"Which chariots for whom?" Topic

Hello everyone,

What chariots for the Sea Peoples?

Hittite or Egyptian models with crews of 3 or 2 men?

And with what weapons?

Thank you,

Pascal

I'm not sure they used chariots. None shown in the Ramses III relifs

The reliefs at Medinet Habu Temple do show Sea Peoples chariots with 2 horse and 3 crew.
The chariots were probably built along the lines of Western Anatolian "box" chariots rather than the lighter Egyptian chariots with only 2 crew. The crew on the relief use spears and javelins.

There's a picture of a Sea Peoples chariot from Medinet Habu about halfway down the page at link – looks much like an Egyptian one, though that might just be down to the artist. Driver, two fighting crew with spears and shields, bowcase and quiver on the sides of the vehicle.

Medinet Habu also has reliefs of Sea Peoples fighting from two wheeled high-sided carts with solid wooden wheels and drawn by oxes. They can be interpreted as baggage or possibly as fighting platforms (or maybe both depending on the circumstance).

Here is a colored illustration: link

"Drive it like you stole it!"

: 3

It also depends on what scale and manufacturer you're talking about. In 15mm – both Chariot (Magister Militum) and Essex make Sea Peoples' chariots. The Essex ones are fairly round with a driver and 2 warriors in feathered headdress with very short spears. The MM chariot is a wooden box chariot with driver and 2 warriors both with 'lances' (very long spears) and the crew are in horned helmets.

If we're speaking historically, I'd say that the Sea Peoples' chariots were Western Anatolian (akin to the Hittites) with archers and/or javelin throwers.

So you have to avoid the Egyptian chariots types.

I read somewhere, that later the Philistines will use single fighter Western Anatolian "box" chariots types.

The Sea Peoples are coming from an area that used heavier box cabs and that could hold 3 crew.
They're attacking into an area that used the lighter cab and 2 crew.

In my opinion, a chariot always had a driver and a missile man. The first added crew would be to protect the driver from archers with a shield. So, his sole function is to protect the driver. Then the 3rd crewman is again the steely eyed missile man.
So in gaming terms, the Hittite type chariot should have better protection.
The next question would be whether the missile man should be an archer or a javelin thrower. How steady is the platform? How many reloads can the missile man have?

By the way, I carry my "analysis" (guesswork) to conclude that the beloved of Ancients players 4 crew Assyrian chariot was still just a driver and archer. The two extra "javelin throwers" are nothing but shield bearers to protect both the driver and the archer.

A shield bearer with javelins among the seapeoples?

Interesting and too beautiful, but this is not what we see on the monuments of their Egyptian victors who moreover give them rather Egyptian chariots as by chance …

What about the Philistines?

What do we know about their chariots and crews?

Paskal,

I guess the best book is still Drews' book – "The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe c.a. 1200 B.C.". If you are interested in chariot warfare, that's the book to get.

Regarding the Philistines (and, I would add the Canaanites, and other 'city dwellers of the plain') – I would guess they would be like the Sea Peoples, as the Bible mentions that the kings of the cities of the plain used chariots (and, we can guess, with bows and/or javelin). Furthermore, I would hazard a guess that the Philistines used shield bearers and, like most chariot armies, 'runners' to help dispatch enemy chariot crews and/or help disabled friendly crews. Regarding the chariots themselves, considering the ground in Israel/Jordan valley is a combination of sand and rock, I would think a sturdier chariot would be better suited to the Valley of the Jordan. While the Egyptians did conquer the ancient land of Israel for a while, that was more by laying siege than by engaging in pitched battles with chariots (Kadesh is one of the exceptions that we know about).

Egyptian temple inscriptions/monuments – it's hard to decipher fact from fiction regarding them, as the inscriptions and monuments were meant as propaganda, not a strictly historical account. Yes, some of the temple inscriptions are accurate (in certain ways) but the simple fact is that we just don't know that much about the Bronze Age/early Iron Age (the time of chariots). Also, keep in mind that pharaohs would rework some of the inscriptions or use the stone quarried from crumbling old temples.

If you're speaking in wargame terms, the average gamer (unless they're a fanatic about the period) doesn't really know the difference between a 'box' chariot and a 'rail' chariot or between a 'light' chariot and a 'heavy' chariot. Actually, I would argue that any chariot drawn by 2 horses is a 'light' chariot and the massive Assyrian and later, Persian chariots would be heavy. However, 'heavy' chariots didn't exist in the Bronze Age, at least, according to what few sources are available at present.

I ordered the Drews' book – "The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe c.a. 1200 B.C.".

So the Philistines would also have the Western Anatolian "box" type chariots with 3 crews including 2 fighters?

And The Seapeoples and the Philistines would have had archers in their chariots?

I think almost all chariots would have had an archer. Extra bodies after that just help deliver the arrows (shield man, help shifting the chariot in sub-optimal terrain, shieldman)

Will still search because it is not what represent the monument Egyptians, but can we trust them ..?

From the Pelesets of the Seapeoples to the Philistines who lived on the south coast of Canaan from the 12th century BC until 604 BC, there must have been an evolution …

Evolution in what? Fighting style? Maybe, maybe not. It seems that the tribes of what became Israel (meaning the nomadic tribes of Judah (the Jews) – sorry, my Biblical history is a bit rusty) might have been employed as chariot 'runners' at first. They might have been employed by the 'chariot cities' as light infantry. Drews points this out in his book. The 'revolution' that Drews speaks of is of nimble quick infantry equipped with slashing swords and bucklers dispatching the chariot armies of the cities. This 'revolution' took place over a few centuries but came to a head in the collapse of the 'palace states' – Mycenae, the Hittites, etc.

Regarding the use of chariots. I would argue that Drews is correct – chariots and chariot archers were an elite and, much like later medieval knights, they fought other elites (meaning other chariot drawn archers). You could also read some of the ancient Indian epics – the Mahabharata, in particular for descriptions of chariot warfare.

Regarding an 'evolution' – why fix what isn't broken until it is proven breakable? Remember, bureaucracies, especially military bureaucracies are resistant to change and I see no reason why the cities of the Philistines and Canaanites would be any different. We know that they used chariots and as Drews pointed out, they were probably as missile platforms but chariots are vulnerable to infantry. If Drews is right, the chariot 'runners' turned on their employers and destroyed them, ending the era of the chariot.

Personally, his theory makes sense and would explain a few of the legends/myths surrounding the use of the chariot and how it was overcome.

Frankly, I wouldn't trust the Egyptian temple inscriptions as 100% accurate in historical terms – always take them with a healthy dose of salt (skepticism is a great thing for any historian).

Well we'll see that when I have received and read: the Drews' book – "The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe c.a. 1200 B.C.".

Too bad the seapeoples and the philistines are not left monuments to their glory.

Pakal,

Recent digs in several Bronze age tells are turning up some interesting finds regarding the Philistines; however, my guess is that the 'monuments' or, better still, documents, are long gone.

We have the same problem with Wilusia/Troy – the Bronze age citadel must have contained some sort of bureaucracy, so why no evidence of writing? The current speculation appears to be that Wilusians/Trojans (we don't know what the name of the city was or what the inhabitants called themselves) wrote on wood instead of clay tablets, and/or, Schliemann destroyed the archives when he gouged out his 'grave' through the center of the mound.

The Sea Peoples are an interesting enigma – judging by their names – most of them appear to have been from the coast of Western Anatolia (Troy, south to the Lukka lands), with the Sardinians and various other groups thrown into the mix. The Philistines, it has been argued, are the Peleset. If that's the case, then they probably originated in Crete.

In the future, there might be a tell that has yet to be discovered that will have the answers. There are so many unexplored tells in Anatolia as to bogle the imagination (at last count, over 150 – most of them abandoned after the Bronze age). Tells in ancient Palestine/ Philistia/ Canaan are fewer to be sure and most have been sacked or built over but one can only hope that new discoveries will shed light on some of these questions.

Well, then no manufacturers sell West Anatolian 28mm "box" type tanks with one driver and two fighters ?

Paskal,

I think this is the closest you're going to get:
feathered headdress:

link

horned helmet:
link

I would bet that the above would be the closest bets, depending on what vision you have for your armies.

Yes thank you, it's nice and there are also castawayarts :

link

Now I would like to know which ones are compatibles with the "Lukka" figures of Redoubt enterprises?