"chariots" Topic

At any time did the Roman Army ever use chariots in battle? If so, were they used like cavalry on the wings of a Legion or at the front to break up enemy formations?

Hi,

They probably used chariots in the very beginning of the existence of Rome. 'Chieftans' on their chariots with groups of followers. The army itself was the sum of these warbands. It was similar in many ways to Micennic Hellas (of previous times) or to Hallstatt Culture north to The Alps (at the same time).

But, in case it was the way I have described, it didn't lasted for long. It's a pity, for colourfull army building purposes but, please, forget the idea of chariots with legions at any time of Rome's History.

Enric.

But, but…..

link

Late Roman cataphract chariot. Not sure if it was ever used or even existed, but there are the odd reference to them. One discussion about them is here.

link

Ha, ha! You are right, Ochoin. I missed fantasy roman ranges.

About late cataphract chariots, I'm on the opinion that it's all about a series of late roman experiments or 'happy ideas' for solving military troubles. The kind of many war machines by Leonardo da Vinci, or fantasy war inventions by Hitler.

Apologies. My "sense of humour" got the better of me.

Etruscans used it, so Romans used it for sure. At least while they were ruled by Etruscans, and possibly later, at least for a while…

Agree with Dogged, used for sure, but when Rome was still ruled by Etruscans. I don't think we know (do we?) How Etruscans actually used then though.

There is a great amount of debate about Etruscans and Early Rome.

I am on the opinion that Etruscan 'rule' (if there was such a thing) is a matter of late Roman Monarchy, when hoplite warfare was the usual in all the region. Etruscans and Romans had both once used chariots, but this was by then outdated.

I must remark, however, that there is a great amount of debate about the whole subject.

Enric.

On "Etruscan rule", there are two notable authors who address this. T.J. Cornell categorically rejects it based on a total lack of evidence, and he provides a convincing argument that Romans had to learn very little from Etruscans since, at least in the years of the Monarchy, they shared a common culture. As he says of (for example)sewers, they are common throughout central Italy; there's no way of saying the design originated one place or the other. Even writing could be directly taken from the Greeks, as Greek merchants early on were in Rome in its port area (yesterday I was in the area by the Tiber, called the Via della Greca, where there is a temple to Hercules Victor and used to be an altar (Ara Maximus) right by the Circus Maximus). Greek coins and pottery found in the area are some of the oldest artifacts found there. No need for linguist transmission by Etruscans. Also, even if one buys Livy's stories, the official version says that the first 'Etruscan' king moved to Rome because his father was Corinthian Greek and he couldn't get a start at Tarquinia (Etruscan city north of ROme). Cornell states that there is simply no evidence of an Etruscan takeover.

Gary Forsythe is another author writing on the same subject 10 years later. Though he may disagree with Cornell on some issues, he does not do much to alter the conclusion that Cornell draws concerning the question of Etruscan rule. He does think that writing was transmitted by Etruscans, but his support for this seems to be a single inscription (or very limited sample size). Who know? Maybe he's right. The only other main alteration he makes to Cornell is that he draws thinks Livy's version of the story is too 'face-saving' for the Romans and draws instead on a version provided by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in which Lars Porsenna (Etruscan) takes over Rome from Tarquinius Superbus or whoever the last king was) and from there marches on the other Latins; however, he is defeated by the Latin coalition and forced to retreat from Latium, leaving a power vacuum in Rome which the nobility are only too happy to fill. Thus beginning the Republic. So, even in Forsythe's opinion, an Etruscan takeover would have been possible but over VERY limited duration, and like Enric said above, late monarchy.

That said, Etruscans definitely did live in early Rome as witnessed by the street called the Clivus Tuscus (Romans called Etruscan "Tusci"), which ran from Forum to the area right around Tiber Island, which crosses into Etruria.

Cornell makes a piont that (historiographically speaking, and if I'm remembering correctly)much of the history about Etruscans teaching the Romans everything they knew came after the backlash after WWII against fascist Italy; it was unpopular to give credit to Romans in that era of history writing.

After reading both of these authors, I'm of the opinion that ROme was multicultural from its beginnings aroud 725 BC, experienced some limited Hellenizing effects from early on, and became a large and influential city from early on. This goes against much of what I'd "learned" long ago, but it seems reflect much of the current scholarship. If there's other opposing points of view I'd certainly like to see them.

'The Beginnings of Rome', by T.J.Cornell, is a basic reference for Early Rome. This great book changed my previous schemes. 'Les rois de Rome', an issue by Jacques Poucet, is also a necessary reading, this time about textual sources.

I completely agree with you, Andy.

Enric.

Nice job, Mars Ultor. Now I have to go buy yet another book on Rome because you have, callously and with malice aforethought, proven I still do not know enough about Roman history. DAMN YOU!!! And where is my irony font?

Sorry, Nikator! I know how you feel – just as you think you have a handle on Rome…But better to blow away our delusions! And reading the Forsythe book makes me feel like I don't know much about ROme, either – that there was so much of which I was oblivious. That guy is a machine. His book is not as 'readable' as Cornell's book, but it's very exact.

The Cornell book is VERY readable, and he has a dry British wit that comes out every so often. Both books made my trip this time much more rich (even though there's precious little left to see of Republican Rome, and almost nothing of the Monarchy still hanging around above ground).

Nice book but, ouch, the price. Cheapest I could find was about £20.00 GBP, including postage, for a paperback. I think it'll have to wait for now.

It is quite a dense book, literally.