Hittite chariots

[Justin Swanton]

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

If this is true then my eternal question: why did chariots never have less than 2 horses, and often 4 or even 5 (the Indian variety)? Horses were expensive as has been pointed out several times on this thread. Surely one horse is enough to pull a mobile archer platform around the place? And enough to ride down fleeing troops?

[Erpingham]

Nice to see you rested and back in the fray swinging Justin

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.

You may have a point Justin in the first sentence, less so in the second.  I've read a lot of stuff on cavalry v. infantry over the years (you sort of have to if you want to understand medieval warfare) and, while impacts between cavalry and foot are more common than some would allow - those who talk of horse psychology when they should be thinking about rider psychology - they are rarely at full speed and usual involve tangling up in the first few ranks.  I suspect it is a mistake to equate what happens when a horse collides with an individual with what happens when horses with riders collectively with a mass of men actively trying to harm said horses.  It is an error to assume that the target would be passive in the face of a charge, rather organised and aggressive.

[RichT]

I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry.

I (and the majority of people) think the distinction does exist (based on evidence, analogy, and argument). Note, not "charging at (with contact)", that is not the distinction I am making. I make a distinction between "charging at without contact" and "charging into (at with contact)". As to how common charging into was - well opinions vary - it certainly happened, but in the context of this particular discussion (Hittite chariots) there are good reasons to think it didn't happen in this case.

please prove my calculations wrong

Nope. It's your theory - you prove it right. Anyway, I don't think your calculations (as to kinetic energy etc) are wrong. I think your whole premise is wrong.

affirm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Anyway I'm bored with this now and I suggest Mark G's rule be applied at this point. It's you against the world again, nothing anyone says will ever convince you, I don't feel any need or desire to convince you, and the discussion is stale and tedious.

[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

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.

If the chariot is running straight at you and the charioteer is dead, the chariot isn't going to stop. It's all down to how open the lines are. Chariots on either flank of the one with the dead charioteer would keep the horses moving forward. It's not a tactic I would like to try.

[Justin Swanton]

I think you are making a distinction that doesn't exist in reality between charging at (with contact) and charging into infantry.

I (and the majority of people) think the distinction does exist (based on evidence, analogy, and argument). Note, not "charging at (with contact)", that is not the distinction I am making. I make a distinction between "charging at without contact" and "charging into (at with contact)".

Really? "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)." Clearly I need a new definition of shock combat, as my layman's understanding is that if Indian chariots are shock troops and break infantry lines by charging them then they charge into contact with them. And as a final point: if chariots never, ever charged into formed infantry unless those infantry were beginning to rout or already routing, then it follows that reasonably steady infantry would just show the middle finger to chariots who rushed up close and then, inevitably, turned aside (as legionaries did to Pontic chariots). Don't posture if you can't perform.

But I get your point about frightening (?) infantry into a rout by charging at them, and then pursuing the routers. It just wasn't clear to me that you meant that in every case you cited.

please prove my calculations wrong

Nope. It's your theory - you prove it right. Anyway, I don't think your calculations (as to kinetic energy etc) are wrong. I think your whole premise is wrong.

My premise is that horses could knock down several men - up to 8 or so - in succession. My calculations show that from the POV of kinetic energy it is quite possible. Nothing so far has been produced to show it is impossible. Therefore I maintain it is plausible as a theory and not to be discarded just because I don't have a time machine and can't show video footage from Antiquity of horses knocking down men, or can't find obliging volunteers willing to sacrifice their lives for the experiment.

affirm

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

It means discounting what I say without making any attempt to provide contradictory evidence. Clear enough?

Anyway I'm bored with this now and I suggest Mark G's rule be applied at this point. It's you against the world again, nothing anyone says will ever convince you, I don't feel any need or desire to convince you, and the discussion is stale and tedious.

Prove me wrong and I'll be content.

[Justin Swanton]

If the chariot is running straight at you and the charioteer is dead, the chariot isn't going to stop. It's all down to how open the lines are. Chariots on either flank of the one with the dead charioteer would keep the horses moving forward. It's not a tactic I would like to try.

Maybe, maybe not. We're both speculating at this point. I think though that what matters remains true: in chariot vs chariot combat the bow was all-important, however it was used, along with chariot runners if they had the chance to get close enough to a slowly moving or stationary enemy chariot.

[Justin Swanton]

Nice to see you rested and back in the fray swinging Justin

Just warming up.

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.

You may have a point Justin in the first sentence, less so in the second.  I've read a lot of stuff on cavalry v. infantry over the years (you sort of have to if you want to understand medieval warfare) and, while impacts between cavalry and foot are more common than some would allow - those who talk of horse psychology when they should be thinking about rider psychology - they are rarely at full speed and usual involve tangling up in the first few ranks.  I suspect it is a mistake to equate what happens when a horse collides with an individual with what happens when horses with riders collectively with a mass of men actively trying to harm said horses.  It is an error to assume that the target would be passive in the face of a charge, rather organised and aggressive.

I be interested in some historical examples. As I understand it, mediaeval knights' horses didn't charge as they were just too big and heavily burdened, but rather cantered into contact with the enemy. Is that true? Could a knight stop when he had reached the enemy and fight whilst stationary? I've worked on the assumption that cavalrymen, unless they and their horses are well-armoured (knights?), have to keep moving so as not to provide an easy target for nearby infantry but - to cheer Rich up - I'm ready to be proven wrong.

[Swampster]

Size is unlikely to be a limiting factor in the size of a medieval warhorse.
Recent research puts the size of the horses around 14 to 15 hands. I don't know the details enough to know how the distinguish destriers from palfreys etc, but even the outliers don't seem to be huge. See below though.

Whether they charged headlong or pressed forwards, the medieval knights needed to get in close to act. Any economic argument about the value of Bronze Age horses ought to apply across the ages.

The cost of the horse reflects the cost of imports in many case, the intensive care, the expense of food.
The value of the horse - which makes the cost worthwhile - also reflects various things. If transport is the only value, then there is no need to have different sized horses for transport and for combat. Prestige is a big part of such things. But a major part of the value of the horse is its use in battle. Various mentions have been made of the undesirability of putting at risk such an economic investment, but that investment has less value if it is not used.

This is a lesser part of the equation, but there could even be an emotional value to the animal which a rider could put at risk. Verbruggen says that Robert of Artois begged that the Flemish burghers spared his horse*, even once his own surrender was refused. They killed it anyway. The point of this is that it shows riders could put at risk an animal with both monetary and emotional value.

At Kortrijk, the French were limited in their ability to charge at full tilt, even if they had wanted to. Despite this, Artois had reached deep into Flemish lines (just how deep the lines were is another question!). The French doubtless hadn't expected the Flemish to stand so firmly, but still pressed their attack when the infantry didn't run.

Valued by the French king at 1000 livres plus 100 a year income. The size of this horse does seem to have been far larger than the mentioned research - supposedly 14' long which is about 50% longer than a typical horse. I dare say there was some exaggeration.

[Erpingham]

As I understand it, mediaeval knights' horses didn't charge as they were just too big and heavily burdened, but rather cantered into contact with the enemy. Is that true?

It's a bit difficult to be sure, as the language medieval authors used for various gaits differed from that we use.  In English, pricking was to ride fast (from applying spurs) but how fast is less clear.  We also have references to men at arms responding to the command "Poingniés!" (Spur (your horse)!".  And, of course, in the later period, jousters would accelerate at each other at some pace.  So, it is probably fair to assume that medieval cavalry could do what heavy cavalry in later periods could do - deliver a full blooded charge from a decision point 30-50 yds out (As described in Matt Bennetts's classic paper on the subject).  How often they did that against infantry is less clear though.

Could a knight stop when he had reached the enemy and fight whilst stationary? I've worked on the assumption that cavalrymen, unless they and their horses are well-armoured (knights?), have to keep moving so as not to provide an easy target for nearby infantry

Keeping a horse moving does not mean pushing forward into the enemy - it might mean moving across or circling.  Chariots have more difficulty with this, of course.

[Erpingham]

I be interested in some historical examples

How about this from the battle of Bannockburn?

They spurred their horses and galloped at them boldly, and [the Scots] met them hardily so that at their meeting there was such a smashing of spears that men could hear it far away. (508) At their encounter, not a doubt, many a steed was impaled, and many a good man borne down and killed; and many a valiant deed was done there bravely, for they assaulted each other stoutly with many [kinds of] weapons. (514) Some of the horses that were stabbed reared and fell right roughly. But the rest, nonetheless, who could get to the encounter, did not hold back because of that hindrance, but attacked very strongly. (520) And [the Scots] met them sturdily, with spears that were cutting-sharp, and axes that were well ground, with which many a blow was struck. The fight there was so hard and fierce that many a worthy and brave man was felled in that struggle, and had no strength to rise again. (528)

Barbour, John. The Bruce (Canongate Classics)

Barbour's fight descriptions in this battle are quite consistent - impacts, broken spears, physical contact.

Peter has already mentioned the death of Robert of Artois at the Battle of the Golden Spurs.  It should be noted that the best account of his death has him charging into the men of Ghent "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" - he keeps moving.  The Ghent militia don't break, even with him in and amongst them.  Eventually his horse knocked down with a strong goedendag blow and he is unhorsed and killed.  We might also mention the death of Geoffrey de Brabant, who charged into a Flemish formation against the Flemish commander, Willem van Julich.  He knocked Willem off his feet but unfortunately it brought his horse down and he was apparently killed in the fall (van Julich survived).  These examples from Lodewijk van Veltham's chronicle.

There are also examples from the account of Hastings where fighting takes place mixing it with the outer ranks of the shieldwall without a breakthrough.  Duke William had at least two horses killed under him which, given the paucity of archery on the English side, suggests close contact - at least in spear throwing distance.   I could find more (e.g. Crecy) where contact occurs and there is some mounted to foot combat.  However, most accounts don't go into detail about mechanics.

This, of course, reflects on medieval, not Bronze Age, conditions.  But accounts of cavalry fighting infantry are pretty consistent through history - if the infantry stand firm in good order, the result is very messy for the cavalry.  I suspect that lesson was already known to Egyptian and Hittite charioteers.

[Justin Swanton]

I be interested in some historical examples

How about this from the battle of Bannockburn?

They spurred their horses and galloped at them boldly, and [the Scots] met them hardily so that at their meeting there was such a smashing of spears that men could hear it far away. (508) At their encounter, not a doubt, many a steed was impaled, and many a good man borne down and killed; and many a valiant deed was done there bravely, for they assaulted each other stoutly with many [kinds of] weapons. (514) Some of the horses that were stabbed reared and fell right roughly. But the rest, nonetheless, who could get to the encounter, did not hold back because of that hindrance, but attacked very strongly. (520) And [the Scots] met them sturdily, with spears that were cutting-sharp, and axes that were well ground, with which many a blow was struck. The fight there was so hard and fierce that many a worthy and brave man was felled in that struggle, and had no strength to rise again. (528)

Barbour, John. The Bruce (Canongate Classics)

Barbour's fight descriptions in this battle are quite consistent - impacts, broken spears, physical contact.

Peter has already mentioned the death of Robert of Artois at the Battle of the Golden Spurs.  It should be noted that the best account of his death has him charging into the men of Ghent "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again" - he keeps moving.  The Ghent militia don't break, even with him in and amongst them.  Eventually his horse knocked down with a strong goedendag blow and he is unhorsed and killed.  We might also mention the death of Geoffrey de Brabant, who charged into a Flemish formation against the Flemish commander, Willem van Julich.  He knocked Willem off his feet but unfortunately it brought his horse down and he was apparently killed in the fall (van Julich survived).  These examples from Lodewijk van Veltham's chronicle.

There are also examples from the account of Hastings where fighting takes place mixing it with the outer ranks of the shieldwall without a breakthrough.  Duke William had at least two horses killed under him which, given the paucity of archery on the English side, suggests close contact - at least in spear throwing distance.   I could find more (e.g. Crecy) where contact occurs and there is some mounted to foot combat.  However, most accounts don't go into detail about mechanics.

This, of course, reflects on medieval, not Bronze Age, conditions.  But accounts of cavalry fighting infantry are pretty consistent through history - if the infantry stand firm in good order, the result is very messy for the cavalry.  I suspect that lesson was already known to Egyptian and Hittite charioteers.

This is what we need on a thread like this.

Bannockburn: the Scottish infantry were armed with pikes and formed schiltroms. I never though cavalry, even heavy cavalry, would dare charge pikes but here we have knights attempting it, albeit at great cost to themselves and without much success. What about cavalry/chariots charging infantry armed with much smaller spears, e.g. Fertile Crescent infantry? See below.

Battle of the Golden Spurs: Robert of Artois successfully charges right through Ghentish infantry. The infantry aren't panicking, they don't break and eventually they kill him when he tries it again. Just how I envisaged it.

Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

More please.

[Jim Webster]

Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

[Justin Swanton]

Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

Indeed, but the shieldwall is attested in the sources. If the men kept their arms up they might manage something with the axes Of course if they were in the front rank they wouldn't have a problem.

[Jim Webster]

Hastings: the English form a shieldwall packed so tightly the men can't move. This is an effective anti-cavalry formation akin to the late Roman anti-cavalry foulkon where the men of the front ranks pack close so they cannot physically be knocked over.

Or perhaps shield wall wasn't all that close together. Especially with axe using troops.
Bit of a problem for those armed with double handed axes

Indeed, but the shieldwall is attested in the sources. If the men kept their arms up they might manage something with the axes Of course if they were in the front rank they wouldn't have a problem.

[DBS]

Actually, if you read, say, William of Jumieges' account - one may of course question its accuracy - you will note that in his description of noteworthy individual combats at Hastings, the emphasis is on the way the Englishmen with their axes move around, ducking and stepping to the side to land blows on their Norman opponents - eg the chap who bashes William on the head, or the chap eventually dispatched by Roger of Montgomery.  These are not Norman knights bowling over eight ranks of men with their horse, nor are they English thegns or huscarles sticking rigidly shoulder to shoulder unable to move, let alone unable to fall down when killed.  As I say, one can dismiss the detail in William's account, given he was probably not an eyewitness, but a bookish cleric.  However, one might also apply that test to John Barbour who had probably not even been born when Bannockburn was fought.  Oh, and before you mention it, William describes these individual actions before the English are taken in by the feigned-or-otherwise flight that famously draws some of them down the hill.  One also needs to be careful with prepositions in descriptions such as the account of Robert of Artois' death - there is an inherent contradiction in, "He advanced, retreated and charged through the enemy once again"; he retreated, but charged through again?  If he really had charged through the Flemish, he would a) find it difficult to retreat, and b) find it difficult to charge them again...  And given this subsequent "charge" did not actually pass "through", since he was killed, there just might be a bit of loose or hyperbolic language on which it would be dangerous to build too much.

Furthermore the key point that Erpingham is making is that in the three medieval battles he mentions, the cavalry cannot dent the infantry.  Stupidity or over confidence on the part of the knights and/or their commanders (and yes I include William the Bastard in that) does not mean that other horsed forces have to be stupid or overconfident.  They might actually have a reasonable appreciation of their capabilities, and unless truly desperate, not do something reckless.

All that said, I still believe that it is quite fatuous to compare medieval knights armed only with melee weapons with Bronze Age chariotry armed with bows.  The economic equivalence of horses is not the same - Bronze Age horse supply for most if not all of the Great Kingdoms was probably limited, at least in terms of those animals truly suited for use in chariot teams.  The horses are smaller, weaker, lighter.  The chariot itself is potentially fragile.  The warrior in it is an archer, not a knight with a big pointy stick.  Even if he has a long spear, he cannot use it against anyone in front of his horses, and can probably only bring it to bear quickly on one side, unlike a horseman who can turn in his saddle and use his weapon on either side without bopping a driver on the back of the head, and also can turn his horse much more easily - in or out of a press of infantry - than a chariot.

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but have the intellectual honesty, please, to admit that this is not a period of which, by your own admission, you have deep knowledge, and recognise that the model you are proposing runs against those proposed by people like Crouwel and Littauer with very real expertise and experience in equestrian matters and the reconstruction and testing of chariots.

I really am bored of this nonsense now.