retiring and using their own infantry to pressure them Eventually the infantry without chariot support, abandoned by their social betters, will crack. At that point tge chariots can test charge towards the infantry and ride down those who flee. The chariots are well protected horse archers against mainly spear armed foot who carry less ammo that the chariots and have much more mobility.  There is never a need or point for the chariots to fight formed, fresh, infantry frontally.
Roy

I think this captures one conventional model quite well.  I'd call this the "chariot superiority" model, where chariots contend for dominance which will allow them to pick their targets to pressure the enemy infantry or offer mobile support to their own infantry in attack or defence.  The chariotry can then deliver the coup de grâce against demoralised or no-longer-cohesive infantry.   
We must note, though, that it is no more solidly evidenced than Justin's theory, even if it appears more reasonable.  It may also underestimate the agency of Bronze Age infantry (also an issue with Justin's model).  Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

[Jim Webster]

Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

This may find parallels in medieval texts where infantry were often overlooked. It is entirely possible that there is a parallel in the hoplite period when light infantry may also have been overlooked.

If we continue the Medieval analogy, the men at arms/knights were important. In some armies, some infantry were important, but we do tend to know about them.
So who were the Engish Longbowmen and the Flemish Pikemen of the chariot period? Egyptian/Nubian archers do get coverage, Syrian city states were happy if Pharaoh sent them even a couple of hundred archers.

[Erpingham]

Our sources, such as they are, may emphasise the actions of the chariot elite over the PBI who made up most of the army.

This may find parallels in medieval texts where infantry were often overlooked. It is entirely possible that there is a parallel in the hoplite period when light infantry may also have been overlooked.

If we continue the Medieval analogy, the men at arms/knights were important. In some armies, some infantry were important, but we do tend to know about them.

Always up for a good medieval analogy    One of the things about more modern takes on Early and High Medieval warfare is that the uselessness of infantry has been been greatly exaggerated.  Some (e.g. the Bachrachs) would even see it as a dominant force.

Going back to the Bronze Age, I was interested to find this quite old paper by Hans van Wees on infantry in the Iliad which makes the point that the focus on the deeds of chariot mounted heroes, while dramatically and socially understandable, might distort our view of the infantry role.

[DBS]

I think are at risk of equating an apparent low importance of infantry in set piece field actions with a supposed low importance in operational necessity.  This was the point I was trying to explain to Justin several pages ago; even if at, say, Kadesh, the Hittite infantry seem to have played a fairly passive role, they were still there, a long way from home, so must have served some strategic purpose, even if not a major tactical purpose when it came to a field action.

There seem to be four things for which infantry are incontrovertibly essential:
- chasing enemies up mountains (other difficult terrain doubtless also relevant);
- besieging cities;
- defending cities;
- escorting deported populations, cattle / flocks, and assorted loot back home.

All of these can be found very clearly in Hittite records.  None are needed for a field action save the first, which is where a field action is halfway or more up a mountain.  Now, there is at least one reference to sending out just chariots, in Tudhaylia (III)'s letter to an official in Tapikka that he has sent the requested chariots.  However, to my mind this suggests perhaps that Kassu, the recipient, has infantry, whether regular or militia, already available, but needs a mobile or match winning force to see off the threat from the Kaskans.  If so, perhaps either the infantry can hold the city but chariots are needed to chase down raiders devastating the agricultural hinterland, or Kassu will be able to take out the infantry into the field to confront the Kaskans if he has a squadron of chariotry able to pin down an elusive enemy.  Speculation of course, but to my mind it possibly highlights the different operational roles of infantry and chariotry - both are needed, but may serve different purposes, one is more important in the field, but the other is absolutely essential in strategic terms.

With the Egyptians, worth noting that the Sherden are often differentiated from the rest of the infantry, in turn differentiated from the chariotry.  Thus the Poem of Pentaur has Ramses preparing "his infantry, his chariotry and the Sherden of his captivity."  Two possible reasons (not exclusive) as to why there this differentiation of the Sherden from the infantry spring to mind: 1) the Sherden are a splendid bunch of thugs and particularly effective, so Ramses emphasises their role as superior (even if no one is going to say it explicitly) to that of native Egyptian infantry; and 2) the Sherden are of course captured raiders, so Ramses is emphasising how those who once sought to despoil Egypt are now being used cleverly by him to kill and be killed for the glory of Pharaoh and Egypt, just as Roman sycophants praised emperors in the 4th and 5th centuries for expending Goths rather than Romans.  As I say, to my mind, probably a bit of both.  The Sherden get a pretty good showing in the victory reliefs of Ramses II, III and Merneptah - who knows whether because they were exotic, or because they were seen as genuinely tactically important - but to be fair, the presumed-native other Egyptian infantry also get a pretty good showing.  Both native and Sherden infantry are all important of course for slaughtering or capturing the enemies routed by Pharoah and his chariots; even if Pharaoh's chariot dominates the true combat scenes, the infantry can follow in his wake and mop up.

Also, though I do not have my copy of Bryce's work on the letters of the Great Kings to hand, I am 99% confident that the Amarna correspondence includes letters to Akhenaten from distressed vassals in Syria asking him to send archers to ward off predation by rivals.  This is perhaps the flipside of Kassu in Hittite Tapikka - he needs chariots perhaps because he has infantry, but needs chariotry to deal with the horrible actuality of Kaskan raiders, but the Syrian vassals need Egyptian archers as a deterrent, perhaps for their military capability, but perhaps more likely as a political deterrent to stop raiders before they even start; any attack on a city with a company of Akhenaten's archers as part of the garrison is an attack on the Great King's direct statement of power and control.  If a rival local warlord is stupid enough to cross that line, he might THEN get Egyptian chariotry headed north to administer a spanking... but even token infantry forces are going to be more affordable yet still a very powerful deterrent in the immediate and possibly long term as the Pharaonic tripwire.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

Warfare is a hardheaded business. If you can't perform then don't posture: it won't be long before your opponent works out that all you can do is bluff.

Scythes are meant to cut off infantry at the knees, not to look like they could cut them off at the knees. As I understand it, they were a one-shot weapon, designed to plough into an infantry line and cause maximum shock and damage, at the very least rattling the infantry and making them vulnerable to a knockout blow by other infantry or cavalry. Since they could be used only once, they had to have maximum impact, hence the scythes.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry. If you charge to contact then you charge to contact and you do it as hard as you can - the impact of a galloping horse on standing men is very impressive. I can provide links to several videos to prove the point if you like - showing a horse levelling a standing man with hardly any effect on its speed. Horses have no problem knocking down people who are in their way, making no effort to dodge around those people. Again, I have video evidence to prove this point. I can't supply a video of 8 men being knocked down in neat succession by a charging horse, but I did calculate the physics of it (please prove my calculations wrong rather than just affirm they are wrong - affirmations mean very little). Certainly there is no evidence that a charging horse can't flatten 8 men. Evidence. Evidence and common sense. A horse is big, heavy and fast and a standing man is inherently unstable.

Re examples from human history, I can't do better than refer you to the example you provided me of Republican Roman cavalry charging through steady heavy infantry. I've cited it many times.

I thought the notion of horses working their way through gaps in infantry is something that most here had discounted in the discussions we had on KTB (and a file gap of a typical infantry line in intermediate formation - 3 feet per file - is certainly wide enough for a horse to pass through, nudging infantrymen out the way). If infantry are apprehensive they don't form gaps (evidence that they do?). They tend to bunch more closely together and avoid creating gaps, e.g. the Greek mercenaries at the Granicus. And if you happen to find any gaps and move - at a sedate speed - into them, you will be surrounded by infantry and cut down in short order, something which nearly happened to Alexander, again at the Granicus. Unless you're a cataphract it is crucial when combatting infantry as a cavalryman to keep up your speed. An immobile cavalryman is quickly dead. Moving at a sedate pace among already routed infantry that are running for their lives and have no thought about turning to face the cavalry is fine, but your post doesn't confine itself to routed infantry.

[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.

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

Good point. If you have stopped and are being approached head on by an enemy chariot can you time your shot to hit the charioteer? I think it is possible but have no examples to prove it.

[Justin Swanton]

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

Shooting still at 100 yards works since you then outrange an archer on a moving chariot - depends if you can hit him whilst he is moving. Should be possible (see previous post).