"4 horse chariot - which armies?" Topic

I did a scratch build of Darius in his chariot. The same design could be used for a scythed chariot for the Persians.
link
link

Which armies used this type of Chariot?

Loking at my various army list books, I have
1. Later Achaemenid Persian
2. Seleucid
3. Ptolemiac
4. Galatian
5. Mithridatic (i.e. Pontus)

Indian's and Libyan's of the same time period also had four horse chariots – were they a similar design?

Thanks
Mick

Indian chariots probably weren't influenced much by Middle Eastern designs; they would originally have been steppe patterns, and evolved on their own line.

Libyans are problematical. It's likely that early Libyan chariots were influenced either by Egyptian models (Egypt occasionally *gave* chariots to friendly Libyan chieftains, or were native developments (see, for example, the rock art of the Garamantes in the deep Sahara). The heavy Kyrenean chariots which transported their infantry were probably of native Libyan design.

But Carthaginian chariots, which once were thought to have been copies of Libyan chariots, are now thought (at least bby Duncan Head) to have more in common with Middle Eastern (Phoenician, Assyrian, Cypriot) heavy chariots. So they'd be related to Persian and subsequent models, although distant cousins.

Allen

Assyria also had a 4 horse chariot, as did the Qin, and other Chinese states in the ancient world.

Hi Gents – This is interesting stuff! I know that the other Middle Eastern chariots were similar to the Persian one…Pontus, Seleucid, Sassanid Persian even?

Are they similar enough that Wargames Factory could make ONE (in hard plastic) and with different crew and barding on the horses – use it for multiple armies?

Thanks!
Tony

Tony Reidy
Wargames Factory
wargamesfactory.com

Early Assyrian chariots:

picture

… drew from the models used by the Mitanni, a Hurrian people who probably introduced the professional chariot warrior class to the Middle East from the steppes: their influence can be seen in Egyptian and Hittite chariot culture as well.

The later heavy Assyrian chariots were built much more solidly:

picture

…and these no doubt influenced Neo-Babylonian and Persian and subsequent design. Note that at some point, the axle moved from the rear of the cab (Assyrian) to the center (Persian), which reduced the load on the team.

But although they're related, heavy chariots vary enough in details between their users that you can't really have a one-size-fits-all. All pick-em-up trucks may derive from the Ford Model T, but that doesn't mean one model would do for a Ford F-150, a Dodge Ram, a Nissan Titan, and a (ptui!) Chevy Silverado.

Allen

It is unlikely at best, that Persian scythed chariots looked anything like the Royal chariot depicted on the Alexander mosaic.

The royal chariot should also include a bench and one or two more crew… the depiction on the mosaic is not the best to use in all honesty.

This chariot design is unique to the Persian king, Persian chariots looked different again. Assyrian, Indian and Libyan chariots are all represented in art and look very different to the later Persian model.

OK – Tony has revealed the real subject behind the question. I have been trying to persuade him that a plastic Persian chariot is possible. I hate assembling metal chariots but love the plastic WF Celt chariots.

My reasoning was that one kit could make your generals command chariot and say 3 to 5 scythed chariots for an army.

Mick

Allen -I know you're a stickler for this sort of thing. Would THIS be better?

picture

Tony,

Look at the size of his bling,bling!

Mike

Now, now. Let's be nice Allen.

By the way – kudos you didn't go "Provincetown" which is the more plebian comment. Well done oh you ex-New Englander!

Tony (the Midwest Boy Transplanted)

Dear Allen, Jovian and Steve,

Thank-you for your answers about historical chariots. I am listening.

Mick

For Mick's sake, I'm stepping away from this.

Allen

Wow – that was a train wreck!

Yep. Better now. Thank you, Tony.

Allen

Of course the Mosaic at Pompeii is flawed.. it has to be.. after all it was created by one of Alexander's contemporary artists. So that's one good reason why we should throw it out as evidence.. it was created by Greek artists so it is hopelessy biased against the Persians. Even though the artist may have had access to the actual chariot to look at the details. The mosaic was moved, most likely from Macedonia to the House of the Faun.. it was not created there. Sources tell us it is based on a famous painting, maybe by Apelles himself, or Philoxenos. But of course Alexander captured two of Darius' chariots, after he fought for a little while then fled… or maybe that was all a lie too and Darius actually died fighting to save his wife and children at Issos. All the rest is just made up to make the story more interesting and throw in another lie about him fleeing at Gaugamela….

Therefore don't use it as source, it isn't painted by the losing side, therefore it is ficticious.
JJ

Allen – I think we might have set a new record for self-deleted posts. Well done fine fellow!

The REAL reason Darius lost:

picture

Cool: Wheelers!

link

So, Jeff: if the image presented by the mosaic is of questionable provenance, what does that say about most of the existing wargames models of *both* Darius's chariot and scythed chartiots, which are generally based on the mosaic?

Allen

Yes, Jeff, tell us what to do OH GREAT GREEK/MACEDONIAN/SUCCESSOR Dude!

They are all wrong.. all wrong, everything written by a Greek, or painted by a Greek, must be wrong. What the hell right does Exekias have to give us his impression of a Persian… Herodotus wrong. Xenophon wrong. Only the tablets are correct because they have the lunar dates on them. Stick to the clay, the clay does not lie. Let's not be fair and balanced about this, why bother.. the winner always lies, so discount everything.
JJ

Jeff, I think you are being over sensitive, I never said it was fictitious… just it was not the best reference to use.

The mosaic was created by one of Alexander's artists? Wow, he must have lived a long life.

It is not certain that the mosaic is even a copy of the mentioned painting, or it is the one that the 'source' (only one by the way) is referring to. There is a recent paper that makes a very good argument that it was created much later than originally thought.

The fact that the Persians are not wearing Persian clothing and the chariot does not match Persian depictions particularly well makes me personally weary of using it.

This thread seems to be full of angst… shame.

I admire Jeff and appreciate his comments. :^9 I like all the links he adds to his comments to support his opinion and its nice to actually get an opinion.

We've got the lovely Oxus model, which apparently was th esource for 'scale' for the Persian Emperor in the movie 300.

link

There is the nice seal of Darius:

link

In my chariot the driver has thrown out the bench to lighten the load, so the marshmallows won't be damaged :)

picture

JJ

Lol… angst.. there is always a paper.. source please?

I like this book- it is a beautiful reference:

link

JJ

I always appreciate Jeff's comments too…
I've given an opinion above, but I will give it again.

Persian millitary chariots look different to the royal chariots. See this picture I took at Persepolis:

picture

Xenophon describes the Persian scythed chariots. He describes the earlier model as being made from an old Mede chariot, built like a tower.
Millitary chariots had the axle at the rear, 'recreational' chariots had a centre axle. This is consistant in chariot designs for many centuries.

You will notice that the chariot Darius rides in during the lion hunt is different again from the Oxus model, the Persepolis tribute and the Mosaic.
Obviously you cannot use any of these as scale reference.

For the record, I use Greek sources all the time for reference, but I only trust them when they match up with Persian depictions. I havent seen a single accurate Greek depiction of a Persian, but that is another matter.

It looks like Darius is wearing a "Members Only" jacket in the mosaic. That's not Persian! Now *this* is Persian regal attire:

picture

"The twenty-fourth, in the morning, the king of the world [erected his] standard [lacuna]. Opposite each other they fought and a heavy defeat of the troops [of the king he inflicted]. The king, his troops deserted him and to their cities [they went] They fled to the land of the Guti."

What more do you need to know? Standard answer from now on: "In the morning, clouds were in the sky."

Allen

I like the rear axle idea too. But I have devoted the rest of my time to being a trouble maker. I think Arrian states that Darius left his big giant heavy chariot behind, and got in a lighter jobbie, before switching to a horse, or was that Napoleon… or maybe Curtius… too bad Darius' troops deserted him, I reckon he's the ancient equivalent of Saddam Hussein.

JJ

Of course, just to confuse matters… we have this chariot wheel (wood reconstructed) I photographed in Tehran archaeological museum, dated to '1st millenium BC'

picture

There are numerous representations of the Kings chariot on seals and coins. I have some earlier 9th-8th century depictions on a bronze vase of what appear to be millitary chariots in a book somewhere.

So, in short. No one really knows what they look like. Its very likely they did not look like the royal chariot and it is not likely that scythed chariots remained the same all over the Near East and over a number of centuries.

Interesting, the images that some folks "borrow" to make their points:

link

I guess this would be a Roman war chariot, then:

picture

And this would be a… Mycenean RV?

link

Huh.

Allen

"I like the rear axle idea too."

Yeah, Drews makes a big deal about center- or front-axle chariot bodies being common prior to his world-shaking c.13th-c.12th BCE catastrophe, and that ever after, through the Middle East, the rear-axle position was the norm.

The problem, as is so often the case, comes with the exceptions.

Allen

Come on Allen, I know you are aware of why an axle is put at the back. When I say 'recreational' maybe I should say 'non-millitary'. But I am sure you know what I meant.

I would imagine that a 'racing chariot' would have a lot in common with a combat one, given that they both usually require speed and manoeuvrability.

I would imagine that, due to the ground in Greece, strength was more of a requirement than and manoeuvrability?
Seeing as know one actually knows how the Mycenaean's used their chariots, it is difficult to comment.

There are always exceptions, of course….

Iranians have some interesting 'facts' to back up their history… I don't think they believe in copyright either.

That's why it's interesting that many quadriga "reconstructions" (of the "Ben Hur" mode) have a central axle; they seems to ignore the sources of the real ones.

But I don't necessarily buy the traditional explanations of the benefits of the rear-axle chariot. My personal experience comes from harness racing; my grandfather trained harness horses, and I spent a lot of time at New England tracks as a lad. Until the mid-20th century, sulkies were rear-axled and placed weight on the horses' withers. The development of first neutral-balance (center-axle) and then *negative*-balance sulkies (the latter used the weight of the driver, with the axle as a fulcrum, to actually *lift* weight off the horses' hooves), showed significant improvement in track speeds. They were banned for a few years, but when they were re-introduced in the USA, track records were consistently shattered.

And if you look at Celtic chariots from early depictions on Bronze Age vessels to the reconstructions of vehicles from the era of the last documented ones, they were center-axle and so presumably at least neutral-balance. That makes sense when you sonsider that the speed and maneuverability of those chariots are an important factor in literature such as the tale of Cuchulainn--and in the account of Caesar's failed landing in Britain. Those chariots were used both for racing and battle.

So no, I'm not in agreement with the theory that the rear-axle chariot provided greater stability, or speed, or maneuverability.

Allen

Well, the Chinese chariots are fairly well documented – because there have been a few discovered which are originals so we know pretty much exactly what they look like, and they are center axle.

Don't know what all the angst was about on the deleted posts, but I'm glad I didn't have to read them. It's almost like you stifled yourselves for our benefit. Thanks!

By the way Mick, I've got some chariots from John Jenkins Designs which are now out of production which are very nice Chinese Qin/Warring States period chariots, my father had a great Assyrian chariot from Ral Partha from years ago which he did a great paint job on, but it is now my sisters.

Best of luck in your search!

"So, in short. No one really knows what they look like."

------> Now that is a statement I can completely agree with!
JJ

"So no, I'm not in agreement with the theory that the rear-axle chariot provided greater stability, or speed, or maneuverability."

-----> Allen, I think you are wrong. Top experts have proven that the further back on the wheels you ride, the more traction and speed is garnered.

Here's a famous example:

picture

I rest my case.
JJ

Were rear axles an Egyptian invention? (Could just have been because the Pharoanic wackos wanted their wheels to be a respectful half-pace behind them )

We appear to be back where we started. Here is an attempt at a summary.

As I understand it, according to the Issus mozaic, Oxus model and WRG books, the designs of these big four horse chariots are similar enough that a multiple option plastic kit could work. The great Kings chariot had a superior build quality and a seat. Position of the axle is debatable – Issus shows central, Oxus shows rear position for the axle.

It appears that similar chariots were used by
1. Later Achaemenid Persian
2. Seleucid
3. Ptolemiac
4. Galatian
5. Mithridatic (i.e. Pontus)

At the same time, many of these same nations had small light chariots with smaller rear mounted wheels. These were similar to earlier Egyptian designs.

Have I got this right?

Mick

Forgot to ask: are we sure about Ptolemaic scythed chatiots? Or is that a reference to Kyrenean heavy chariots under a Ptolemaic viceroy (Ophellas)?

By the time of Alexander and the Successors, light chariots weren't in common use--except perhaps early in their East European/Asia Minor tour, the Galatians may have had some traditional Celt ones along.