"Egyptian Chariots - Shock or Skirmish?" Topic

In a recent issue of Slingshot, Patrick Waterson makes his argument against Egyptian chariotry being a skirmish force as commonly supposed, but actually being a shock force…

…charging in close formation like cataphracts of the classical period.

Do you believe their primary use was as shock or skirmish?

Wouldn't it depend on what they were facing? Loose order tribesmen, likely to run anyway, yes, they probably rolled over them. Close order with long pointed sticks and determination, I'd think not.

I will be interested in the responses to this as well. Everytime I read something about horses and squares they say that horses will not charge home against formed troops. If you ever watch a steeplechase even those highly trained horses sometimes baulk against jumping an obstacle. Also, if you have ever seen an Egyptian chariot they seem pretty flimsy. Doubt they would withstand the shock of contact. Well lets see what the experts say.

I was always under the impression that they served more or less as mobile missile platforms.

They did not have to be "shock".
According to Robert Drews in "The End of the Bronze Age", all their enemies ran away from them, and not just Egyptian chariots. Until the Sea Peoples.
And that was the end of the Golden Age of Egyptian chariotry.

Missile platforms, prestige platforms, terror platforms, poursuit platfoms… I don't recall them being used like cataphracts in the ancient egyptian records and reliefs. Of course it would be interesting to know what grounds Waterson use.

Viewing ancient sources, I would think chariots had 3 typical uses in battle :

1- Against massed infantry: softening their formation and morale by steady missile fire from wherever most advantaged ground, like later light cavalry (see Mongols, etc.). And then they could also charge any shaken or retreating unit, in combination with chariot runners. It would not be a "shock charge", but a poursuit charge.

2- Against skirmishers: drive them and scatter them off, screening chariot runners who will finish the job.

3- Against other chariots: prevent them to harass friendly main infantry lines ; joust duels and other noble challenges for prestige and moral fight ; sometimes evade them or lure them into traps.

don't start, this is a huge can of worms

Soften up first with missile fire……..then charge in, yes maybe ( big maybe )……don't know about going in cold though. I think they were used more to keep the enemy off their infantry …. eg securing the flanks mostly. The infantry was the major battle winning arm, I've always been led to believe.

The infantry was the major battle winning arm, I've always been led to believe.

When you have aristocrats driving chariots and running things?
Do you really think that someone who thinks he is God's second cousin would even acknowledge the infantry's existence? The whole purpose of the infantry was to carry things and trample the enemy's crops.

I broadly agree with John the OFM.

Hmmm. I think I'd better go and read a different thread!

Phil
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com

The Eqyptians may have had some strange ideas about the status of royalty but they did have two things – brains and a hell of a lot of people.

The brains told them to make use of the people and masses of good infantry armed and trained to combine shooting, movement and shock could usually outfight chariots in a straight fight.

The logic of using the chariots as a covering force while the infantry deployed and as a pursuit force once the enemy was broken or disarrayed is pretty powerful – it would take some VERY solid evidence to convince me otherwise.

Anyone who thinks a horse (much less two or four roped unnaturally together) would willingly just run into something--especially if at all "sticky"--should give up historical war games in favor of full time fantasy.

"Training" has nothing to do with simple, hard-wired equine reflexes which have kept them in the evolutionary game for some 50 million years.

And if you cite that scene in "Fall Of The Roman Empire," I'd like to make you a land deal in Florida.

"Alright, you sons of b------, now you know how I feel."

TVAG

GildasFacit, that might be good 21st century thinking but I think it makes bad 16th century BC thinking. The only battle set we have, that I know, involves Thutmose III. Here he placed his chariots in the middle of the battlefield opposite the enemy. His infantry were placed in the rough terrain. The chariots broke the enemy while the infantry protected it's flanks.

I agree with John the OFM. The warrior class, the charioteers, would be expected to be the battle winning arm of the army. I expect with their composite bows (superior to the infantry self-bows the first encountered) helped them disrupt the infantry and then they charged running down the disrupted infantry. It's a myth that cavalry will not charge steady infantry, even steady infantry with pikes. We have too many accounts of cavalry doing just that.

In the open field, infantry would probably form a barrier which the chariots could fallback and reform make repairs and issue out again to fight. This seems to be how crusaders used their infantry.

FWIW, the DBM Army Lists by Barker & Scott refers to the Sea Peeps apparently being able to resist chariots; "However, Ramesses III seems to have maximised his chariot numbers to combat them and won!"

TVAG, I cite17th-century writer Ward who explain how to train horses to charge pikes; I cite at Ceresole when the French gendarmes repeatedly pierced the Spanish/Imperial pikes; I cite the Huguenot gendarmes breaking the Swiss pikes at Dreux; I cite when at Granson, lord of Chateuguyon who fought his way into the Swiss pikes on horseback and died at the foot of the standard of Schwytz; I cite Bayard fighting through a Swiss pike block. He had to slide off his horse when he lost control of his horse realizing his horse was preparing to attack another Swiss pike force.

Enough citation. If horses can be taught to attack and drive through pikes, they certainly be trained to attack the much smaller spears on the ancient middle east

Horses well trained can charge steady infantry – accepted, no dispute there but ancient horses were attached to a chariot – different situation, possible but probable ?

The charioteers in Rameses' army were semi-regular soldiers (though probably from the aristocracy) not a feudal 'warrior elite'.

The evidence of clearly thought through roles for the different types of troops in the army and their organisation into 'all-arms' divisions shows that the leaders were definitely not treating them as 'cannon fodder' or 'crop tramplers' but had some clear plans in mind for their use in a battle.

Logic is not time-dependant but based on considering the evidence available.

What I would agree with is that taking a snapshot of one Egyptian battle, or the methodology and tactical thinking of one Pharaoh, isn't likely to give an accurate picture of how Egyptian armies fought battle over their very long history. Just as the Roman infantryman evolved over time, and changed to meet changing needs and circumstances, so probably did Egyptian chariot tactics.

I'm with you on this one GildasFacit.

Chariot period horses were of size we would now call ponies. The impact of a pony is much less than a medieval warhorse, so the desire to get them to crash into infantry would be less.

Druzhina

Having seen a spooked horse pulling a cart run full pelt into a wooden fence – yes, horses will charge into solid objects.

Egyptian chariot horses didn't have to face Swiss pikes. Whether they are larger or smaller horses think like horses. And when pushed can fight. So, I don't think size is all that relevant.

The success of charging home surely has a lot to do with the quaility of the opposition. I can Imagine if the enemy didn't break quite early on in the charge the charoits would wheel away while shooting.

If the enemies morale does fail and they start to run no reason not carry on full pelt into them.

I would have thought that if you could get the horses to charge home on steady infantry and they don't break straight away. The charoiteers are going to be in trouble no doubt being out numbered and surronded by nasty spear armed guys on foot while statoinary can't be a good thing….

it is important to remember how poor the infantry were in this period – not until roughly the assyrians did anything we would describe as a formation appear, and it is the ability to stand in formation which makes the horse shy aaway.

if the men themsevls do not have that training or experience, then a small horse stampeed (which is what a chariot is) is going to make them run, or at least break up enough for the chariot to get through.

but when you look at teh archeology, its even less clear.

egyptian chariots which survive are all very light weight, have the axel at the rear of the carriage for stability and speed ephasising movement, and they have very wide axels, which make turning more stable.

later (hittite) for example, move the axle closer to the centre, which allows the extra man (and weight) to stand behind that axle lifting his weight off the horse – and they have narrower axles, all of which are stronger construction and emphasis impact and weight at the cost of stability on a turn.

whcih suggest sgypians ran around using them as mobile archery platforms and for pursuit, and their man enemy went for impact charges.

but the article took a different view, showing sculpture which indicated formation on the egyptians, to suggest the egptians practiceda group charge .

its a can of worms

I don't give a lot of skill points to most ancient armies before the Greeks. They often tended to be large armed mobs that a disciplined force like the Greeks could break with ease.
Also, these horses were a lot smaller than the Budweiser Clydesdales. They were not large enough to mount an armored rider, which is why there is little cavalry until more historic [written records] times.
Boy, anybody want a worm?

Egyptians used military settlers in which the infantry was continually trained.

Horses can strike out with dangerous hooves and bite. So, in a fight the horses are also weapons.

Against infantry, the superiority of the compound bow would allow the chariots to standoff and fire into the enemy until the infantry can't stand it any more. Then charge with chariots.

By the way, the knights of the middle ages also didn't ride Clydesdales.