Hittite chariots

[DBS]

As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.

My major hesitation is that said use by the Britons is specifically against Caesar, who had almost zero cavalry with him, and even then they used javelin fire and psychological intimidation first.  Furthermore, they seem to have been used primarily in harassment of the Romans, rather than pitched battles, forcing fights with the Romans when they were attempting to forage or pitch camp.  At Mons Graupius, Tacitus says the chariots, which before the battle seem to have manoeuvred between the two armies, attempted to intervene in the infantry battle, having some initial psychological effect but became disastrously tangled up amongst the opposing foot and ended up causing more confusion on their own side than to the Romans.  (Note that his description does not imply "shock" action as such.)  Pretty much the only other mention we have of western Celtic use of chariots is Telamon two centuries earlier, and there they are merely reported by Polybius to be on the extreme flanks of the main army, the cavalry having gone forward to contest an important hill with the Roman cavalry.

Of course, all, this begs the question of whether the Celtic, certainly the British, chariot, was really conceived as a weapon for large scale combats, as opposed to good old tribal raiding and feuding... and against the Romans you rarely got a second chance to reconsider correct tactical usage!

[Duncan Head]

Cassius Dio specifically has Boudica's chariots charging Roman archers; but that may be more for rhetorical effect than accurate narration since, having paired off cavalry against cavalry, infantry against infantry, he has the chariots "left over".

[DBS]

Cassius Dio specifically has Boudica's chariots charging Roman archers; but that may be more for rhetorical effect than accurate narration since, having paired off cavalry against cavalry, infantry against infantry, he has the chariots "left over".

I had forgotten Dio's account, thank you.  If it is accurate, then it is perhaps worthy of note that almost every time Tacitus does mention archers on the Roman side (eg Germanicus vs Arminius, or Corbulo vs the Parthians), they are either on the flanks with the cavalry, or part of an advanced guard when actions develop on the march - Arminius, for example, tangles with them with his cavalry.  Which does suggest that if Suetonius Paulinus did have archers at the battle with Boudicca, they may have been off on the flanks and the chariots were also there, along with any British cavalry.

[Duncan Head]

Tacitus has "His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops (levis armatura), and the cavalry in dense array on the wings" which might suggest archers, with other auxiliaries, between the legionary centre and the cavalry wings.

[Justin Swanton]

Tacitus has "His legions were in close array; round them, the light-armed troops (levis armatura), and the cavalry in dense array on the wings" which might suggest archers, with other auxiliaries, between the legionary centre and the cavalry wings.

Were Principate Roman archers capable of melee combat against mounted troops? I seem to recall they had swords.

Edit: they were:

[Justin Swanton]

As Justin has pointed out, the Britons used their chariots to rapidly deploy forces of skilled foot to where they wanted them and extract them again.

My major hesitation is that said use by the Britons is specifically against Caesar, who had almost zero cavalry with him, and even then they used javelin fire and psychological intimidation first.  Furthermore, they seem to have been used primarily in harassment of the Romans, rather than pitched battles, forcing fights with the Romans when they were attempting to forage or pitch camp.  At Mons Graupius, Tacitus says the chariots, which before the battle seem to have manoeuvred between the two armies, attempted to intervene in the infantry battle, having some initial psychological effect but became disastrously tangled up amongst the opposing foot and ended up causing more confusion on their own side than to the Romans.  (Note that his description does not imply "shock" action as such.)  Pretty much the only other mention we have of western Celtic use of chariots is Telamon two centuries earlier, and there they are merely reported by Polybius to be on the extreme flanks of the main army, the cavalry having gone forward to contest an important hill with the Roman cavalry.

Of course, all, this begs the question of whether the Celtic, certainly the British, chariot, was really conceived as a weapon for large scale combats, as opposed to good old tribal raiding and feuding... and against the Romans you rarely got a second chance to reconsider correct tactical usage!

I would agree that British chariots were not really meant to act in a shock role though it seems they could if in a tight corner or up against lighter troops like archers. Caesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

[Erpingham]

Caesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

I am loath to raise it, but it seems to me Caesar's meaning is ambiguous

"......the first of two legions, when these had taken up their position at a very small distance from each other, as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle, the enemy broke through the middle of them most courageously, and retreated thence in safety. "

Does he mean "smashed their way through the ranks" or "passed between the two forces"?  It is a consideration before we chalk this up as a shock action against formed close-order foot by light chariots.

Also, what are we currently thinking of British chariots as a possible example of?  We started off with battle taxis but there must be a suspicion that what is actually going on is that, in certain circumstances (e.g. holding ground or stiffening the PBI), mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

[Justin Swanton]

Caesar affirms they broke though his legionaries "most courageously" implying it was something pretty much at the limits of their capabilities.

I am loath to raise it, but it seems to me Caesar's meaning is ambiguous

"......the first of two legions, when these had taken up their position at a very small distance from each other, as our men were disconcerted by the unusual mode of battle, the enemy broke through the middle of them most courageously, and retreated thence in safety. "

Does he mean "smashed their way through the ranks" or "passed between the two forces"?  It is a consideration before we chalk this up as a shock action against formed close-order foot by light chariots.

Also, what are we currently thinking of British chariots as a possible example of?  We started off with battle taxis but there must be a suspicion that what is actually going on is that, in certain circumstances (e.g. holding ground or stiffening the PBI), mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

I read it as smashed through. "These" refers to the cohorts which were a very small distance from each other in that one was behind the other but very close to it: the usual gap between the lines of the 3-line Marian legion was less than normal. Cohorts did not have gaps between them side-by-side. Also the charioteers and cavalry are "very courageous" in their breaking through, which wouldn't fit skipping through a wide enough gap (which "very small" hardly suggests) between one cohort and another, thumbing their noses at the legionaries as they passed.

I really doubt the Britons could have smashed through the cohorts if they were fighting on foot. If they could have then Cassivelaunus would have crushed Caesar in a pitched battle.

The point of this example is that even smaller chariots with smaller horses were capable of charging foot if necessary, i.e. it was an integral component of a chariot's repertoire.

[Erpingham]

I really doubt the Britons could have smashed through the cohorts if they were fighting on foot. If they could have then Cassivelaunus would have crushed Caesar in a pitched battle.

I don't think I suggested this - I assumed they were mounted.  The bit about comparison to to dismounted cavalry was a different discussion topic. Perhaps I could have been clearer.

The point of this example is that even smaller chariots with smaller horses were capable of charging foot if necessary, i.e. it was an integral component of a chariot's repertoire.

I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

[Justin Swanton]

I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

The legionaries seem to be well enough formed up, sufficiently in regular formation that one can talk about a "very small gap" between cohorts.

[Jim Webster]

I don't think anyone at any point has said that chariots were incapable of charging foot - given the prevalence of hero images of chariots riding infantry down it would be a dodgy contention.  The issue is would they charge formed close order foot, hence the question about what Caesar meant.

The legionaries seem to be well enough formed up, sufficiently in regular formation that one can talk about a "very small gap" between cohorts.

given the frontage of a legion, a very small distance might still be 40 or 50 yards
I think that if the chariots had broken the ranks of a legion Caesar would be likely to mention it. After all, at Zela

"Caesar, astonished at his incredible rashness and confidence, and finding himself suddenly and unexpectedly attacked, called off his soldiers from the works, ordered them to arms, opposed the legions to the enemy, and ranged his troops in order of battle. The suddenness of the thing occasioned some terror at first. Our ranks were not yet formed, when the scythed chariots disordered and confused our soldiers. However, the multitude of darts discharged against them soon put a stop to their advance."

[DBS]

... mounted troops may dismount and fight on foot .  I'm sure there are examples of ancient cavalry doing this.  There certainly are in late antiquity into the early middle ages.

It is a literary trope, accurate or otherwise, for Roman cavalry from "Romulus" through the Pyrrhic wars, to Cannae, where Polybius has not only the Romans dismounting but also the Spanish and Gauls, and is often used to denote just how vicious the fight was.  If victorious, the cavalry then remounts for pursuit or, as with Hasdrubal at Cannae, moving around to the other flank.  When Polybius' criticises early Republican cavalry equipment as too light and flimsy compared to Greek kit, he remarks its only virtue was the ease of mounting and dismounting with it.

[Cantabrigian]

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.

I think you're being over-analytical in a way that wouldn't happen on a battlefield.  You'll be telling me next that there's no randomness in warfare...

A though experiment for you.  Go to the viewing platform on top of a very tall building, and look down at the streets below the building.  99% of people will feel apprehensive, even though no-one has ever fallen from there.

So infantry seeing a chariot charging towards them at high speed will feel anxious.  They'll feel even more anxious if it's a big chariot with four horses rather than two, especially if they're not 100% sure how quickly it can stop.  And yet more anxiety if there are big blades on the ends of the axles, or the driver is wearing a big plume of feathers in his helmet.  This has very little to do with rational calculations of risk. 

Plus there's always the risk that the opposition chariots are commanded by some sort of ancient Justin Swanton who doesn't realise what a daft idea it is for chariots to charge into infantry.  Yes, the chariots may get repelled with heavy losses, but that's not a lot of consolation to you if you're the guy crushed under the chariot.

In addition, I tend to lean towards the Tiger Joke theory of unit morale.

[Tiger Joke:  Two men walking down a track see a tiger coming towards them.  One of them starts to run away.  The other one says "Don't be stupid, you can't outrun a tiger!".  The first one replies "I don't need to - I just need to outrun you".]

So if you're in an infantry unit being charged by chariots, it's not the chariots that you're scared of.   What you're really scared about is that the guys standing next to you might start running before you, and leave you alone to be run down.

[Cantabrigian]

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.

I haven't seen your calculations, but I'd be surprised if you could do such a calculation based on kinetic energy alone.  A standing human is in a state of unstable equilibrium so you'd have to take into account their ability to recover from an impulse, which would depend a lot on things like the exact stance they were in.  Plus of course you need to consider momentum if you want to work out the energy transfer.  And chariots and humans are far from perfectly elastic objects.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

I haven't seen your calculations, but I'd be surprised if you could do such a calculation based on kinetic energy alone.  A standing human is in a state of unstable equilibrium so you'd have to take into account their ability to recover from an impulse, which would depend a lot on things like the exact stance they were in.  Plus of course you need to consider momentum if you want to work out the energy transfer.  And chariots and humans are far from perfectly elastic objects.

I laid it out in this video, giving the  man the stablest standing stance.