Chariot archers of Nectanebo II

[Geriander]

*Xenophon already describes this happening in Anabasis, which is their first well attested usage.

Those chariots were already ”reft of their charioteers” when dodged so it wasn’t an aimed attack but just panicked horses.

. Some say they clashed their shields and spears, thereby causing terror to the horses[4] ; and before they had got within arrowshot the barbarians swerved and took to flight. And now the Hellenes gave chase with might and main, checked only by shouts to one another not to race, but to keep their ranks. The enemy's chariots, reft of their charioteers, swept onwards, some through the enemy themselves, others past the Hellenes. They, as they saw them coming, opened a gap and let them pass. One fellow, like some dumbfoundered mortal on a racecourse, was caught by the heels, but even he, they said, received no hurt, nor indeed, with the single exception of some one on the left wing who was said to have been wounded by an arrow, did any Hellene in this battle suffer a single hurt.

 

[The-Doc]

What was the main battlefield use of chariots anyway? Just guessing but I'd think it would be primarily to disrupt enemy formations while dropping off passengers into a melee. Do we have any good historical descriptions of how they were actually employed?

 

[Fishman786]

What was the main battlefield use of chariots anyway? Just guessing but I'd think it would be primarily to disrupt enemy formations while dropping off passengers into a melee. Do we have any good historical descriptions of how they were actually employed?

I can't seem to find consistent information about them online. From what I read it appears that they were mainly missile platforms at first, and then the Assyrians adapted them as shock cavalry by making them larger and heavier. Also, Homer describes both chariots being used for dropping off warriors to fight in melee and also apparently duels between charioteers.

The explanations for the "chariots vs spears" problem I have been looking up seem to be along the lines of "spears don't actually stop cavalry very well at all, and usually infantry formations will break in anticipation of a direct cavalry impact given that at least the front row of the infantry will be killed instantly." If infantry formations didn't rout and actually held together, cavalrymen would often break off their attack themselves instead of crashing into the front, but if they did crash into a firm infantry unit the results could be very bloody for both sides. So if you had a swarm of heavy war chariots with scythes on their axes barrelling at full speed towards pikemen I doubt the pikes could do much good at stopping them. Even if you stick your pike right into one of the horses the wrecked chariot is still going to smash into you and kill you.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

If infantry formations didn't rout and actually held together, cavalrymen would often break off their attack themselves instead of crashing into the front

That's often enough not a decision for the drivers/riders to make, since horses don't want to run into mass of men. Which is why dodging them by creating alleys between files worked, as the mounts took the path of least resistance.

I'd agree that spears are somewhat overrated as anti-cavalry weapons. Any armed body of disciplined men will do.

 

[Sanny]

What was the main battlefield use of chariots anyway? Just guessing but I'd think it would be primarily to disrupt enemy formations while dropping off passengers into a melee. Do we have any good historical descriptions of how they were actually employed?

The very first battlefield chariots were war carts used by the Babylonians, it was used to ferry generals around the battlefield (ancient battles could take place across a few miles of land). Often an archer and/or spearman would travel with the general as a bodyguard on the warcart. So that's where the idea for war chariots came from.

 

[Narwhal]

The Pontics used chariots in the First Mithridatic War. They were in particular destroyed without Roman damage in the Battle of Chaeronea (86 BC). Mithridate decided to phase them out from then on.

The details of the battles are not very well-known, but in the earlier wars of Mithridate (against Cappadocia and Bithynia to take the largest ones), it is probably that they were used as well - with some success - given Mithridates was quick to change tactic or strategy when something did not work out.

Also keep in mind that the Pontics destroyed a significant Roman force in Greece before Sulla even landed (the Aquillian legion at the Mount Scorobas). The Romans don't like to give details on their defeats, so there is no account of it to my knowledge. Maybe chariots worked well against a poorly lead army ?

 

[Narwhal]

Further to this, Wikipedia description of the Battle of the River Amnias (sorry for wikipedia ) :

"The turning point of the battle occurred when the Scythed chariots led by Archelaus dived into Nicomedes army. According to Appian, the chariots caused wounds of such a hideous nature that they caused fear and confusion among Nicomede’s troops, "...cutting some of them in two, and tearing others to pieces." So horrified was the army at the spectacle of men being cut in half while still breathing or their mangled bodies hanging in parts on the scythes that, "overcome rather by the hideousness of the spectacle than by the loss of the fight, fear took possession of their ranks"."[3] This gave Neoptolemus time to regroup and attack what was now the rear of Nicomedes' army. Even though Archelaus and Neoptolemus now had the clear advantage, the battle did not end until Neoptolemus had lost most of entire army."

 

[Geriander]

(sorry for wikipedia ) :

In this case it seems to be a pretty good summary of what Appian wrote:

Then they were put in separate divisions and sent into camp, Cassius on the boundary of Bithynia and Galatia, Maniusnote on Mithridates' line of march to Bithynia, and Oppius,note the third general, among the mountains of Cappadocia. Each of these had about 40,000 men, horse and foot together. They had also a fleet under command of Minucius Rufus and Gaius Popillius at Byzantium, guarding the mouth of the Euxine. Nicomedes was present with 50,000 foot and 6,000 horse under his command. Such was the total strength of the forces brought together.

Mithridates had in his own army 250,000 foot and 40,000 horse, 300 ships with decks, 100 with two banks of oars each, and other apparatus in proportion. He had for generals Neoptolemus and Archelaus, two brothers. The king took charge of the greater number in person. Of the allied forces Arcathias, the son of Mithridates, led 10,000 horse from Armenia Minor, and Doryalus commanded the phalanx. Craterus had charge of 130 war chariots. So great were the preparations on either side when the Romans and Mithridates first came in conflict with each other, about the 173d Olympiad.

[18] When Nicomedes and the generals of Mithridates came in sight of each other in a wide plain bordered by the river Amnias, they drew up their forces for battle. Nicomedes had his entire army in hand; Neoptolemus and Archelaus had only their light infantry and the cavalry of Arcathias and a few chariots; for the phalanx had not yet come up.

They sent forward a small force to seize a rocky hill in the plain lest they should be surrounded by the Bithynians, who were much more numerous. When Neoptolemus saw his men driven from the hill he was still more in fear of being surrounded. He advanced with haste to their assistance, at the same time calling on Arcathias for help.

When Nicomedes perceived the movement, he sought to meet it by a similar one. Thereupon a severe and bloody struggle ensued. Nicomedes prevailed and put the Mithridateans to flight until Archelaus, advancing from the right flank, fell upon the pursuers, who were compelled to turn their attention to him. He yielded little by little in order that the forces of Neoptolemus might have a chance to rally. When he judged that they had done so sufficiently, he advanced again. At the same time the scythe-bearing chariots made a charge on the Bithynians, cutting some of them in two, and tearing others to pieces.

The army of Nicomedes was terrified at seeing men cut in halves and still breathing, or mangled in fragments and their parts hanging on the scythes. Overcome rather by the hideousness of the spectacle than by loss of the fight, fear took possession of their ranks. While they were thus thrown into confusion, Archelaus attacked them in front, and Neoptolemus and Arcathias, who had turned about, assailed them in the rear.

They fought a long time facing both ways. After the greater part of his men had fallen, Nicomedes fled with the remainder into Paphlagonia, although the Mithridatean phalanx had not come into the engagement at all. His camp was captured, together with a large sum of money and many prisoners. All these Mithridates treated kindly and sent to their homes with supplies for the journey, thus gaining a reputation for clemency among his enemies.

http://www.livius.org/sources/conte...idatic-wars/appian-the-mithridatic-wars-4/#18

Here is also Appians description of how the Romans dealt with the chariots at Chaeronea:

Archelaus did not dream of coming to an engagement at that time, for which reason he had been careless in choosing the place for his camp. Now that the Romans were advancing he perceived sorrowfully and too late the badness of his position, and he sent forward a detachment of horse to prevent the movement. The detachment was put to flight and shattered among the rocks. He next charged with sixty chariots, hoping to sever and break in pieces the formation of the legions by the shock. The Romans opened their ranks and the chariots were carried through by their own momentum to the rear, and before they could turn back they were surrounded and destroyed by the javelins of the rear guard.

http://www.livius.org/sources/conte...idatic-wars/appian-the-mithridatic-wars-9/#42

 

[Kovax]

There has been speculation that chariots were primarily archery and javelin platforms, but that once an army broke and ran, they proved useful at running down the stragglers. Several accounts of ancient battles between Assyria and various opponents such as Damascus mention clashes between the opposing chariot formations, independent of the foot troop actions, so that provides some evidence that they weren't used primarily as anti-infantry shock weapons at that point. Eventually, as horse breeding developed larger and stronger animals, and riders developed techniques and equipment to control the horse while fighting, cavalry proved superior to chariots for several reasons (costs of manufacture and upkeep being a major consideration), and eventually replaced them in almost every army.

Later Homeric accounts of chariot use refer to them being used as personal transports for leaders and champions, whom he points out no longer used them in the manner of their forefathers. That "manner of their forefathers" was never explained.