"Are Mycenaean Chariots “Heavy”" Topic

I've been working on my Bronze Age armies for Hail Caesar and hit one of those familiar Bronze Age classification problems: chariot types.

Most ruleset discussions split chariots into two broad categories, usually Light and Heavy. The usual shorthand is:

Light = missile platform (harassment, javelins, archery)
Heavy = shock/melee platform (close combat, impact role)

That works well enough for Egyptian and Near Eastern systems in most cases.

The issue comes with Mycenaean chariots.

From the archaeological and iconographic evidence (including Dendra armour and weapon depictions), Mycenaean chariot crews do not appear to be missile troops in the same way as Egyptian or later Near Eastern models. Instead, they seem to be built around a close combat role, with the main warrior fighting from the chariot using a long spear.

So the question becomes:

Are Mycenaean chariots really "Light chariots" just because they are two crew, two-horse vehicles or are they functionally "Heavy" because their combat role is direct shock engagement?

In other words, should classification be based on:

vehicle/system mobility, or
battlefield function (missile vs melee role)?

Personally, I'm leaning toward function. In which case Mycenaean chariots sit much closer to a shock/heavy role, even if they appear lighter in construction and crew than 3-man Hittite-style chariots.

Interested to hear how others here handle this in their rules or armies, especially those using Hail Caesar or similar Bronze Age systems.

Would use them as heavy – in part because they seem so much bulkier than the Egyptian ones, which are mobile missile platforms

I've seen pictures of a Warrior in Heavy Dendra armor with heavy spear.
He's jousting. Not skirmishing.

Reality may have shades of meaning but wargaming often requires a black-white answer.

Therefore, I am open to historically Mycenaean chariots being something between a NKE & a Hittite one, but rules require a ruling. Heavy or Light.

The interesting thing is several Ancients rule sets rate them one or the other so clearly no consensus. I am leaning towards "heavy" because of precisely the fact you point out, John.

BTW I *believe* the "battle-taxi" idea has been largely superseded? The Hittite "Indictment of Madduwatta" speaks of chariots, heavy losses & dead leaders on both sides. Clearly weapons of war.

Ochoin- tell us more about the Hittite Indictment of Madduwatta, that undermines the battle chariot theory. I had thought that was pretty sound from Homer and for the Brits from Caesar.

In the Iliad there are several accounts of chariots fighting in the manner of jousting Knights, but with Javelins/spears which are frequently thrown.

In DBX, they're classed as, essentially, poor quality heavy chariots with the speed of light chariots. Does Hail Caesar offer a similar option for classification?

But FWIW, my own take would be that no Bronze Age chariots were truly "heavy", altho some likely were heavier than others.

They are neither light nor heavy. They operated in a different way to Egyptian and Hittite chariots, as ‘battle taxis' to deliver a heavily armed warrior into combat and pick him up quickly if he got wounded. Basically mounted infantry, like the Assyrian archers carried on mule carts. Quite different to the missile armed chariots

Triumph! classifies some "chariots" as battle Taxis because that is supported by the written evidence of how they were used. Other Chariots like Egyptian, Hittite, Indian are classified differently because the "written" (sometimes visual) evidence indicates they were primarily missile platforms (usually bow armed troops).

In game terms battle taxis provide an elite warrior with a get away car and allow for increased movement (in heavy armor). This is represented by the evade ability. Chariots have an additional ability which allows them to shatter some formed troops in open terrain representing that when the chariots charge forward and the formed troops do not hold, the chariots run them down (broken square concept).

It might be arguable that a British or Mycenean battle taxi could also shatter troops or ride into them like an Egyptian chariot, but the "modern" interpretation that they may have been used like this does not come from written information it comes from speculation on how they were built and that they "must" have been more useful than just a transport. We just don't have proof of that. It is a reasonable supposition that charging horses scared the crap out of people and they did this sometimes, but it is not described or depicted anywhere to the best of my knowledge by our limited sources. If anyone has a reference to this would appreciate a link or book info.

Now as for jousting with them? Modern recreations of the Egyptian chariots have shown them to be very effective missile platforms. It would be interesting to see if someone could actually "joust" from a Mycenean chariot if someone was to recreate one. Would it be effective? or would the jouster simply fly out of the back of the chariot from the force of the impact?

Would love to see a recreation like that to see if it could be done.

Another aspect to all of this is the horses and their training. From what I have seen and read about modern horses and training, they are "one use" weapons in war. You can try to train them to charge at a line of troops, but, if they ever charge into a line of men and get hurt and survive, they are unlikely to be useful for that purpose again. So the type, size, and temperament of available horse flesh may have had a lot to do with how different chariots were used.

I think the Indictment of Madduwatta supports the idea that Bronze Age chariots were genuine fighting weapons. If anything, it suggests they were an established arm of the army, distinct from the infantry. It records Attarissiya fielding "100 chariots and infantry", after which "they fought". The text doesn't tell us how the chariots fought but it does place them in the battle rather than simply transporting warriors to it.

I agree that Homer and Caesar aren't much help here. The Iliad is an Iron Age composition preserving earlier traditions, while Caesar is describing Celtic warfare over a thousand years later. Neither should be treated as direct evidence for Late Bronze Age tactics.It can be argued that Homer's 'battle taxis' represent a faded memory of a weapon system used 300–400 years earlier. How the Ancient Britons used chariots, some 1100 years after the fall of Mycenaean civilisation, is clearly irrelevant.

So we're left trying to build the most probable picture from Hittite and Mycenaean texts, archaeology and iconography. To me, the evidence suggests that Mycenaean chariots were intended primarily for close combat rather than as missile platforms. We have depictions of spear-armed warriors, the remarkable Dendra armour protecting the principal fighter and little evidence that Mycenaean crews relied on archery in the Egyptian style.

All this doesn't prove they fought exactly like later cavalry, or that every engagement was a headlong charge. But it does question whether they belong in the same "light missile chariot" category as Egyptian or many Near Eastern chariots or were merely elite transport. Functionally, they seem closer to shock troops than skirmishers.

The Linear B archives from places like Pylos and Knossos record:

Complete chariots.
Chariot wheels.
Axles.
Chariot frames.
Harness and horse equipment.
Craftsmen responsible for making and repairing them.
Inventories of damaged and incomplete chariots awaiting repair.

This isn't the record of a handful of ceremonial vehicles. It suggests a large, centrally managed chariot establishment.

I don't think the Linear B tablets prove Mycenaean chariots were battle weapons, but they do add weight to the argument.

The palace archives record complete chariots, wheels, axles and other components, together with craftsmen responsible for making and repairing them. They even distinguish damaged and incomplete chariots.

These are accounting records, not military manuals, so they don't describe chariot tactics. However, they do suggest that chariots were an important, centrally managed military resource rather than just ceremonial vehicles .

A two-horse chariot doesn't have to plough through a dense infantry formation to be an effective shock weapon. The psychological effect of rapidly approaching horses, combined with a spear-armed elite warrior, could be enough to disorder an enemy before contact. A "shock role" doesn't necessarily imply a suicidal head-on collision. Picking off vulnerable opponents before they rout, threatening flanks & opposing like-armed troops are the accepted tactics of cavalry through the ages.

Can I recommend Jorrit Kelder, "The Chariots of Ahhiyawa", which specifically discusses Mycenaean chariot warfare in light of the Hittite texts?

I will end by saying there is no definitive proof for any argument as to how Mycenaean chariots were used. I believe there is, at best, suggestive material but if you remain unconvinced, so be it.

I would classify them as 'heavy'. It is a game after all and since they have to have a classification, 'heavy' is the right one.

Although I do not believe in the 'jousting chariot' nor do I believe in the 'battle taxi' idea. Both ideas are misreadings of the historical record.

Frankly, the 'battle taxi' idea is one of the stupidest ideas ever developed by academia. Chariots were expensive as hell to produce, not to mention the training of the horses and warriors. You're telling me that the palace is going to employ dozens of chariot makers, dozens of wheel makers, dozens of stable hands, dozens of leather workers, dozens of horse trainers just so a few nobles can be driven to and from battle? What a ridiculous notion!

The 'jousting chariot' is another fallacy based on shoddy research. The 'jousting chariot' is based on one image from a krater and we're not exactly sure what it shows. Currently, most academics think that it shows the reins, not a lance. Did Mycenaean chariots have lances? Sure – but for defense, not offense.

Why would a palace invest a ton of money into chariots that could be picked off at an enemy's leisure? The compound bow has an effective range of between 100-200 yards. The lance? 100 inches?

Also, research conducted in the late 1980s showed that lances would be damn near impossible to wield over the heads of the horses. Horses have a tendency to shy away from shiny, pointy things.

The Dendra amour conundrum – the Dendra panoply comes from the late 15th century B.C. (I'm not including the 'E'). Was it a one off set? Don't know. Were there more sets? Don't know. It's possible there were more and there have been pieces of armour found that might have been. However, it might have been a one off set for a king/noble.

The Indictment of Maduwatta does support chariots as fighting vehicles but again, we don't know in what way. We know the Hittites, Egyptians and every other power in the MBA/LBA used them as missile platforms – that would mean the Mycenaeans are the ONLY ones who used them as 'jousting' vehicles, which makes less than no sense.

The IoM (don't feel like typing it again) only mentions 1 general from each side dying in battle. Does that mean that it was 'heroic' warfare? Or, were the deaths of the 'rabble' not considered important enough? We don't know.

Having said all that, I thrill at the sight of 'jousting chariots' and Dendra armed combatants on the table. It's a game and until we know more about warfare in the MBA/LBA – it's anyone's guess as to how these people fought.

@ Swampking. Wise words & I am in agreement with your post.

As for Dendra armour (or armour in general), there is considerable archaeological evidence including extensive finds at Thebes and other places.

More suggestive is Linear records. Over 100 tablets feature the explicit ideogram for a "cuirass" -which looks like a Dendra one. These from Knossos, Phaistos, Pylos and Tiryns so some strata of a Bronze Age Greek force would have been armoured warriors.

I was listening to Eric Cline on "The Ancients" yesterday doing some hobby work. He seemed to think that the Myceneaen chariots were used (based on Homer) as battle carts, with the soldiers hopping out to fight each other.
He wasn't 100%, I guess partly because he is a questioner of what exactly Homer was talking about.

Armoured warriors – definitely! Cuirasses – whether of bronze, leather or some kind of woven material are 1000% possible. Experimental archaeology has shown that the Dendra panoply could have been worn by infantry. My guess is that if it was worn by a large amount of men, it would have been worn by nobles/royalty.

My point was that it's hard to say to what extent the Dendra panoply was worn in the LBA, say, around the time of the Trojan War. Armour was definitely worn and remember, as you've correctly pointed out, "The Illiad" is mixture of oral traditions from the LBA, probably the MBA and the Iron Age.

I have a ton of Dendra dudes in my Trojan War project and a few 'jousting' chariots. Does that make it historic? Nope. It's a game and I like the look of the Dendra dudes and 'jousting' chariots.

Let's discuss these "jousting" chariots.

The concept is, as you write, rather ludicrous. But what if we think of heavy chariots as a battle platform for an elite spearman, rather than a medieval lance-delivery system?

That spearman could carry a thrusting spear and perhaps one or two javelins. The question isn't whether he could "joust", but whether the chariot could deliver him into close combat effectively.

Plausible?

@ Phillius – I wouldn't presume to contradict Eric Cline. However, many scholars have suggested that Homer's "battle taxis" represent a faded or imperfect memory of a Bronze Age weapon system that had disappeared some 300-400 years earlier. If that's correct, then the Iliad tells us more about how the poet understood chariots than how Mycenaeans actually used them.

Too bad Homer didn't have the needs of wargamers 300 years in the future when he wrote the Iliad.
Book 5 regarding Diomedes should be relevant. But he spent most of his time fighting Gods. Having Athena as your chariot driver ….

Having Athena as your charioteer would improve almost anyone's command rolls.

url=https://postimg.cc/VrvM37GB]

😱 3000 years…

Wonderful thing, research.

Historians identify 4 types of Mycenaean chariots. The first 3 are all boxy (with or without rear facing, semi-circular extensions) & heavy.

The fourth is the 'rail chariot':

"Rail-Chariot Design: A stripped-down, ultra-light version featuring an open-walled cab with no rear extensions.

Origin: Appeared later in the Late Bronze Age, around 1300–1400 BC.Function: Used mainly as a fast "battlefield taxi" to transport heavily armoured nobles.Legacy: Survived through the Greek Dark Ages and inspired the chariots described by Homer."

So everyone is a little right & a little wrong.