Help support TMP


"Can Chariot Wars be gamed historically?" Topic


Field of Glory

49 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not post offers to buy and sell on the main forum.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Field of Glory Rules Board


Areas of Interest

Ancients
Medieval

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

Portable Wargame: Ancients


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Gladiators & Centaurs

Blue Table Painting paints some of the latest releases from Bronze Age Miniatures.


Featured Profile Article


Featured Book Review


1,382 hits since 30 Dec 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP05 Nov 2016 7:03 a.m. PST

This begs the question that any period can be gamed "historically" but putting that aside, I would like some insights into chariot warfare from the membership.

I should say that I use Field of Glory as my rule set & it provides an excellent game. But does it bear any passing resemblance to fact?.

recently, I've been on a reading binge on the Late Bronze Age period. Spalinger's book on the Egyptian Army, Cline on the end of the period & Drews book on Bronze Age warfare.

It *seems* that battles were conducted with relatively few troops, were few & far between & essentially chariot affairs, if you lean towards Drews.

Indeed, the impression is of highly stylised warfare. Chariots seem to be almost more prestige items than weapons of war. And the vaunted Sea Peoples' invasions a mere mercenaries' revolt!!

So what *did* chariot warfare look like & can you game it?

Toronto4805 Nov 2016 7:13 a.m. PST

Our club recently ran a Trojan War campaign using a variation of Saga that is available on line It was fun and we enjoyed ourselves We had included some special characteristics for each individual warlord Battles were quick and nasty

Random Die Roll Supporting Member of TMP05 Nov 2016 8:12 a.m. PST

Seems that there are many opinions out there as to how a chariot would be used. Some lean toward a platform for archers, others lean toward troop transport.

One thing that everyone agrees on is that the cost and length of time invested in construction means that they were highly valued prizes of war.

One way to game chariots would be advanced troop placement or an extended move range for a certain number of troops based on the number of chariots in play.

Oh Bugger05 Nov 2016 8:20 a.m. PST

Drews sees chariot warfare as fast moving missile platforms shooting up each other and then the winner doing the same to the loser's stationary foot. Subsequently he thinks well protected fast moving sword and javelin men overthrew the chariots.

If you buy that model most rule sets can accommodate it.

I don't think anyone would have gone to the expense of chariotry(technology,training,horses)just for prestige.

Drews's whole point is that chariots were hugely effective until something else came along. I'm not seeing the highly stylised thing either-a range of tactics were available and as ever employed as needed.

Winston Smith05 Nov 2016 8:26 a.m. PST

What I got from Drews was that infantry automatically ran away from chariots. Until they stopped running away. Then things changed.

I have always been amused by how some rules treat the Assyrian and other "heavy" chariots.
Earlier "light" chariots had a driver and an archer. Heavy chariots added two warriors that are sometimes given a javelin bonus. But look at them. All they are really doing is shielding the driver and archer. They really shouldn't be considering fighting crew at all. They're simply the evolution of an extravagance.
Which is more efficient and cost effective? A 4 horse chariot carrying a driver, archer and two shield bearers, or 4 cavalrymen?

Chariots still look neater on the tabletop than cavalry, though. grin

mwindsorfw05 Nov 2016 8:34 a.m. PST

It may depend on the era. Homer treats a chariot as a taxi or ambulance. Later, chariots seem to be used as cavalry.

rmaker05 Nov 2016 8:56 a.m. PST

We don't really know enough detail to game this period "historically". All the authors are reading far more into the sparse sources and what may or may not be contemporary art work than is realistically there.

Hafen von Schlockenberg05 Nov 2016 9:33 a.m. PST

Drews points out that characters in the Iliad recognized that they didn't understand how chariots were used in their "forefathers" time,meaning they didn't know in Homer's time. Chariots were long gone by then,of course.

They did have knowledge of their existence. I guess it comes down to trying fit them into a "historical novel" about an age of heroes. A prestige vehicle must have been reserved for the nobility. Hence you get the "battle taxis" for the few,rather than the masses of them we now know to have been used (I'm talking about Mycenaean Greece,here--Egypt and Near East is another matter).

Edit: Perhaps I should clarify,before someone comes on to tell me about Roman triumphs or something, that by "long gone",I mean chariots as an arm(not to insult such an erudite group as TMPers! Still,you never know).

Interesting PBS program,for anyone who hasn't seen it:

youtu.be/4-kKQe7YKjk

Yesthatphil05 Nov 2016 12:52 p.m. PST

I agree that we need to know quite a lot more – but it is easy to exagerate our lack of knowledge: mainstream hack authors indeed know very little about this period (although it doesn't stop them writing books) but I attended a very interesting talk at the Society of Ancients Conference the other week by Ian Lowell on the Hittite horse training manuals …

Of course, most people don't imagine we even have training manuals for Hittite chariot horses – but we know, day-by-day, how the were trained to charge, turn, sprint, what the charge distances were etc. etc. so this gives us a pretty good idea how they were expecting to fight.

So, in short, no I don't think there are rules bearing this sort of thing out. I did a certain amount of 'consulting'(input) with a well-established rules 'brand' … safe to say that they wanted a good toy game system for players to be able to use their existing chariot models without rebasing – in a way that gave a balanced game that didn't confound the players' expectations.

That is … they didn't really want a historical game if it meant rethinking anything.

Phil

Oh Bugger05 Nov 2016 3:44 p.m. PST

It would be great to know what you suggested Phil. Drews gives us interesting extracts from the Hittite Training manuals but it sounds as though you have done some thinking on what that might mean for real combat situations.

Gonsalvo06 Nov 2016 6:21 a.m. PST

@ Hafen

That is indeed a great program, although in usual TV style it repeats its points again and again. If you haven't seen it and have any interest at all in chariots, it is very well worth watching the entire thing!

Peter

The Last Conformist06 Nov 2016 12:08 p.m. PST

What you'll have to do is to decide which model of chariot warfare you accept*, and then to try and find or make a rulesset that conforms to it.

* Or models – it's of course not necessarily the case that Near Eastern ones opperated the same way as Chinese or Indian ones.

elsyrsyn06 Nov 2016 9:01 p.m. PST

I rather like the way Trojan war era chariot battles are portrayed in the Shipway Agamemnon books. I've no idea how historically accurate it is, and of course that's only one era, but it seems plausible to me.

Doug

Dexter Ward07 Nov 2016 3:15 a.m. PST

Historically, very small numbers of chariots seem to have been able to intimidate or overcome lots of infantry.
For instance there are letters from Byblos to Egypt at the start of the Sea People's invasion asking for 6 chariots.
If 6 chariots would make a big difference, that tells you how powerful they were.
I guess it must have been a morale thing; maybe that changed when better infantry came along.
There was a partial set by Ian Russell Lowell in Slingshot called 'Rein Bow Warriors' (see what he did there), which had some innovative and interesting mechanisms, but as far as I know the final bit of the rules was never published.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2016 1:05 p.m. PST

Interesting point. The Hyksos, a smallish group, seemed to be able to overawe Middle Kingdom Egypt by virtue of a relatively small number of chariots.

The interesting thing here is that Ahmose & crew seem to have utilised a riverine naval force at least as much as chariots to beat them. (acc. to Spalinger)

Seems odd that the prestigious "marines" of the early NK become mere cheerleaders to the chariot force of Drewes' theory…..

Dexter Ward08 Nov 2016 3:11 a.m. PST

I'm far from convinced by Drews' theory about sword armed infantry beaing the cause of the Bronze Age collapse.
I suspect climatic change and consequent famine caused by the eruption of Thera is enough to explain the widespread social collapse. Most of these societies had 'god kings' whose authority would have been severely eroded by repeated famines; it was his job to ensure good harvests.
No need to look for military explanations.

Oh Bugger08 Nov 2016 3:48 a.m. PST

I find Drews very interesting, its a splendid trilogy, but while I'm willing to buy into his overview some of his specifics here and there are open to debate.

His revolutionary infantry aren't just sword armed, they are well protected and carry good shields-nullifying the composite bow archery that Drews sees as essential to the dominance of chariotry.

Also they are expert javelin throwers thus they kill horses and drivers at a distance. There are also lots of them, many more than the charioteers and they are swift moving. Expert swordsmen they tend to prevail at close quarters against dismounted and outnumbered charioteers and less martial, trained and equipped mass levies.

I think that's a reasonable proposition. He does spend some time in a convincing way disposing of the natural disaster alternative explanations to military intrusion. The surviving records are talking about invaders rather than famine and the new ruling class with their foreign military words came from somewhere.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP08 Nov 2016 5:02 a.m. PST

@ Dexter

Yes. Some of Drews understanding of military matters seems shaky, too.

His use of "skirmisher" for what I'd simply call an infantryman is annoying. As to why bows, especially composite ones, are not as effective as javelins seems unlikely. The whole hypothesis falls apart if bow-armed infantry, such as the Egyptians had in abundance, are considered to be less efficient at killing chariot horses than javelins.

I also find it unlikely that although masses of Sea Peoples, from around the "barbarous" periphery of the arc of civilisation aren't allowed to migrate, the Libyan king can send out recruiting parties to places as far away as Sardinia & northern Greece to seek mercenaries in considerable numbers.

Spalinger's book on the Egyptian army uses much evidence that Drews ignores. What price the kopesh, just dismissed as an inefficient "agricultural implement" by Drews?

YouTube link

You know Drews" knowledge of military matters is flawed when he comes up with the "By Jingo" point that because you can't sheath a kopesh, it's a completely ineffective weapon!!

Oh Bugger08 Nov 2016 5:14 a.m. PST

"As to why bows, especially composite ones, are not as effective as javelins seems unlikely."

That really is not what he says. You need to read him again.

"The whole hypothesis falls apart if bow-armed infantry, such as the Egyptians had in abundance, are considered to be less efficient at killing chariot horses than javelins."

Again you have misread him. The charioteers have composite bows that out range the infantry self bows. The infantry are destroyed at a distance by chariots safely out of range.

The Sea peoples etc are seen as actively closing the range by attacking the chariots.

I'm not sure where you are getting the anti migration idea from either Drews is very big on migration.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP08 Nov 2016 6:02 a.m. PST

To be honest, I've gone through Drews' work several times & although I would not dismiss him out of hand there is a lot of special pleading, conscious iconoclasm & I think poor understanding of military matters.

"The infantry are destroyed at a distance by chariots safely out of range." Yes, Drews says this. I think this is a classic example where Drews shows a lack of military knowledge. As with the mounted arm in any epoch, it is the moral power of the chariot over its infantry opponents that give it teeth. Not casualties inflicted by arrows but fear would have been the decisive "weapon" of the chariot.
Have you read Cotterell?
link


The use of composite bows was not confined to the infantry. Have you read Spalinger? Very recommended. Lots of evidence to suggest Egyptian infantry, amongst others, carried composite bows.
link

Drews makes a big deal of archaeology finding lots of javelin heads in the Near East. Such a simple weapon was not the "secret weapon" that miraculously challenged the status quo but appears to be a weapon that appears in archaeology from the beginning. I can't accept the sudden realisation that such an age old weapon could be suddenly utilised not just for hunting but on the battlefield by only a narrow range of people. What I can believe is the growing emphasis on chariot warfare was checked towards the end of the period but the beginning of the disappearance of the light chariot has as much to do with a weakening/disappearance of powerful kings with the wherewithal to fund this arm as the Rise of the Runner (another term Drews seems to imbue with his own understanding).

Drews make the Sea Peoples either locals: the Philistines for example or mercenaries from "Barbary" ( a word he uses frequently & rather inexactly).

I don't feel I've misread him at all. I think there is much in this link that shows a better appreciation of military technology allied to archaeological finds than is to be found in Drews:

link

I also feel we are getting to the point where you accept Drews & I prefer to believe his views are a bit extreme in places & not always vindicated by the record or by logic so we may have to agree to disagree.

Oh Bugger08 Nov 2016 7:19 a.m. PST

No I've not read those but I did click the links. I have thoroughly read Drews though so I know what he thought at the time of writing.

I don't buy the "moral power" of the chariot at all. Chariot technology, horses, technicians, warriors and even a new vocabulary were imported by all major powers. Very expensive stuff to which you can add the cost of composite bows another major expense. Why would they bother if they already had an answer to the threat posed by chariotry?

Effective archery at a greater range would have been a huge military asset-it is one of the things Heather notes about the Huns. I don't think its evidence of Drews' military unworldly-ness.

Drews does not say the javelin was a secret weapon-it is clearly not- he notes a combination of equipment and tactics and morale were able to challenge the domination of the chariot.

Drews noting the Philistines came from Palestine does not stop him locating the point of origin of other invaders as much further afield. He favours migration as the reason for the upheaval.

You should not assume I entirely accept Drews just because I'm pointing out his actual views.

colin knight08 Nov 2016 9:17 a.m. PST

I am happy mainly to use chariots like cavalry. Evidence of how they were used is scant. They did seem to be formal in the fact that battles were fought in many cases, on suitable ground for chariots.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP08 Nov 2016 1:13 p.m. PST

I am happy mainly to use chariots like cavalry. Evidence of how they were used is scant. They did seem to be formal in the fact that battles were fought in many cases, on suitable ground for chariots.

Back to the question! (thanks Colin).

So rather than another tortuous discussion on sources, can we ascertain the military use of chariots?

Cavalry-like? Weapons platforms? Moral destroyers? I believe the 'Chariots as Panzers" viewpoint has disappeared?

Oh Bugger08 Nov 2016 3:30 p.m. PST

Ahem.. as I noted above.

Drews sees chariot warfare as fast moving missile platforms shooting up each other and then the winner doing the same to the loser's stationary foot.

Much later Caesar describes British chariots as having the speed of cavalry, throwing javelins, but when dismounted having the steadyness of foot. So missile platform and swift battle taxi combined.

How did Bronze age Greek chariots fight-we are not sure.

Why did the Hittites up crew? Maybe to get the edge on opposing chariots through increased protection via the shield bearer.

colin knight09 Nov 2016 9:20 a.m. PST

I view the Egyprians like e.g, Mongol horse archers with great mobility and rapid bow fire. This must have been deadly to lighter armoured infantry.
I imagine the Hittites 3 man types delivering rapid numbers of troops to the flanks or troubled area of battle with perhaps a function like British chariots.
Assyrian 4 horse I see as cataphracts in their final form at the time of Ashurbanipal.
Chariots on the flanks must have been very frightening for levy types on more open terrain.
On the gaming front I find that the larger bases and movement/wheel in many rules do not give them the manouverability of cavalry. This slows them down a blocks them up sometimes. This takes away from their sweeping action that made them so deadly on the battlefield.
I feel for that reason chariot v chariot best (in period battles). My planned Chariot Rampant battles with 2 or 3 chariots per unit should allow a more fluid movement I hope.

Olivero09 Nov 2016 11:58 a.m. PST

I have my "own" theory – like to hear your thoughts.

If Hittite chariots were indeed heavier than Egyptian ones, with two armed soldiers (instead of just one) I imagine the Hittites used their chariots in a flexible way. Foot-Soldiers used to be either armed with spear/shield OR bow. So if the chariots encounter a body of enemy troops with spear/shield, they shoot them. If they encounter a body of troops armed with bows, they charge (that's why the Hitties did not need to value their infantry that much, I believe). Now the Egyptians had better infantry, so they came up with a plan to use their own Chariots differently – primarily against other heavier and slower chariots. So the faster Egyptian chariots take out the slower Hittite chariots (with clever bow fire) and then the Egyptian infantry beat up enemy infantry unmolested by enemy chariots.

Whatcha think?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP09 Nov 2016 11:31 p.m. PST

@ Olivero

No firm evidence, of course but I'd give you a "plausible".

The Cotterell book (cited above) talks a lot about the heavier Chinese & Indian chariots on which there is so much more information than the Bronze Age Near East.

Spear armed chariots, after provoking a morale collapse could chase down & skewer infantrymen much like cavalry did later. So, yes, definitely plausible.

Oh Bugger10 Nov 2016 5:37 p.m. PST

Can you tell us how they provoked a "morale collapse"? Is it a tactical method or something else, how did it work in practice?

Marcus Brutus11 Nov 2016 3:42 p.m. PST

I suppose the same way that cavalry provoked a morale collapse in infantry in other periods. As John Beeler in his book Warfare in Feudal Europe notes, well trained, experienced infantry will always defeat cavalry one on one. Yet we know that cavalry won many times in their encounter with infantry. How do we account for this? Simply that in the chaos of battle units sometimes lose their nerve. Mounted units can always ride away but foot soldiers are not so lucky.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP11 Nov 2016 8:50 p.m. PST

@ Marcus Brutus

I support your reply. Mounted units have had both actual & psychological advantages over foot soldiers through the centuries.

I thought this article on modern police on horseback was useful:

link

Not much specifically said about this re: chariots…..then again we don't have very much on chariots at all. I think I'll stick to my reply to Olivero: "Plausible"

I'm really thinking that wargames' rules might benefit from a mechanism to allow a chance of infantry morale problems in the face of chariotry?

Oh Bugger12 Nov 2016 3:33 a.m. PST

Much of this seems to me to be about how we envisage chariots working. Leaving aside scythed chariots designed for a one off impact just how does a chariot charge work?

If the opposing infantry break then dispersed groups of men are vulnerable in much the way Caesar talks about. But he implies that up close fighting was done by dismounted charioteers iirc.

What does the Chinese evidence tell us?

Dexter Ward14 Nov 2016 3:54 a.m. PST

No direct Chinese evidence as far as I know.
Their chariots were mostly the heavier 4 horse style with 3 or 4 crew, more like the later Assyrian chariots, which appear to have been used as 'shock' troops.
Caesar is the only eye witness evidence we have – and celtic chariots certainly operated very differently from near eastern ones. They were more in the 'battle taxi' mode of the Trojan War than the missile platforms of the near east.
The light Egyptian or Mitanni chariots certainly were not designed for close combat; so I guess they were used the same way Parthian horse archers worked, Ride by at high speed and close range shooting; arrows from composite bows with go through most armour at these ranges.
The third crewman in Hittite chariots may have been there to help out in the event of the chariot being disabled, or to intervene against enemy disabled chariots.
The 'shock' effect of 4 horse chariots is not a charge which actually makes contact; it's a morale thing as poorly trained infantry see masses of their social superiors thundering towards them.
I recall reading that during the filming of Waterloo in 1970, they used the Russian army to depict the masses of infantry (none of this rubbish CGI modern directors use).
When charged by cavalry, even though they knew the cavalry were not going to actually start hacking away at them, they still fled.
That shows how frightening a mass mounted charge can be.

Oh Bugger14 Nov 2016 6:49 a.m. PST

Interesting comments Dexter though I think the Celtic chariot was both missile platform (javelins) and battle taxi according to JC and later Irish accounts.

I can understand poorly motivated levies choosing not to take on high status warriors. But if they held presumably their social superiors, if they lacked missilery, would need to dismount to attack them so bringing to bear their better arms, equipment and training.

Mycenean chariots are a puzzle. Drews thinks they were bow armed but the evidence is quite slender. He considers them 'jousting' with long spears and dismisses it as unlikely. I suppose they might have operated like the Celtic ones but who knows.

Dexter Ward15 Nov 2016 3:24 a.m. PST

If you want to know about Mycenean chariots, the book you want is "Wheeled vehicles and ridden animals in the ancient near east" M. A. Littauer and J. H. Crouwel, and their newer collection of articles "Selected writings on chariots and other early vehicles, riding and harness"
(and Mary Littauer has written loads of good stuff on ancient horsemanship).

This book has many pictures of chariots, including lots of Aegean chariots jousting with spears. The authors state early on (with no evidence) that you can't joust with spears from a chariot, so then every time such a picture comes up, they say "since we know you can't joust from a chariot, this must show something else".
Yeah. right.
Anyway, still a very good book with probably everything you need to know about chariot constructions.

Oh Bugger15 Nov 2016 4:33 a.m. PST

Thanks Dexter.

Yeah the jousting thing… is odd. Drews takes the same view. Quite how we know its impossible eludes me. No one seems to have tried a recreation.

Its not clear either if jousting is being used as a technical term or just as a descriptive one.

Dexter Ward15 Nov 2016 8:24 a.m. PST

It's clear that chariots didn't charge with couched lances like knights – that would just eject you rapidly from the back of the chariot.
The jousting seems to be taking place between stationary or slow moving vehicles, which seems perfectly feasible; why else would they have such long spears? No need unless you are intending to fight from the chariot rather than on foot.

Dervel Fezian15 Nov 2016 10:13 a.m. PST

The new game Triumph!:

wgcwar.com

Models chariots as two different styles.

Chariots = archery platforms
Battle Taxis = warrior transports

In addition is has several low quality troop types representing the masses of rabble and poor quality missile armed troops that would fill out the numbers for some of the chariot era armies.

It has a low level of complexity, but I have found the Chariot era battles to be very enjoyable.

Oh Bugger15 Nov 2016 1:36 p.m. PST

Yeah I see that Dexter. I do wonder if it was practical to release the long spear if it found a target thus avoiding recoil. Also just how long to you estimate the spears were?

That's a sound approach Dervel it would be interesting to hear how Sherden got on in a game of Triumph.

Dervel Fezian15 Nov 2016 2:05 p.m. PST

Check out Meshwesh through the Triumph site… the army lists are all online. Sea People tend to be mostly Raiders I think. Heavily armed armed but loser formations. I think Sherden can also be rated as raider or warrior. Much heavier hitting than the levy and rabble. Also, higher point cost.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP17 Nov 2016 2:56 a.m. PST

It's clear that chariots didn't charge with couched lances like knights – that would just eject you rapidly from the back of the chariot.
The jousting seems to be taking place between stationary or slow moving vehicles, which seems perfectly feasible; why else would they have such long spears? No need unless you are intending to fight from the chariot rather than on foot.

This seems eminently sensible to me. Add in the Dendra armour- clearly for chariot warriors- to the equation.

Why sport such armour to merely deflect arrows? It seems that it protects the wearer from spear thrusts so I think that the concept of "heavy" chariots engaging in close combat to be quite sound.

Dervel Fezian18 Nov 2016 9:33 a.m. PST

Still seems like the concept of a "Battle Taxi" would apply….

If you ride up and then slow down or stop, then poke at each other while either still mounted or just stepping off the back of the chariot for a moment.

You are really talking about mobile foot warriors and not a mounted charge.

Oh Bugger18 Nov 2016 1:26 p.m. PST

That's the crux of it.

Either we are talking about melee only armed chariots that can concentrate fearsome warriors at speed against a weaker foot foe or we are talking about melee chariots that can defeat their opposite numbers and then consequently create havoc.

I see no problem with high mobility fencing with long spears. Perhaps we have had our attention wrongly fixed on "jousting" with all its problems. Are we just looking at the wrong thing?

Dervel Fezian18 Nov 2016 3:00 p.m. PST

By the way Oh Bleeped text… I am working on the Essex order for some Sea Peoples :)

I have the Egyptians for Triumph, so we shall see how that fight goes soon I hope.

Oh Bugger18 Nov 2016 4:29 p.m. PST

I'll be interested to see how you get on so please do post something.

Dervel Fezian18 Nov 2016 4:41 p.m. PST

Not sure what was changed and bleeped?

I will post them with pics of the Egyptians.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP19 Nov 2016 2:37 a.m. PST

BTW there's a fairly comprehensive chapter on Kikkuli's manual – extensive quotes & all – in Cotterell's book (cited above).

This thread got me to pull it out & re-read it. It is an excellent read.

warhorse19 Nov 2016 9:32 a.m. PST

Hmmmm, if charging with a couched lance wouldn't eject you off a horse, I don't see why charging with a couched lance necessarily ejects you off a chariot? Alexander's Companions: lance-equipped shock cavalry, minus the stirrups.

Ever watched gymkhana? Skilled riders can do amazing things with lances, and stay mounted. I would be very careful if a chariot was coming at me, and a lance was aimed at my chest. A lance thrust at just the right time would ruin my day. The speed and momentum of the driver provides impetus to smash through armour. The fear factor of a few thousand such vehicles barrelling down on a line of infantry… likely decisive at the right moment.

The thing about the chariot is, as a footman, I have a hard time opposing him, don't I? Absent missiles, I can only hope the chariot slows sufficiently for me to attack the crew, and drag them out. A team of horses is hard to stop at the best of times. I can't see them bogging down unless a wheel locks up, or the horses themselves are disabled. Then, if I am trying to hurt the horses on one chariot, his buddies in the other chariot are driving by at speed, thrusting a lance in my back…

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP19 Nov 2016 3:05 p.m. PST

The Cotterell book also lists the weaponry for a NKE chariot warrior. Apart from the obvious bow, it also says a javelin. Now the difference between a javelin & a light spear is pretty esoteric so I'd be OK with Egyptian chariots having the option to fight hand to hand.

I think it a mistake to imagine ancient chariots to be overly fragile instruments.

This show (you've probably seen it) was a real eye-opener:

YouTube link

Oh Bugger19 Nov 2016 5:30 p.m. PST

I don't think Alexander's companions couched their lances in high medieval style but the general point is well made.

Chariots are light, flexible and strong, perhaps that's enough to absorb shock.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.