Chariots

[Malthus]

Malthus, I don't think the era we are dealing with is the what we might call the "Classical Bronze Age."  It's an era of stagnation, and ultimately of defeat at the hands of the Sea Peoples.  Hittite authority has declined markedly in the West.  Pyama-Radu ('Priam'), a dispossessed Hittite noble, took control over Troy and a good chunk of the west coast, a traditional area of Hittite influence. It's not the end, but you could see it from there.  I would not be surprised if warfare was already changing substantially-compare it with the decline of the Cataphracts in the West as the Barbarians started moving in.

It would make more sense to abandon chariotry altogether in an era of decline, than to retain it en mass but completely change how this weapon system was used.

The problem here is that Bronze Age chariot forces were not cheap. They were the Bronze Age equivalent of fighter jets - the sort of weapon system that only major powers could really wield, due to their cost and complexity, particularly in large numbers.

When you examine what happened to chariots in Greece and other places, what you see is that as they cease to be a viable weapon, they are used in a purely ceremonial manner. You see the same thing again and again with weapons - think of maces and swords used in a symbolic manner long after people have stopped relying on them to actually crack skulls in battle. That is because of the association of the (now obsolete) weapon with power and authority.

It is easy to imagine some dark ages chief having himself weeled about in his chariot in full armor to parade his wealth and status. Indeed, later Greeks and Romans did just that. No Roman Triumph was complete without a Roman general wheeled in front in a chariot.

Poets, familiar with this "transport" use, could very easily have assumed that the chariot forces of the Hittites and Mycenaens did much the same, only in battle.

[Queequeg]

Are there specific references to mass usage?

[crazy canuck]

Are there specific references to mass usage?

I doubt it, there just werent that many warriors to carry around.

[Iormlund]

Regarding heavy armor, there are two things that make me believe its use on foot was unlikely. First, it is depicted as used with two-handed spears instead of shields. Second, while it is true that hoplites used bronze cuirasses, those were lighter and more comfortable than heavy mycenean armor. And even then, Classical Age warriors preferred linothorax: it is one thing to carry armor around, it is entirely another to do so in Greece during the summer, at 35º C.

On the accuracy of the transmission of the poem itself, an interesting thing I've read is that many verses mismatch due to phonological changes ocurred between the War and Homer's time. If the aim of the poet was to simply tell a story, it would be logical to alter said verses that don't fit the metric anymore, but they were still there centuries later.

[Malthus]

Are there specific references to mass usage?

There are no references whatsoever to their use in any form in Mycenae, for the simple reason that the Mycenaen written language - Linear B - was more a system of accounting and short bueraucratic reports than it was a "living" language.

There are specific references to mass *storage* and *upkeep* of chariots in the scattered bits of Mycenaen archives that have survived.

In fact, Linear B - which was partly phonetic and partly ideographic, with ideograms used only for the most common language itesms  has no less than four ideograms that refer specifically to chariots, or parts of chariots:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_B

Chariots
U+100CC 240 Sc BIG
biga WHEELED CHARIOT
U+100CD 241 Sd Se CUR
currus WHEEL-LESS CHARIOT
U+100CE 242 Sf Sg CAPS
capsus CHARIOT FRAME
U+100CF 243 Sa So ROTA
rota WHEEL

This alone indicates that the chariot was a significant weapon system for the Mycenaens (you don't create an extensive, specialist nomiculture for a weapon system you don't actuall use).

In fact,  Linear B tablets from Mycenaean palaces record large inventories of chariots, sometimes with specific details as to how many chariots were assembled or not (i.e. stored in modular form). Again, while actual written evidence of use of chariots is lacking (again, Linear B was a writing system  used mostly for accounting purposes), having an *inventory* of large numbers of chariots, with details as to their "readiness" for battle, surely indicates that they were a significant weapons system - and not, say, simply for ceremonial use.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot

And for more information, check out this source:

"The End of the Bronze Age:
Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C.
Robert Drews"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=bFpK6aXEWN8C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=linear+b+chariot+inventory&source=bl&ots=YVl6hT287R&sig=LfPvxwaYU6oYve5yOAR5PGjjemQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lYSFT63OLYnkggeuq7H6Ag&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=linear%20b%20chariot%20inventory&f=false

See p. 119:

"How, then, were war chariots used in Late Bronze Age kingdoms of the Eastern Mediterranian? The answer will be no surprise: as mounted platforms for archers". 

His reasons? First, because the ubiquity of references to chariots in the Mycenaen archives makes nonsense of the notion that they were mere battle transport. Second, because what contemporary evidence exists of the use of the chariot among peoples with a more developed writing system demonstrates it was used this way, over a vast geographic arc stretching from Egypt to India.

[Razgovory]

I imagine there were more then four words describing the parts of military saddles and related horse furnishings in 1920's American military manuals despite being obsolete from a military perspective.  Nor does large numbers of said equipment indicate that it was used in a certain way.  The Saxons had lots of mounted warriors, they however they tended to fight dismounted.  This was not uncommon in dark age Europe.

[Malthus]

I imagine there were more then four words describing the parts of military saddles and related horse furnishings in 1920's American military manuals despite being obsolete from a military perspective.  Nor does large numbers of said equipment indicate that it was used in a certain way.  The Saxons had lots of mounted warriors, they however they tended to fight dismounted.  This was not uncommon in dark age Europe.

You are not getting the difference between "words" and "ideograms".

Think of it this way: it is as if English had special letters that only referred to tanks. There was A,B,C, D and "Tank".

Then assume that whole halls in the Pentagon were filled with records relating to these "Tanks".

Moreover, from contemporary Russia - whose records survived - we knew that "tanks" were used a certain way in battle.

Would it not then be reasonable to assume that "Tanks" were a significant weapons system, rather than (say) as ceremonial conveyances?

The example of the US military proves my point. I'm saying that Homer was reporting on chariots 400 years after they had, in fact, become obsolete. It is as if a modern-day person assumed that the only role "cavalry" played in battles in the past was in military parades, because that is how they are used *now*. Thus, in (say) Napoleonic battles, the cavalry was there only to take part in the expected victory parade. Absurd, no?

All of which is besides the point - as you can see from the sources above, the notion of chariots as "battle taxis" is one which scholars believed in the past, but which, with advances in archaology and decipherment of Linear B, has become more or less obsolete.

[11B4V]

Makes sense.

[The Minsky Moment]

This alone indicates that the chariot was a significant weapon system for the Mycenaens (you don't create an extensive, specialist nomiculture for a weapon system you don't actuall use).

The evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive.  The inventory could be consistent with the use of the chariot as a prestige commodity.  The Mycenean shaft graves are suggestive of a relatively wealthy society, and probably a stratified one in which there was significant production of luxury and prestige goods for elite consumption that otherwise had limited practical utility.  So it isn't inconceivable that they would have dedicated signficant resources to producing an item whose actual military usefulness was limited.

"See p. 119:

"How, then, were war chariots used in Late Bronze Age kingdoms of the Eastern Mediterranian? The answer will be no surprise: as mounted platforms for archers". 

His reasons?  . . . . Second, because what contemporary evidence exists of the use of the chariot among peoples with a more developed writing system demonstrates it was used this way, over a vast geographic arc stretching from Egypt to India. 

The evidence cited for this point is:
+ Egyptian reliefs of the Battle of Kadesh showing the Egyptian charioteers shooting arrows and Hittite charioteers using thrusting spears.
+ texts from the Kassite period in Babylonia that indicate that bows, arrows and swords were issued as standard equipment to charioteers.
+ Iconography showing archers in chariots from the Neo-Assyrian empire - i.e. well after the fall of Mycenae
+ Various New Kingdom Egyptian reports of captures bows and arrows from enemy chariots
+ Fittings on New Kingdom -era Egyptian chariots to carry arrows, quivers, etc.

The conclusion the author draws from this is eminently reasonable but not ironclad.  Clearly Egyptian chariots of the New Kingdom period were set up to carry archers, and this may also have been true elsewhere in the Middle East.  How exactly they were employed in battle cannot be established from the equipment. The "mobile archery platform" concept relies heavily on the Kadesh relief but that puts a lot of weight on assuming that ancient iconography is attempting to record accurately how the chariots were actually used, as opposed to some idealized representation.  The Kadesh reliefs also pose a second problem: they show that the Hittites did NOT use the chariots as mobile archery platforms but as proto-lancers.  Given the proximity of the Hittite empire to Mycenae, doesn't that raise the question of whether the Mycenaeans might have used the chariots in accordance with the Hittite pattern?

[Razgovory]

I imagine there were more then four words describing the parts of military saddles and related horse furnishings in 1920's American military manuals despite being obsolete from a military perspective.  Nor does large numbers of said equipment indicate that it was used in a certain way.  The Saxons had lots of mounted warriors, they however they tended to fight dismounted.  This was not uncommon in dark age Europe.

You are not getting the difference between "words" and "ideograms".

Think of it this way: it is as if English had special letters that only referred to tanks. There was A,B,C, D and "Tank".

Then assume that whole halls in the Pentagon were filled with records relating to these "Tanks".

Moreover, from contemporary Russia - whose records survived - we knew that "tanks" were used a certain way in battle.

Would it not then be reasonable to assume that "Tanks" were a significant weapons system, rather than (say) as ceremonial conveyances?

The example of the US military proves my point. I'm saying that Homer was reporting on chariots 400 years after they had, in fact, become obsolete. It is as if a modern-day person assumed that the only role "cavalry" played in battles in the past was in military parades, because that is how they are used *now*. Thus, in (say) Napoleonic battles, the cavalry was there only to take part in the expected victory parade. Absurd, no?

All of which is besides the point - as you can see from the sources above, the notion of chariots as "battle taxis" is one which scholars believed in the past, but which, with advances in archaology and decipherment of Linear B, has become more or less obsolete.

'

I know what an ideogram is.   You are missing the point.  What you posted are the components of a chariot.  So imagine instead of seperate letters that correspond to the parts of a tank.  You would have a lot of them.  Just as you would have separate ideas for the different parts of a saddle (or any other manufactured good.)  This is not indicative of their usefulness.  In the 1920's the US still had horse cavalry despite being obsolete.  Some people still envisioned a combat role for them.  Horses continued to be used by the Soviets in a combat role up until the 1950's I believe.  That doesn't mean that horse cavalry wasn't obsolete though.

I should point out that in your source the authors mention that their conclusions are somewhat unorthodox indicating that this theory isn't necessarily obsolete.

It's not unimaginable for someone to purchase or make military equipment for prestige rather then practical uses.  Think of an African warlord who purchases outdated tanks.  These tanks are no longer modern, and while he may use them in battle he doesn't use them the same way the US does.  For the most part they are prestige pieces, symbolic of his importance.

[Malthus]

The evidence is suggestive, but not conclusive.  The inventory could be consistent with the use of the chariot as a prestige commodity.  The Mycenean shaft graves are suggestive of a relatively wealthy society, and probably a stratified one in which there was significant production of luxury and prestige goods for elite consumption that otherwise had limited practical utility.  So it isn't inconceivable that they would have dedicated signficant resources to producing an item whose actual military usefulness was limited.

It is possible but highly unlikely. It is easy to imagine a ruler having a few "prestige" chariots for personal use, but it becomes less likely when, as alleged by the author cited, the *majority* of references to the armed forces of Mycenaen kingdoms refer to chariots, and the inventory lists chariots in large numbers. 

Such indulgence in luxury over military practicality would appear to be self-defeating. Chariots are everywhere an expensive thing to upkeep, requiring grooms, horses, etc. Having lots of them would have been very expensive and the more logical explaination is that they were useful, rather than ornamental.

The evidence cited for this point is:
+ Egyptian reliefs of the Battle of Kadesh showing the Egyptian charioteers shooting arrows and Hittite charioteers using thrusting spears.
+ texts from the Kassite period in Babylonia that indicate that bows, arrows and swords were issued as standard equipment to charioteers.
+ Iconography showing archers in chariots from the Neo-Assyrian empire - i.e. well after the fall of Mycenae
+ Various New Kingdom Egyptian reports of captures bows and arrows from enemy chariots
+ Fittings on New Kingdom -era Egyptian chariots to carry arrows, quivers, etc.

Do not forget as well the following:

+ Sanskrit writings clearly establish that Indian chariots were used as mobile archery platforms; and

+ It has recently been determined that in China as well, the chariot was used as a platform for archery.

This establishes a certain commonality of military use, strongly suggesting it was used similarly elsewhere wherte evidence lacks one way or the other.

The conclusion the author draws from this is eminently reasonable but not ironclad.  Clearly Egyptian chariots of the New Kingdom period were set up to carry archers, and this may also have been true elsewhere in the Middle East.  How exactly they were employed in battle cannot be established from the equipment. The "mobile archery platform" concept relies heavily on the Kadesh relief but that puts a lot of weight on assuming that ancient iconography is attempting to record accurately how the chariots were actually used, as opposed to some idealized representation.  The Kadesh reliefs also pose a second problem: they show that the Hittites did NOT use the chariots as mobile archery platforms but as proto-lancers.  Given the proximity of the Hittite empire to Mycenae, doesn't that raise the question of whether the Mycenaeans might have used the chariots in accordance with the Hittite pattern?

The author dismisses the idea that Hittites used chariots as proto-lancers based on the likely physical impossibility of using lances in this manner from a chariot, because the shock would toss the user out of the chariot. OTOH, he points out that, while using lances "at the charge" against each other is unlikely due to shock, they could well have been used to spear fleeing infantry - indeed, possibly as a secondary weapon system (use the bow to break up infantry formations, then spear them when they are fleeing). Jabbing spears into fleeing backs would not create as great a shock problem.

However this debate is decided, one thing is clear - in both cases, the chariot was used as a mobile weapons platform, not as a "taxi".

[Malthus]

I know what an ideogram is.   You are missing the point.  What you posted are the components of a chariot.  So imagine instead of seperate letters that correspond to the parts of a tank.  You would have a lot of them.  Just as you would have separate ideas for the different parts of a saddle (or any other manufactured good.)  This is not indicative of their usefulness.  In the 1920's the US still had horse cavalry despite being obsolete.  Some people still envisioned a combat role for them.  Horses continued to be used by the Soviets in a combat role up until the 1950's I believe.  That doesn't mean that horse cavalry wasn't obsolete though.

The issue is how the things were used when they were *not* obsolete.

Obviously, by the time Homer was writing, chariots were no longer actually used in battle much or at all.

I should point out that in your source the authors mention that their conclusions are somewhat unorthodox indicating that this theory isn't necessarily obsolete.

That's simply the author's way of saying 'people used to uncritically accept the Iliad'. Note that I've posted two seperate scholarly works making the same point. It appears to be the modern 'trend'. 

It's not unimaginable for someone to purchase or make military equipment for prestige rather then practical uses.  Think of an African warlord who purchases outdated tanks.  These tanks are no longer modern, and while he may use them in battle he doesn't use them the same way the US does.  For the most part they are prestige pieces, symbolic of his importance.

Again, I could accept a few chariots for prestige. It is much more difficult to accept whole armies of the things for prestige.

[HVC]

The author dismisses the idea that Hittites used chariots as proto-lancers based on the likely physical impossibility of using lances in this manner from a chariot, because the shock would toss the user out of the chariot. OTOH, he points out that, while using lances "at the charge" against each other is unlikely due to shock, they could well have been used to spear fleeing infantry - indeed, possibly as a secondary weapon system (use the bow to break up infantry formations, then spear them when they are fleeing). Jabbing spears into fleeing backs would not create as great a shock problem.

It has also been theorized that spears were used to keep infantry away from the chariot rather then using the spears agains other chariots. Chariots are bulky and hard to manuver. Not an ideal platform to attack other chariots or even infantry.

[Razgovory]

I know what an ideogram is.   You are missing the point.  What you posted are the components of a chariot.  So imagine instead of seperate letters that correspond to the parts of a tank.  You would have a lot of them.  Just as you would have separate ideas for the different parts of a saddle (or any other manufactured good.)  This is not indicative of their usefulness.  In the 1920's the US still had horse cavalry despite being obsolete.  Some people still envisioned a combat role for them.  Horses continued to be used by the Soviets in a combat role up until the 1950's I believe.  That doesn't mean that horse cavalry wasn't obsolete though.

The issue is how the things were used when they were *not* obsolete.

Obviously, by the time Homer was writing, chariots were no longer actually used in battle much or at all.

I should point out that in your source the authors mention that their conclusions are somewhat unorthodox indicating that this theory isn't necessarily obsolete.

That's simply the author's way of saying 'people used to uncritically accept the Iliad'. Note that I've posted two seperate scholarly works making the same point. It appears to be the modern 'trend'. 

It's not unimaginable for someone to purchase or make military equipment for prestige rather then practical uses.  Think of an African warlord who purchases outdated tanks.  These tanks are no longer modern, and while he may use them in battle he doesn't use them the same way the US does.  For the most part they are prestige pieces, symbolic of his importance.

Again, I could accept a few chariots for prestige. It is much more difficult to accept whole armies of the things for prestige.

Europeans had whole regiments of horsey soldiers through out the 19th century and into the early 20th.  These guys were armed with swords and lances.  Hell, some had armor.  This was long obsolete.  Just because a military doctrine or bit of equipment is in widespread use doesn't mean it's very good.  I think I pointed out before that many Saxon warrior  (and early Caroigian warriors) rode horses to battle, but actually fought on foot.  These are both major military expenditures, but of limited value.  They are for the most part prestige.  They do have some practical use of course, just as warrior riding a chariot.

[Razgovory]

The author dismisses the idea that Hittites used chariots as proto-lancers based on the likely physical impossibility of using lances in this manner from a chariot, because the shock would toss the user out of the chariot. OTOH, he points out that, while using lances "at the charge" against each other is unlikely due to shock, they could well have been used to spear fleeing infantry - indeed, possibly as a secondary weapon system (use the bow to break up infantry formations, then spear them when they are fleeing). Jabbing spears into fleeing backs would not create as great a shock problem.

It has also been theorized that spears were used to keep infantry away from the chariot rather then using the spears agains other chariots. Chariots are bulky and hard to manuver. Not an ideal platform to attack other chariots or even infantry.

I wonder if infantry would break up before the chariots actually hit.  Like they did with cavalry or other infantry charges.