Chariots

[crazy canuck]

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.

But ideal for transporting warriors in heavy armour. 

[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.

But ideal for transporting warriors in heavy armour. 

ideal yes, but if you're transporting you're by definition behind the lines. why have spears and bows at all?

[crazy canuck]

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.

But ideal for transporting warriors in heavy armour. 

deal yes, but if you're transporting you're by definition behind the lines. why have spears and bows at all?

Because you are droping off and picking up near the fighting.  There is no point if all you are doing is droping off behind the lines.

[HVC]

but you'd still be at the back of the lines. Or at least i'd assume. The bad maneuverability i mentioned would make it cumbersome to move through your own lines to drop off guys at the front, and then go back through the lines once more. Not saying it was never done, but to my eyes it seems odd. You'd also need basically one chariot for each warrior. That can tie into malthus' numbers, but for such a large investment it'd make more sense to have chariots as an active part of battle and have the heavy armor soldiers (who did not make up the bulk of the army) suit up near the battle site and keeping the lightly armored skirmishes nearby to keep attackers at bay while the heavy guys prepare.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Have your read about the work that Milman Parry did with Serbian oral poets? 

To argue the other side, Raz...have you read the studies done on oral poets in Central Africa or the Northwest Coast?  There, many thousands of details are passes with great accuracy about heritage, actions, and events.  The point I am making is that one oral tradition might well be story influenced (with changing details) or detail oriented (with long lists using mnemonics) - they are for different purposes.

Do not hit on one or the other as all inclusive of "oral tradition" as that category is quite broad.

No, who did these studies?  It would seem to me very hard to prove the accuracy of oral tradition with out a corresponding written records.  I should point out that Milman's work was explicitly European and was consistent with the way Homer is read.  That narrows it down quite a bit.

I would have to dig through old resources to find this.  My point was that oral traditions covers quite a bit of room.  I would be leery of drawing too close of parallels.

Heard that too.
Iirc several of these tribes had non-oral mnemotechnic tools though. I remember a number of tribes having what looked like a board with knobs on, which represented stuff depending on their position, number, colour(? stupib black-white pictures).
that said: it's not because certain african oral traditions are very accurate that those from Homeros' time were. Or maybe they were when they were dealing with lineages and all that but far less so when reciting poems.

[Malthus]

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.

Again, what you have there is an example of the military clinging to a weapon system after its time has past. That isn't what is being argued about here. What is being argued about here is how a weapon system was used when it was current.

Certainly, Euro armies had whole regiments of useless cavalry eventually. But cavalry was not always useless, right? There was a time when it fought exactly as advertised. Euros would not have *adopted* cavalry in the first place if it was *never* useful.

[crazy canuck]

but you'd still be at the back of the lines. Or at least i'd assume. The bad maneuverability i mentioned would make it cumbersome to move through your own lines to drop off guys at the front, and then go back through the lines once more. Not saying it was never done, but to my eyes it seems odd. You'd also need basically one chariot for each warrior. That can tie into malthus' numbers, but for such a large investment it'd make more sense to have chariots as an active part of battle and have the heavy armor soldiers (who did not make up the bulk of the army) suit up near the battle site and keeping the lightly armored skirmishes nearby to keep attackers at bay while the heavy guys prepare.

That goes back to the question of how many chariots we are talking about.  Were they numerous as Malthus suggests or were they more of a specialty item.  If it is the former then Malthus is probably correct that they were used in a number ways.  Mind you that still does not rule out the possibility that the Iliad was correct that some high status warriors used them to be transported directly to the front of the fighting and then picked up when they grew tired.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

Yeah that's the argument set forth in another chapter.  I do have the book so at some point I can look and see what the basis for that claim is.

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.

I saw that but didn't give it much weight because: (a) the Sanskrit reference is unsupported by a footnote, (b) it isn't clear from the notes what the evidence backing the China claim is, and (c) it's not so convincing to rely on evidence from such distant cultural spheres in any case.

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.

OK he would probably know better than me.  But that raises a serious problem because it would then mean the Kadesh frescoes are displaying Hittite use of the chariots in a grossly inaccurate manner, which then raises legitimate question about their accuracy with respect to the representations of how the Egyptian chariots are used.  And if those frescoes are not entirely reliable sources, that leaves the anachronistic neo-Assyrian iconography, and the equipment lists.

[HVC]

The frescos can be explained, I think, by looking at the prospective of the average Egyptian. They'd know how their chariots are used, but would only see enemy chariots up close when the main battle is over and the the Assyrians are sweeping up straglers with spears.


Or more then likely I'm talking out of my ass

[Malthus]

I saw that but didn't give it much weight because: (a) the Sanskrit reference is unsupported by a footnote, (b) it isn't clear from the notes what the evidence backing the China claim is, and (c) it's not so convincing to rely on evidence from such distant cultural spheres in any case.

As to the last point, I don't see why not: there is a theory extant that chariot-borne archery originated somewhere on the steppe borderlands and then radiated outwards in all directions, ending up in europe, china and india (I believe Keegan references this in his History of Warfare). If so, if it had a common origin, one would expect a common method of use, and evidence from India and China would be relevant.   

OK he would probably know better than me.  But that raises a serious problem because it would then mean the Kadesh frescoes are displaying Hittite use of the chariots in a grossly inaccurate manner, which then raises legitimate question about their accuracy with respect to the representations of how the Egyptian chariots are used.  And if those frescoes are not entirely reliable sources, that leaves the anachronistic neo-Assyrian iconography, and the equipment lists.

Not necessarily. One could, as stated, use spears to skewer infantry, rather than in chariot-to-chariot battles.

In addition, the Hittites appear in Egyptian and Anatolian art to be chariot archers, as well. See for example this fresco:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ramses_IIs_seger_%C3%B6ver_Chetafolket_och_stormningen_av_Dapur,_Nordisk_familjebok.png

As can be seen, the Pharoh is shown in typical pose, and the guys being filled with arrows (the Hittite enemy) are also chariot-archers. There is a good example right in front of the pharoh's horses' feet.

This image from the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations appears to show Hittite Charioteers as archers:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/becklectic/84984812/

another:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fotogezi/3124102819/?q=hittite charioteers

more:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ancientanatolia.com/Pictures/Images01/PICT0039.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ancientanatolia.com/Pictures/Gallery01/image37.htm&usg=__c6kihW7B6dn7vj-xzB2pdoWFjxk=&h=480&w=640&sz=48&hl=en&start=13&sig2=_GmxC_CLdNolxvTFkAfrQg&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=tM30eR91FEVKhM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhittite%2Bchariot%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=jAD4S9znCYLaMeHUpZwF

Now admittedly I do not know the dates of some of these, but the first one is an Egyptian fresco depicting the siege of Dapur and is thus contemporary with the battle of Kadesh.

I am not seeing any lack of evidence that these peoples used chariots as archery platforms ...

[Razgovory]

I don't think those are frescos.   More like reliefs.

[Malthus]

I don't think those are frescos.   More like reliefs.

The first one is a fresco ...

[The Minsky Moment]

As to the last point, I don't see why not: there is a theory extant that chariot-borne archery originated somewhere on the steppe borderlands and then radiated outwards in all directions, ending up in europe, china and india (I believe Keegan references this in his History of Warfare). If so, if it had a common origin, one would expect a common method of use, and evidence from India and China would be relevant.   

That is using the existence of a theory as evidence of a fact to support another theory.  There are a lot of contestable presuppositions that have to made, including that chariot use in warfare originated and had a common origin in the steppes, that the steppe peoples used chariots primarily as mobile archery platforms, and that as chariot use spread to completely different cultures and geographies, the method of use stayed substantially the same.

The last two assumptions are particularly problematic.  There is very little tangible evidence about how the ancient proto-Indo European steppe peoples used chariots in warfare, and IIRC from the book Queequeg cited (which I read) the theory was that they actually did use them more like "battle taxis" to carry out lightning raids by carrying raiders to the target site.   Assumption 3 also is not very convincing as technology can be employed in very different ways in different milieus.

Not necessarily. One could, as stated, use spears to skewer infantry, rather than in chariot-to-chariot battles.

Still wouldn't be archery platforms.

Now admittedly I do not know the dates of some of these, but the first one is an Egyptian fresco depicting the siege of Dapur and is thus contemporary with the battle of Kadesh.

I am not seeing any lack of evidence that these peoples used chariots as archery platforms ...

In the Dapur one - there does appear to be at least one enemy chariot with a bow in there; whether that is supposed to represent Hittites or some subject or allied state I don't know.  There are another two turned over enemy chariots and I don't see the bows.  They do have containers which could be quivers, or alternatively a place to put extra spears.

I can do the image search as well and see many of the hits do show "Hittite" archers on chariots but some do not.

The bigger issue is how reliable is that even where contemporary, how reliable is the iconographic representation in terms of representing actual use in battle?  It's not unreasonable to make that inference, but IMO there is really no way to be sure.

[Razgovory]

I don't think those are frescos.   More like reliefs.

The first one is a fresco ...

You sure about that?  I think it's a reconstruction of a damaged relief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ramesseum_siege_of_Dapur.jpg

[Malthus]

That is using the existence of a theory as evidence of a fact to support another theory.  There are a lot of contestable presuppositions that have to made, including that chariot use in warfare originated and had a common origin in the steppes, that the steppe peoples used chariots primarily as mobile archery platforms, and that as chariot use spread to completely different cultures and geographies, the method of use stayed substantially the same.

No, it is merely noting that a set of facts (common usage over a very wide geographic area) supports two theories (1: common origin; 2: that in areas where direct evidence is not available, similar useage is a reasonable supposition).

The last two assumptions are particularly problematic.  There is very little tangible evidence about how the ancient proto-Indo European steppe peoples used chariots in warfare, and IIRC from the book Queequeg cited (which I read) the theory was that they actually did use them more like "battle taxis" to carry out lightning raids by carrying raiders to the target site.   Assumption 3 also is not very convincing as technology can be employed in very different ways in different milieus.

Technology could, but in this case there is lots of evidence it was not - namely, depictions in art from widely seperated times and places.

Still wouldn't be archery platforms.

They could be - the two weapons are not exclusive. Moreover, the debate is about use as "battle taxis" versus use as weapons in and of themselves.

In the Dapur one - there does appear to be at least one enemy chariot with a bow in there; whether that is supposed to represent Hittites or some subject or allied state I don't know.  There are another two turned over enemy chariots and I don't see the bows.  They do have containers which could be quivers, or alternatively a place to put extra spears.

I can do the image search as well and see many of the hits do show "Hittite" archers on chariots but some do not.

The bigger issue is how reliable is that even where contemporary, how reliable is the iconographic representation in terms of representing actual use in battle?  It's not unreasonable to make that inference, but IMO there is really no way to be sure.

It is a question of the accumulation of evidence. What we have is multiple depictions of the use of chariotry as archery platforms from various places (earlier in the thread I posted some that were contemporary with Mycenae - though Cretian) - from Anatolian *as well* as Egyptian sources.

What makes more sense - that the chariot was used as an archery platform, or that *all* of these various sources are mistaken? And why would they all depict chariot archery if it *didn't* happen?

At some point, the weight of the evidence tips the scales. Sure, one could imagine some scenario in which all of these multiple sources were mistaken, but with each additional source that becomes increasingly unlikely.

Yes, we cannot be absolutely certain, but we can be pretty sure. If one had to give odds, I'd put my money on it ...