"How were chariots used? Were scythed chariots real?" Topic

I have cross-posted this to fantasy, because I think fantasy wargamers might be interested, but, please, confine the discussion to a historical treatment.

There seems to be a lot of question as to how war chariots were really used.

Three possibilities:

1: They charged right into the enemy line (or possibly flanked it) with various long pointy things, and scythe blades on the wheels,

2: They were used at a distance to discharge missiles into the enemy, and occasionally charged when supported by foot,

3: They were pretty much just transport for small groups of noble warriors, who used the chariots to get into the fighting fast, but fought on foot.

Obviously, combinations of the above may have been used as well. Also, it is possible that the design of the chariot or its deployment varied over time, or from culture to culture (the latter, almost a certainty).

With the Britons especially, seems to be some speculation as to how they were really used. I would be interested to know what Caesar wrote about it (I never finished Gallic Wars). My understanding is that the Romans tell us the Britons used scythed chariots.

Personally, I think it is simply a question of the fact that the war chariot probably was not a really good idea in the first place.

Once infantry developed beyond a bunch of scattered psiloi who threw rocks / javelins and ran at the first sign of real trouble, the chariot was effectively finished. Horses have better sense than men, and it is difficult to get them to charge into a situation where they are almost certain to get badly hurt. Now compound that cavalry problem with the fact that any one of 2-4 horses who is a little more skittish than the rest can effectively stop the whole forward movement. Same problem if one of the horses is killed.

Cheers

P.S. PLEASE, no posts starting with something like "Well, in DBA it says..." lets try to keep the scholarship a bit above that level. Thanks

No scythed chariots were not real and Alexander the great never developed a way to defeat them either and all those pieces of paper with words in them oh yeah books don't really say much either, so why bother reading them when you can ask people on the internet.

In "The end of the Bronze Age", Drews seems to think that chariots were only used as archery platforms. I tend to not be as extreme in my views. I do think that javelins and spears were used, based on Egyptian, Hittite, etc. drawings. I also think that the factor which lead to their being phased out was the ability to breed larger horses, allowing them to be ridden, instead of used to haul expensive to build and maintain chariots. All the arguments you use against chariots apply equally to swarms of cavalry.

Assyrian 4-horse chariots were about as developed as possible. What they ended up being, though was a heavy platform, with the firepower of one archer. The other crew was a driver, and two shield bearers to protect the archer and the driver. The horses were pretty well armored with thick textile, or scale armor.

"Personally, I think it is simply a question of the fact that the war chariot probably was not a really good idea in the first place." Well, you must then assume that the armies who used them for thousands of years were generaled by stupid people. They may have had drawbacks, and they were not perfect, but as a famous Secretary of Defense said recently "You go to war with what you have, not what you wish you had." Very true.

Chariots could scatter irregular or untrained troops, could fire rather accuratley on the move, as a recent History Channel program showed.

They also provided a very nice, dignified platform on which a general could ride.

Until big horses came along, they were very useful If you do not think so, take a completely foot army against a "combined arms" chariot army and see how far you get. I am of course, talking about 1200BC. I am also not talking about any set of rules here, but in our Time Machine Real Life.

Oh, yes. Scythed chariots. Read Arrian and Xenophon. Useful, but limited.

The scythed chariots were a different breed than the others, intended for a one-shot crash and only having a driver. The main use of them I'm aware of is the battle of Arbela (Guagemela) when they fizzled against Alexander's phalanx. Does anyone recall other uses of them or know if they ever worked? I recall some mountain tribes rolling unmanned carts downhill against Alexander - that didn't work either.

Certainly Egyptian chariots seem to have been used as mobile archery platforms and Celtic British chariots seem to have been used as 'battle taxis'. I'm not going to quote anything - no reference books of the historical variety within reach.

Yep, Xenophon said that cyrus fielded them in 546bc, and he didnt play DBA ( the fool !! )

But in WAB it says... :-)

Once people got horses large enough to ride into battle, the Chariot lost its appeal. They were expensive to build and maintain, and didn't have the mobility of cavalry. Except for the "scythe" thing, which apparently was easy to counter if you knew what you were doing, I would claim that there is nothing a Chariot can do that two men on horseback can't do better.

Seriously though, it seems that Chariots were used differently in different parts of the world. The Near Eastern chariot tradition (introduced to the Near East by the Hurrians with their "Maryannu" noble charioteers) is for mobile missile platforms, often with a heavily armored warrior, composite bows and quivvers full of arrows.

The Greek tradition seems to have charioteers with what amounts to lances, who if you believe the pottery, rode down infantry and skewered them. Some people believe the Hittites used this model as well, but I've also heard theories that the Hittites used the same model as everyone else in the area - two men in a two horse chariot armed with composite bow.

Greetings

The precise role of ancient chariots is still much debated.

1. Scythed chariots.

These were introduced by the Achaemenid Persians and used with limited success against Agesilaus' Greeks and with less success against Xenophon's 10,000 and Alexander. Also used by Seleucid armies, Pontics etc. One man crew, usually 4 horses.

Tactics - aim at enemy close order formation, driver bails out, supporting cavalry exploit enemy broken formation. Countered by (1) opening ranks (2) using light troops to shoot the horses down before contact.

NB not used by Britons or Gauls

2. Missile platforms

Probably Egyptian New Kingdom, Indian.

3. Shock

Much disputed whether Hittite chariots were shock or merely a different sort of missile platform.

4. Transport

Possibly the role of Mycenean chariots (see Iliad). Also how British chariots seem to have been used - but allowing rider to mount and dismount quickly and to skirmish. Caesar's account focusses on the confusion caused by mass skirmishing chariotry. Chariots were still being used against Agricola in the later 1st century AD and are believed to have survived in use by the Picts possibly until about 400AD.

Some command chariots were also used for prestige eg Persian.

One argument is that chariots were more or less rendered ineffective by the breeding of heavier horses capable of bearing riders effectively as fighting platforms. The British may have retained chariots for longer because of poor horses (more like ponies).

Hope this is of interest. Note it is from memory so details may not be quiteright. I am also not an authority. Search the discussions on the ancmed yahoo group for more detail.

Regards

Edward

Horse 101- they are not the smartest animal on the planet but smart enough NOT to run into a solid block of troops, trees, fences, etc.....

Consider the scythed chariot as a terror weapon. If the enemy panics and runs you can move forward, if not the animals will shy away to the nearest opening.

The other types of chariot were used as a platform to launch arrows and such, or as a transport item.IMO.

All three usages of charoits are well documentated. Scythed chariot charges against formed infantry are recorded . I would suggest having a read of the WAB Alexander supplement as this has a discusion on the effectiveness of scythed chariots.

unwilling sock puppet-

*P.S. PLEASE, no posts starting with something like "Well, in DBA it says..." lets try to keep the scholarship a bit above that level. Thanks*

Well you started it when you described unformed skirmishing infantry thus:-

*Once infantry developed beyond a bunch of scattered PSILOI who threw rocks / javelins and ran at the first sign of real trouble, *

;)

Thanks for a scholarly discussion to all. Except one, of course, who seems to think that the definition of "discussion" is "Railing at the enemy with sarcastic comments until he shuts up." You know who you are, and I will neglect to mention your name.

Cheers

@Kawasaki

I'm damned just because I used the DBA term? Huh. Who'd a thunk it. So did the greeks though...

@OFM:

""Personally, I think it is simply a question of the fact that the war chariot probably was not a really good idea in the first place." Well, you must then assume that the armies who used them for thousands of years were generaled by stupid people."

Read the rest of that quote. Sure, it was useful against undisciplined infantry, as I said.

Soldat, that was a little harsh. If not for asking questions, what is the real point of this site?

Scythed Chariots were totally different than say, Egyptian chariots. There are really three types of chariots.

1.) Scythed Chariots: These were in effect the first suicide bomber. A chariot, with 2-4 horses, loaded with scythes or blades on the wheels and frame and driven usually by one man straight at densely packed enemy formations. The drive is assumed to bail out at the last minute. These were chariots with little maneuverability and were pointed at the enemy and sent headlong forward. Opening ranks to allow them to pass through and lightly armed troops who shot up or killed horses were the answers. These chariots were used to various effect.

2.) Light Chariots: This would be the Egyptian variety. They were missile platforms and perhaps used to duel with other, similar charioteers. They could wheel and move and my own conclusion from what I have read is that the idea was to keep them out of combat, although I think that means formed foot and that they likely dealt with opposing light chariots. These had two horses.

3.) Combination Medium and heavy chariots: There is a lot of debate here. Were these actually heavy chariots (Assyrian, Classical Indian) that were meant to crash into enemies? Were they just larger missile platforms with four horses? They are often depicted with crews ranging from just a driver, missile man and shield bearer to upwards of six men (could also be skirmishers called escorts who helped defend chariots 'hitching' a ride). They could have been a combination of missile and shock, or the extra size could have been in response to the increasing appearance of cavalry on the battlefield and the extra heft and crew a means to defend the missile platforms (depending on what view you subscribed to).

That's the long answer. The short answer is that scythed chariots were real and were used, but were more often than not ineffective (especially once troops learned how to deal with them).

Arthur Cotterell "Chariot: The Astounding Rise and Fall of the World's First War Machine"

ISBN 0-7126-6942-6 Published in the UK by the Pimlico imprint of Random
House. $41.95CN Hardcover 342 pages.

This should answer all your questions about chariots and how they were used. Well actually it will more provide a starting point for further research and opining of your own.

Covers India and China in depth as well as the Ancient Near East, Briton, and post-warfare chariot usage and symbolism.

While it's not often mentioned, you can't leave out the role of chariots as a social institution. There's a reason that the Assyrian chariot had a driver, two shield bearers, and just one archer, and it's not because that's the most efficient way to wage war. If I'm an Assyrian big cheese, I've got to look the part. I've got to have my fancy chariot, my team of horses, my driver and shield bearers. I'm the man and everyone needs to know it. Get out of my chariot and ride a horse? Are you kidding? What do I look like, some kind of barbarian?

Where these the forunners of the Amish buggy??? Just kidding guys!!!

Thanks for the education in chariots. I am just now breaking into the ancients for gaming and find it interesting but very confusing. Dealing with Rome is like learning a new language over again.

Peter the Grape
or
Petermus Potomus

Hi

Hmmm. Bigger subject than a forum can do.

First, in one sense some of the guys are right, once horse RIDING, thus cavalry is developed, chariots go away. But it was not the SIZE of the horse(mongol ponies are only 12 hands high), but the SIZE of the spine. Stronger spine means the poor thing does not break down carrying a trooper with equipment. Historically recent.

Second:"Horse 101- they are not the smartest animal on the planet but smart enough NOT to run into a solid block of troops, trees, fences, etc....." Is completely untrue.

RIDERS pull up, horses can be ridden into most anything. Riders chicken out and blame it on the horse!

My favorite example of this happened in colorado. "Old West" celebration, parade down main street, all the floats were horse drawn wagons. One float had cuties throwing candy to the kids in the crowd, and some kids thought it was cool to throw the candy back at one of the wagons. A horse got angry, and chased the kids INTO a department store, crashing through the wall and window dragging the wagon with him.

Another one I like is a local rancher has a pony who loves him with dog like devotion. A couple years ago, PETA decided to protest a rodeo parade by carrying big signs and BLOCKING the parade with hundreds of protestors. One of them made the mistake of wacking my rancher friend with a sign. The horse, freeked out and trampled through PETA, signs and all.

Chariots with big horsed coming at you require you to be confident that the driver would pull up. In the case of the scythed chariots, the experiences for some time had been that steady infantry might resist(numbers here, 60 some men facing 2 horses) and the rider pulled up(kill him not the horse). In this case, they launched the chariots and DISMOUNTED. No driver to pull up.

Rocky

This is good stuff, I'm saving this thread to disk for future reference. I can only add the following:

#1 Ancient documents from the bible to Herodotus always record the number of chariots a king could field as a clear, quantitative measure of his military power. In Greece (Crete, if memory serves) archaeologists have found disassembled chariots stacked and numbered, with the wheels stored separately. All this effort tells me that however chariots were used, they rocked.

#2 Since scythed chariots are suicide devices you don't have to worry about control or the horse's natural disinclination to charge a row of pikes. Get them close and pointed in the right direction and then whip the horses into such a frenzy/panic/madness that they just run no matter what. This isn't pleasant to think about, but it would make the best weapon, Still not a great weapon, but good golly what would you do if you were standing with your friends holding pointy sticks and saw that coming at you?

#3 Not only were horses increasing in size, but training was becoming better. I think if you have four horses yoked together its probably easier to control them in a highly chaotic situation than if its one completely unrestrained horse.

#4 If you do something on purpose I don't think you are "neglecting" it, I think you are "declining".

Andrew

for a useful suggestion, read de bello gallica by julius ceasar, he mentions chariots and their use plus it has rather impressive engineering feats by the romans.

I have always wondered if the scything of the chariots was more of a defensive measure to keep the enemy away than it was an offensive weapon. After all the best way to deal with a charging chariot would seem to be to step aside or open an aisle in the formation and attack it from the sides.

And as to horses, many 19th century team horses were intentionally blinded and or deafened so that the driver was their sole source of information - cruel, but I wouldn't put it past ancient armies either.

The problem was not horses big enough to ride. Consider the fact that the average Roman centurion was a little over five feet tall, and he was healthy and well fed. The average soldier throughout history wasn't as big as HE was, much less anywhere near our size. And horse breeders have been working to get bigger horses ever since there were horses and horse breeders. If nothing else, bigger horses can do more farm work.

The problem lay in fixing a platform on top of a horse that was stable enough to fight from. Riding a horse bareback isn't any big deal to a trained rider and horse combo, and the Mongols even managed some excellent horse archers...

...but if you intend to go charging into the foe with your Large Sharp Object, you'd be crazy to go bareback. First guy who manages to whack YOU, regardless of what armor you're wearing, is going to unhorse you. Either that, or in the heat of battle, you'll lean too far to one side or the other, and whoopsie, there you go.

The thing that put paid to the chariot (and similar devices) in combat was the stirrup. Once stirrups were invented, CAVALRY was possible, and who needs chariots after that? Unless you're an armchair commander who never quite managed to learn to ride, that is.

[The thing that put paid to the chariot (and similar devices) in combat was the stirrup. Once stirrups were invented, CAVALRY was possible, and who needs chariots after that? Unless you're an armchair commander who never quite managed to learn to ride, that is.]

Is this a wind up?

Scythed chariots were real... they had limited successes... when they worked they worked big.. when they failed they were miserable and caused their own side to be demoralized...

Kind of like you have your ace pitcher in and it's 9 to nothing after 2 outs in 1st inning..... the troops know they have an uphill struggle.. what was worse is that scythed chariots usually got out of control and often careened into their own troops more than the enemy.

The main users of Scythed chariots were:
Persia (who invented them, or maybe they stole them from an idea invented further east).
Alexander's Successors most notably Seleucus.
The Seleucid empire.
Galatians (who captured them from the Seleucids and apparently enjoyed the mayhem).
Pontus.

JeffJ

Well as we all really know, what truly put paid to the scythed chariot was the inter continental ballistic missile...

Actually, I think you are wrong about the timing of the stirrup. Stirrups did not appear, IIRC, until several hundred years after chariots had fallen out of use.

If I'm wrong though, someone please correct me.

Cavalry as an institution predates stirrups by well over a thousand years. Its hard to say exactly how long, because the invention of stirrups is quite hazy.

The stirrup theory has pretty much been debunked anyway
link

It is extreamly doubtful that if chariots were anything less than highly effective in the biblical age they would never have lasted so long. No doubt with lot technology we today fail to appreciate the skill of the crews, strength and speed etc. of chariots. Status alone cannot account the manpower and great expense of maintaining chariots. Tactics also are the key to success.

If we look to the middle ages at Agincourt e.g. perhaps the English victory would have been less if the French Knights had not marched up a narrow muddy path, uphill. I think bad tactics is the problem here as much as the long bow effectiviness.

Also to just because the highly skilled Macedonian army had no problem with scythed chariots we should not assume that other armies were so brave and smart.

Everyone who plays Warhammer knows that chariots are for headlong charges into the side of a really big unit ;).....

I've never owned a horse, but have always found it highly doubtful that anything other than a crazed human would fling themselves willingly into a mass of spearpoints or similar.

Chariots seem like an awful lot of trouble and expense just to get one archer/javelineer closer to the enemy, I can see the status symbol argument, they probably had a pretty big morale impact on lesser troops, what with all the noise they make and dust they kick up.

That dust may have been their best weapon, effectively shielding them from return fire.

As for the scythed version, I'm assuming they were mainly used to mow down enemy that were already fleeing, chariots WOULD make perfect pursuit vehicles.

Being a horseman I might be able to help you out a little here. The stirrup as we know it today! (that is in pairs) did not show up until around 4c AD. That is rumored to be in china. It spread from there to europe and by the 8c AD it was in wide use across Europe. It is noted though that a mounting stirrup predates the paired stirrups by 200 years. Why no one thought of useing it in pairs is beyond me. But that does not mean the chines where not useing them before 4c AD. We only know this due to a piece of pottery found showing them dating to then. Evidence has also surfaced that riders tucked thier feet behind the surcingle for support on the horse. The woven blanket was made as to cause the legs to grip the horse. Now this would lead to have thighs able to crack walnuts with!!!

Peter Griffith
Dutch Pond Historical Reproductions

One last note guys. What I speak of is stirrups as we know them today. If my memory serves me right a grave was uncovered of an ancient Sycatian (sic) and with in it was what appeared to be a set of leather stirrups with the padded horse cover and surcingle. This was dated I think to 4th or 5th C BC. I can not be sure I will have to go back to all my records on horse equipment.

Peter

Hi

You guys need to go read Thucydidies on riding and cavalry.

The saddle is the thing, not stirrups.

And from personal experience, I KNOW that horses will run into about anything you want. IF they were brilliant, they would see a spear as a threat, they do not they see that they weigh half a ton and you are asking them to crash into something that weighs 15% what they do. No problem in their mind. Really.

If a horse was brilliant, he would know that running straight across a prairie dog town might snap a cannon, but he does not and runs.

I repeat, riders pull up. Horses don't. Cavarly beats chariots because you can get greater density of horse and warrior and greater maneuverability.

One way of looking at it: the difference is between a highway full of cars, versus a highway full of motorcyclists. Which has more people? Which is less likely to have a traffic jam.

Rocky

Rocky,
I have to disagree with you 98% here. I have been working with horses from training for living historians to breaking them from ground up to competeing in hunter jumper and endurance. Not counting working with these sports today in coaching. A horse has the mentality of a 3 year old. While not stupid it has a good sense of danger. It can pick up fear in it's rider and those around it. A horse will charge a wall of spears only if forced to do so. A horse works with it's master and takes trust in the master to keep it out of danger. This danger includes spears and so forth. A horse is also blind straight ahead of where it is running. That is why a horse shys when you move directily in front or in back once it has lost it sight with you. Another reason why you put a hand on a horses back when moving around it. I have over 20 years of working with horses and trust me the stirrups is the the thing.
The saddles that came about during the late BC and early AD period had horns front and rear for support of the rider. This kept him from sliding front and rear and game some support in the saddle. Stirrups added to this allowing the rider to lean and work with his body to control the horse when on the move. A person rides a favored side when riding also. They either put weight left or right when riding. This caused more pressure to be asserted on the horse with just a saddle or pad being used. Once stirrups came into play it moved the center of balance more towards the middle of the horse thus giving a greater deal of control. When just going out for a morning ride on Dolly I would just use a blanket and a set of stirrups attached to such and had as much control of her as with the saddle in play. But would not want to ride a great deal with just that set up.

What you do say on the mobility of man and horse is right in that it gave man the battlefield mobility to move in various areas. A man mounted on a horse will bring fear to a man who is on foot no matter where he is. Good post though and it caused me to go back and pull through my old memory. I dont ride as much as I used to due to old and broken bones but still love to talk horses. God love these regal beast.

Peter

Andrew Walters wrote: "#3 Not only were horses increasing in size, but training was becoming better. I think if you have four horses yoked together its probably easier to control them in a highly chaotic situation than if its one completely unrestrained horse."

Horses have to be highly trained to be suitable as chariot horses. And as Frank Starke (Ausbildung und Training von Streitwagenpferden: eine hippologisch orientierte Interpretation des Kikkuli-Textes. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz 1995) has shown, horse training in the bronze age was highly sophisticated.

Hi Cz

Current with horses. And we are not in as much disagreement as you seem to think.

You missed the point I was trying to make. you said"It can pick up fear in it's rider and those around"

And that is the point. THE RIDER. When riders thought they could run over people, the horses had no problem. And, as I said, the horse pulling the float had no problem deciding he could crash through the wall of the departmentstor(some 20 years ago in Leadville Colorado).

Anyway, stirrups. Western saddles I ride and have ridden don't really need them. I direct you to Adrianople where the goths rode OVER both other cav and infantry. Before stirrups. Proper saddles. Or as I said, read Thucidides.

I sort of have a prejudice that when an ancient says he did something, I won't argue much.

R

Okay I see where you are coming from. As for me a good set of stirrups is what I need. Weebles wobble and I fall off!!

I dont know about beliveing everything written about stuff then. I do think alot is taken out of context by old historians writing what they translate. If it was in english then I might agree!! LOL

Thanks for the input though it made me go back and do some research and also pull through my old brain. Well back to work now for we are building a saddle at this point in the shop. One you might like. A Texas ranger saddle, hard seat, 3/4 rigged 16 inch seat with a 6 inch cantel. Based on one in "Man Made Mobile"

Peter Griffith
Dutch Pond Historical Reproductions

There was at least one experiment with HEAVY scythed chariots, too: I've seen a copy of a contemporary illustration of a Byzantine design with cataphract armour for both the driver (who may actually have ridden on one of the horses, rather than in the cab? It's quite a few years since I saw this illustration...) and the horses. I seem to recall seeing guidelines for handling chariots of this design in at least one set of miniatures rules but can't now remember which system that was....

Leonardo da Vinci also included a 'scythed chariot' design (with one set of scythe blades rotating horizontally around a hub out in front on the end of the [elongated] shaft to which the horses were harnessed, as well as the more usual blades on the wheels) amongst his doodles...

Simreeve, I think from memory the chariot you refer to is Late Roman and is in Vegetius; there's no evidence that it was built, but it was an option in the WRG rules. It's been suggested that it would have been underpowered on account of weight.

Not in Vegetius but in another annonymous military writing of about the same time.

Sigh... at work, didn't have my sources.

Scythed chariots Magnesia 189BC.

VR
James Mattes

“The army of Nicomedes was terrified at seeing the men cut in halves and still breathing, or mangled in fragments, or hanging on the scythes…. Fear disordered their ranks."
— Appian

I found this when searching for information about Sythed chariots. Is there anything new to add from the past five years?
Mick

I found this when searching for information about Scythed chariots. Is there anything new to add from the past five years?

Does anybody have a list of which armies used them?
Mick

Hi
You want a standing list of everyone in history?

Until effective cav, most had chariots, after cav, not so much. This is almost a "how high is up" question.

Rocky

Dear RockyRusso,

I was thinking about which armies used a particular 4 horse design. I started another thread
TMP link

I did a scratch build of Darius in his chariot. The same design could be used for a scythed chariot for the Persians. I started to wonder which other armies used this type of Chariot?
Looking at my various army list books, I have
1. Later Achaemenid Persian
2. Seleucid
3. Ptolemiac
4. Galatian
5. Mithridatic (i.e. Pontus)
However, Indian's and Libyan's of the same time period also had four horse chariots – were they a similar design?

Thanks
Mick

I don't think there is such a thing as Ptolemaic scythed chariots.

JJ

I tend towards the "chariot as missile platform" with some acceptance of "Chariot as terror weapon that runs down panicking troops", and am certain that transport was the most common usage.

I don't care what anyone claims from reading rocks or the accounts of ancient authors (who are full of bias and bad info anyway). The idea of crashing an expensive and somewhat fragile chariot into a block of steady infantry is ludicrous. Makes as much sense as crashing a sherman tank into a building habitually. It works once on Kelly's Heroes, but not to attack the enemy, just to get into position.

But I do think they'd charge at the infantry shooting arrows and trying to make them panic. if they fled, they'd then run them down as they ran away dispersing. If the infantry weren't scared then they'd wheel away and try again.

The obvious counter to them would be large blocks of infantry archers with wall-like shields, and "lo and behold" that's what many of these armies had.

Makes perfect sense to me, anyway.