"Were Scythed Chariots Useful?" Topic

Writing in Slingshot, Patrick Waterson contends:

The scythed chariot was considered to have sufficient virtues to justify not only its retention but for it to replace all hitherto-existing Near Eastern patterns, with the possible exception of the Egyptian, and for the next five hundred years (546-47BC) it would remain in the inventory of at least some Near Eastern powers. No weapon system survives that long unless it is actually useful, and against the indifferently-disciplined infantry and cavalry of most peoples in the area it would have been a formidably effective morale- and formation-breaker.

Do you agree that scythed chariots were useful?

but for it to replace all hitherto-existing Near Eastern patterns

I'd argue with that.

Probably were useful. Maybe not as much as Patrick would like though. They did stick around for many years, but so did the standard issue chariot.

I'd like to hear your argument against replacing all near eastern patterns Connard. Why don't you think it did? There really weren't any other chariots of the time I think. Not in the region anyway.

Cant be bothered consulting Tallis and Stillman at this time. Why don't you provide me with evidence otherwise?

Indulge me :)

Personally I'd argue that the chariot (near eastern pattern, generally) remains in civilian and sporting use, and that it is cavalry in its various forms that replaces the military chariot (rather than the scythed chariot which is something different … a sort of 'poor man's elephant' …)..

However, that doesn't mean I disagree with Patrick's underlying point that if they were a complete waste of time they'd have gone out of usage pretty quickly, rather than remained an apparently credible weapon for 500 years.

Phil
soawargamesteam.blogspot.com

Seleucus was in an army that fought against them. He thought them useful enough to use them himself.

No

I think they were successful most of the time.

I see their role as simply causing localised disruption that other troops may take advantage of.

Another part of their role was to just stop an enemy advancing, he has to stop, respond and reogansie. Hopefully the chariot army uses that time to do something to advance their battle plan.

I'd imagine that they were also a useful terror weapon to scare inexperienced troops.

I recall one line of thinking that they are a specialised evolutionary development of the late bronze/ early iron age 4-horse multi-crew chariots.

I can agree with the thought that they took over all Near Eastern slots. Basically because Persia used them and was the Near East, Successor states taking over the Persian model.

Lybia had non-scythed chariots, but wasn't Near East, likewise India, likewise the Celts/Galations, but what other Near Eastern chariot using armies were there that weren't Persian influenced?

In one of Phil barker's magisterial WRG tomes (or it may hve been someone else), he lauds a situation where TWO scythed chariots encountered some light troops out scrounging for food or something. They immediately charged and smote them mightily.
The writer was quite impressed.
In other situations with them as part of the battle line, most troops just stepped aside and let the camp followers and cooks handle them in the rear.

I had 6 in my Ancients armies. I never used them in tournaments because they were too expensive, points-wise. This puts the lie to the assertion that points have nything to do with utility.

Real Men rode into battle stanfing up.

Cant be bothered consulting Tallis and Stillman at this time. Why don't you provide me with evidence otherwise?

Indulge me :)

I can't be bothered either. I'm having a beer now and would prefer others regale me with their theories while I enjoy it. It's really good. Something called "Snow Days". A Christmas Beer. I digress.

Suffice it to say, the Ancient Generals, for whatever reason used them until the time of JC (Whichever JC you prefer!).

effective against troops who were not drilled enough to defeat them.

utterly ineffective against troops with the drill (and appropriate light / missile troops to disable them.

the problem is, all our sources about them come from the guys with all the drill and effective skirmish capability in combination.

but even leonardo looked into bringing them back all those years later, 'cause at the root is one mean and frightening thing to be facing, so panic and you lose., and don't try to follow them up with anything that can't move around the wreckage.

It all depends on the rules.

I'd say they were more dangerous to their own troops….

Scythes chariots rule.

'In one of Phil barker's magisterial WRG tomes (or it may hve been someone else), he lauds a situation where TWO scythed chariots encountered some light troops out scrounging for food or something. They immediately charged and smote them mightily.'

That would be Dascyleum in 395BC, as described in 'Armies of the Greek and Persian Wars' – a WRG book, but written by Richard Nelson.

Rob

I remember reading that as well and never understood it. What would two scythed chariots be doing out and about by themselves and how were they used effectively against light troops who should have had no problem getting out of the way? Unless I'm missing something this seems a bit suspect.
And I wouldn't have a problem with the theory that, as a prestige weapon, scythed chariots hung around far beyond their useful life. Impressed irregulars and civilians but were militarily useless as soon as drilled infantry were developed.

This seems to be a pretty good summary of references:

link

Actually they had 400 cavary with them as well. The Greeks were not really lights but 700 foraging hoplites. The chariots charged, broke up the hoplites before they could really form up, and were followed up by the cavalry. Result was 100 dead Greeks before they were relieved by the main body.

That's what I mean. What were scythed chariots doing wandering around the countryside looking for targets of opportunity? And then stumbling upon 700 foraging hoplites in what must have been perfectly flat terrain for the chariots to be effective? Take away the chariots and the story makes perfect sense.

Except I think chariots are more mobile than people give them credit for. They were used in a period with very few roads, what roads there were were (I assume)potholed, the Assyrians used them for hunting and (I think) Caesar mentions Britons charging out of woods with them. Add to that the way lighter chariots seemed to ack as skirmishers and I don't have any problem with a couple of chariots being used in patrols with cavalry. Lilewise, the 'unit' itself may have bben just going somewhere when it came across the Greeks.

Or, still thinking about it, a deliberate ambush by the Persians.

I agree that chariots could be very mobile. Celts, egyptians etc. But scythed chariots were big, heavy 4 horse affairs festooned with spikes and blades and had heavily armoured horses and drivers. Even for an ambush it seems like an extremely odd choice and I am left wondering if this is not just a bad translation or simple fantasy used to excuse an embarrassing rout.

If they were that effective, why didn't the Romans, who by 150 BC were the military power of the day, employ them in great numbers?

You wouldn't be so quick to say that if you'd been to a horse trial – 4 horse carriages going down a 45 degree incline, or doing 90 degree turns at speed.

horsedrivingtrials.co.uk

The two occasions we have reports of successful use of scythed chariots they were attached to cavalry and provided the edge over infantry units. On both occasions the combined cavalry/chariots inflicted serious casualties. This model seems to stem from Indian use, where we see the same combined units. This in turn may stem from late Assyrian usage.

They were enthusiastically adopted by Hellenistic states, in a period where exotic troops (chariots, elephants, 'cataphracts') were being tried out on the battlefield. They don't seem to have been that effective.

The scythed chariot was considered to have sufficient virtues to justify not only its retention but for it to replace all hitherto-existing Near Eastern patterns

I would disagree with this. The scythed chariot did not replace other chariots. Cavalry replaced other chariots.
The scythed chariot fulfilled a different role, and was a relatively minor, gimmicky weapon.

Well by the time scythed chariots developed, "all other chariots" were 3 crew 4 horse and worked along side cavalry.

The specialised scythed ones were definitely more than a little gimmicky.

Mithridates VI of Pontus succeeded using scythed chariots against a Bithynian phlanx during the Battle of the River Amnias in 89BC, at the start of the First Mithridatic War. (Described in Appian, I beleive.)

This would seem to argue that they could be effective against poorly disciplined and/or disorganized troops.

Chris

One other thing to consider with a scythed chariot is that the blades may have been less of a direct weapon and more of a deterrent towards people getting in close. Meaning that you aren't getting mobbed unless you stop.

I think they were just as dangerous to their own troops as to the enemy. Also, what does "scythed" mean? AHow are they fastened to the axle? The torque and physical forces on them must have been tremendous and I can see them breaking off and flying through the air and surrounding troops with the greatest of ease.

Plus, I don't care how you configure It, the horses are as vulnerable as they ever were.

Good against troops screaming and pleading for mercy and running away. Not so good against ones who are going to stand up and fight.

I've always thought that unless the scythes are place on the rim of the wheel rather than the hub, they'd be of little value.

The chariot axles like axles on a towed trailer do not rotate. The wheels rotate on the axles. The scythed blades would not be subjected to torque stress, only contact stresses. In addition to the blades attached to the axles there were often other blades attached to the yokes and chariot body.

Xenephon mentions three foot blades attached to the axles, Diodorus says there were 27 inch blades at the ends of the yokes and longer blades on the axles, Livy describes the Seleucid chariots at Magnesia as having 3 foot blades projecting like horns at the end of each pole, two blades at each end of the yoke, and smaller blades at the ends of the axles.

While there were some battles where scythed chariots helped defeat the opposing army, there appear to have been more instances where they were more dangerous to their own side and others where disciplined infantry let them pass through without effect.

Lucian provides the following description of the effect of scythed chariots on their own infantry in the battle known as the elephant victory where the Seleucids defeated the Galatians

"The chariots, turning in like manner upon their own friends, whirled about among them by no means harmlessly; it was a Homeric scene of 'rumbling tumbling cars'; when once the horses shied at those formidable elephants, off went the drivers, and 'the lordless chariots rattled on,' their scythes maiming and carving any of their late masters whom they came within reach of; and, in that chaos, many were the victims."