Chariots vs Cavalry

[NapoleonComple]

Obviously, cavalry ultimately replaced chariots as a battlefield weapon, but there must have been incidents of clashes between them. The Seleucids and Galatians fielded scythed chariots on the battlefield, and I believe there were a few instances in history where chariots and cavalry were running around on the battlefield at the same time (outside of almost anachronistic mismatches like the Romans and Picts at Mons Graupius).

Can anyone remember notable clashes between chariots and cavalry on the field?

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Battle of Gaugamela,

Scythed Chariots were isolated by infantry merely clearing a path for them and isolated them while hyapists and secondary troops eliminated them.

Meanwhile, Alexander and the Companion cavalry had a pretty good day at the office.

 

[Geriander]

The Battle of Magnesia saw the left Seleucid flank collapse to Roman allied cavalry after the Seleucid scythed chariots were routed and drove into their own allies.

 

[AjayAlcos]

Well, the reason they used chariots in pre-antiquity (the Bronze Age in particular) was due to equine species not having evolved the necessary spine and back musculature to be able to sustainably carry a human being - let alone one clad with weapons and armour. Hence the spurring the development of wagons/chariots to make use of the mobility of those animals whilst providing a mobile platform for their users.

As for clashes between mounted cavalry versus chariot forces, I believe China under the Zhou & the Qin used chariots quite frequently when battling the primarily horseback riding nomadic peoples to the north (I believe most probably due to not having a suitable equine breed capable of carrying riders on horseback). By the Han Dynasty, those chariots would be replaced by horseback cavalry as it was during that period that the Chinese were able to acquire studs capable of breeding equines that could carry men and material on their backs. The "War of the Heavenly Horses" which was fought between the Han and the Greco-Bactrians during the reign of the Emperor Wu, for example, being one of the means by which the Han were able to acquire those horses.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The "War of the Heavenly Horses" which was fought between the Han and the Greco-Bactrians during the reign of the Emperor Wu, for example, being one of the means by which the Han were able to acquire those horses.

Wow, didn't know there really were transcontinental wars waged for horses. Thank you for that link, that was an interesting read.

"My kingdom for a horse!" comes to mind.

 

[AjayAlcos]

Wow, didn't know there really were transcontinental wars waged for horses. Thank you for that link, that was an interesting read.

"My kingdom for a horse!" comes to mind.

You're welcome ma dude

But yeah, it would make for a rather Shakespearean "My Little Pony" episode

 

[demanvanwezel]

Well, the reason they used chariots in pre-antiquity (the Bronze Age in particular) was due to equine species not having evolved the necessary spine and back musculature to be able to sustainably carry a human being - let alone one clad with weapons and armour. Hence the spurring the development of wagons/chariots to make use of the mobility of those animals whilst providing a mobile platform for their users.

As for clashes between mounted cavalry versus chariot forces, I believe China under the Zhou & the Qin used chariots quite frequently when battling the primarily horseback riding nomadic peoples to the north (I believe most probably due to not having a suitable equine breed capable of carrying riders on horseback). By the Han Dynasty, those chariots would be replaced by horseback cavalry as it was during that period that the Chinese were able to acquire studs capable of breeding equines that could carry men and material on their backs. The "War of the Heavenly Horses" which was fought between the Han and the Greco-Bactrians during the reign of the Emperor Wu, for example, being one of the means by which the Han were able to acquire those horses.

I've seen a video about that war

apparantly the first expedition failed due to insufficient supplies in the dessert, the chinese responded by sending even more men on the second

which sounds counterproductive but apparantly having a ton more men gives you the means to extort the locals for enough supplies so apparantly there's a sweet spot between too few and too much men to send

 

[AjayAlcos]

I've seen a video about that war

apparantly the first expedition failed due to insufficient supplies in the dessert, the chinese responded by sending even more men on the second

which sounds counterproductive but apparantly having a ton more men gives you the means to extort the locals for enough supplies so apparantly there's a sweet spot between too few and too much men to send

I'm intrigued. Was it a documentary? I wanna watch it

 

[demanvanwezel]

I'm intrigued. Was it a documentary? I wanna watch it

 

[AjayAlcos]

Cheers!

 

[Kovax]

There were also numerous wars in the Middle East, such as between Assyria and its neighbors, where the Assyrians (and others in the region) were converting their mobile forces from chariots to cavalry, sometimes fielding both. From what I've gathered in reading over the years, even after horses capable of supporting a human rider were bred, the riding and control techniques took time to develop. Steppe tribes learned to control their horses with leg movements, and the horses learned to interpret their riders' movements over the course of a lifetime. That close association with a horse almost from birth wasn't done to nearly the same degree in the more settled cultures, who had to develop their own methods. Early on, horses and riders may often have been fielded in pairs, so one rider could take the reins of both horses while the other rider used both hands to fire arrows or fight. Eventually, the saddle horn allowed one to tie off the reins and briefly use both hands, eliminating the need for a second horse and rider. It took a few more centuries for the non-nomadic cultures to develop cavalry to its full potential.

 

[Henry IX]

Well, the reason they used chariots in pre-antiquity (the Bronze Age in particular) was due to equine species not having evolved the necessary spine and back musculature to be able to sustainably carry a human being - let alone one clad with weapons and armour. Hence the spurring the development of wagons/chariots to make use of the mobility of those animals whilst providing a mobile platform for their users.

My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected here, was that the problem with riding horses was not that the horses lacked the musculature for riding, but rather that riding a horse is a non-trivial development. Horses that are not trained to carry riders tend to do things like buck then stamp on their would-be rider. Technology like saddles that make riding much easier can't really be developed until you are already riding horses. In other words, to develop horseback riding you have to do it the hard way first - someone has to get on the back of horse, with no saddle, stirrup or bridle, then stay on there long enough that this starts to seem like a good idea.

To actually ride a horse, particularly in a battle, not only do you need some essential technologies like saddles, but you also need to train the horse to follow the riders commands, not startle or panic and even to ride towards a bunch of stimuli a horse will naturally run away from. After this you need to train a rider to fight from horseback, which is a massive time commitment from both horse and rider. Given that horses are expensive things in agricultural societies, you effectively need a class of people who do nothing productive other than train to fight on horseback. There are good reasons why societies continued to use chariots a long time after horseback riding was discovered.

Certainly, wild horse breeds such as Przewalski's horse can be ridden after training.

 

[AjayAlcos]

My understanding, and I am happy to be corrected here, was that the problem with riding horses was not that the horses lacked the musculature for riding, but rather that riding a horse is a non-trivial development. Horses that are not trained to carry riders tend to do things like buck then stamp on their would-be rider. Technology like saddles that make riding much easier can't really be developed until you are already riding horses. In other words, to develop horseback riding you have to do it the hard way first - someone has to get on the back of horse, with no saddle, stirrup or bridle, then stay on there long enough that this starts to seem like a good idea.

Indeed.

The Numidian horsemen are probably the most famous example of what you've described, considering that they rode their steeds into battle using only a rope sans any bridles or saddles (despite the former having been developed almost as soon as the animal was first domesticated years earlier in other places I should add); the rider controlling the animal mostly by use of its legs. I should specify that horses were indeed ridden in prehistory, as depicted in cave paintings such as the ones in the Doushe Cave in Lorestan, Iran.

Just to add my 2 cents. Another limiting factor for early horses was carrying weight. The saddle for example wasn't just developed to provide ease for the rider in riding the horse, but to also give better weight distribution of both the saddle and rider upon the horse's back - namely by spreading weight more to its flanks so as to ease pressure on the horse's backbone (and the rider's groin...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)...) - thus reducing the likelihood of the horse developing back disorders such as "kissing spine" (of which I cannot remember the scientific name for, so my pardon in advance ) which ultimately reduces the effectiveness and longevity (in terms of usability) of a horse. Even so, though they may better distribute weight over the horses back, saddles are still extra weight being topped on the horses back (especially with padding added) and when compounded with the extra weight of the rider and any personal equipment they would be carrying - horses capable of carrying that added weight needed to be bred whilst also either retaining or improving upon their erstwhile mobility.

A contemporary analogue would be to compare car development with horse breeding. Cars require stronger suspensions with which to carry more weight, as well as a good engine, transmission and tyres to maintain speed and mobility in conjunction. Horses on other-hand require a stronger back anatomy for the same purpose of carrying more weight, and a well developed muscle structure and limbs (especially those short & slim leg bones as found in thoroughbreds) to maintain good speed and mobility as well. This is especially true as mounted warriors began to deploy heavier suits of armour, thus necessitating newer breeds of horses capable of carrying the ever increasing weight of the rider whilst providing the level of mobility needed for use to be effective both during tactical engagements (i.e. battle) as well as over prolonged campaigns. In essence, breeding ideal horses are usually a compromise of different breeds fit to a specific purpose whose pedigree must continually be refined - and it is a process that is older than history.

To actually ride a horse, particularly in a battle, not only do you need some essential technologies like saddles, but you also need to train the horse to follow the riders commands, not startle or panic and even to ride towards a bunch of stimuli a horse will naturally run away from. After this you need to train a rider to fight from horseback, which is a massive time commitment from both horse and rider.

Heck, I would even deign to say that training horses for chariot warfare was a sophisticated process in its own right. The Kikkuli Text of 1345 BCE was basically a rather detailed manual of how horse trainers should best condition their horses for chariot warfare over several months - other details such as educating the horse in its proper function still being anyone's guess.

Given that horses are expensive things in agricultural societies, you effectively need a class of people who do nothing productive other than train to fight on horseback. There are good reasons why societies continued to use chariots a long time after horseback riding was discovered.

Certainly, wild horse breeds such as Przewalski's horse can be ridden after training.

They've never been tamed or ridden, successfully that is, to my knowledge. The horse is wild by nature not feral, despite once being descended from domesticated stock a long, long time ago according to its DNA (see article). Feral breeds such as Brumbies and Mustangs can be domesticated and trained for human use with some ease. Training Przewalskii horses is... Problematic. Not only are they biologically different compared to regular domestic horses (66 chromosomes instead of 64) but like zebras; they are too aggressive with spines too short to carry an adult human as healthily and comfortably as already domesticated breeds.

 

[Achul]

learned something new here, thanks

 

[Henry IX]

Training Przewalskii horses is... Problematic. Not only are they biologically different compared to regular domestic horses (66 chromosomes instead of 64) but like zebras; they are too aggressive with spines too short to carry an adult human as healthily and comfortably as already domesticated breeds.

Very much so. Can and should being very different things. None the less, some people will do these things (kind of like climbing mountains I guess...).

 

[demanvanwezel]

zebras have been ridden as shown in this image that's often rubbed under jared diamond (of guns, germs and steel)'s nose

of course this ignores that the argument was about systematic domestication and not about singular cases

 

[AjayAlcos]

zebras have been ridden as shown in this image that's often rubbed under jared diamond (of guns, germs and steel)'s nose

of course this ignores that the argument was about systematic domestication and not about singular cases

Ideally when it comes to taming wild animals such as zebras, wolves, lions or orangutans and so-on - it is best to start when they are newborn or if they are still infants, which is generally when their psyche is still rather malleable. That said, it is still a rather delicate process and can endanger or harm both the trainer and the animal if not careful; especially if it is a type of animal that is skittish, nervous, uncalm and otherwise unsuited to enclosed pens (which is usually a prerequisite for domestication). Asian Elephants for example can be tamed unlike their African cousins yet the are only partially domesticable as their mating habits cannot be behaviourally modified (well not yet that is...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)...). So we're probably still not going to see any commercially viable "elephant stud farms" in the near future .

Domesticated horses those creatures are usually at the mercy of selective breeding, whereas wild and feral horses tend to "coalesce" in either harems or bachelor herds. As a rule, and depending on an species psychology, it is perfectly possible to tame wild animals like wolves, zebras and elephants to be able to tolerate people, human handling and human environs. However to successfully and fully domesticate such creatures, one would have to turn a naturally wild, skittish creature such as a Zebra into one that is naturally calm and docile which is a process that takes centuries to do (same as with early cats, dogs & horses) - and longer still if one seeks to add or refine certain traits into a breed such as better endurance, stamina, fur colour, intelligence, thicker skeleton & musculature and so-on.

 

[demanvanwezel]

Ideally when it comes to taming wild animals such as zebras, wolves, lions or orangutans and so-on - it is best to start when they are newborn or if they are still infants, which is generally when their psyche is still rather malleable. That said, it is still a rather delicate process and can endanger or harm both the trainer and the animal if not careful; especially if it is a type of animal that is skittish, nervous, uncalm and otherwise unsuited to enclosed pens (which is usually a prerequisite for domestication). Asian Elephants for example can be tamed unlike their African cousins yet the are only partially domesticable as their mating habits cannot be behaviourally modified (well not yet that is...( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)...). So we're probably still not going to see any commercially viable "elephant stud farms" in the near future .

Domesticated horses those creatures are usually at the mercy of selective breeding, whereas wild and feral horses tend to "coalesce" in either harems or bachelor herds. As a rule, and depending on an species psychology, it is perfectly possible to tame wild animals like wolves, zebras and elephants to be able to tolerate people, human handling and human environs. However to successfully and fully domesticate such creatures, one would have to turn a naturally wild, skittish creature such as a Zebra into one that is naturally calm and docile which is a process that takes centuries to do (same as with early cats, dogs & horses) - and longer still if one seeks to add or refine certain traits into a breed such as better endurance, stamina, fur colour, intelligence, thicker skeleton & musculature and so-on.

I've heard that the problem with domesticating elephants is that they tick the behavioral boxes of other domesticable animals except it takes a long time for them to grow to maturity and they have few children, so you can't really select which traits you want unless you make it a multi-generational effort, compare this to pigs or dogs where you can make a completely new breed over a human lifetime

 

[Kovax]

I've heard that the problem with domesticating elephants is that they tick the behavioral boxes of other domesticable animals except it takes a long time for them to grow to maturity and they have few children, so you can't really select which traits you want unless you make it a multi-generational effort, compare this to pigs or dogs where you can make a completely new breed over a human lifetime

The other problem with tame elephants is that they're big enough to kill you by accident if they give you a loving "brush" with their flank, and you happen to be pinned against a wall or other object by it. African plains elephants become much more aggressive upon maturity, particularly the males, and are nearly impossible to handle. Indian elephants are far more docile, but can still kill you if you're not extremely careful. The African forest elephant was somewhere in the middle, aggressive enough for warfare but docile enough to control, and was extensively sought out and used to extinction by the post-Alexandrian armies in the past.

 

[demanvanwezel]

The other problem with tame elephants is that they're big enough to kill you by accident if they give you a loving "brush" with their flank, and you happen to be pinned against a wall or other object by it. African plains elephants become much more aggressive upon maturity, particularly the males, and are nearly impossible to handle. Indian elephants are far more docile, but can still kill you if you're not extremely careful. The African forest elephant was somewhere in the middle, aggressive enough for warfare but docile enough to control, and was extensively sought out and used to extinction by the post-Alexandrian armies in the past.

to be fair, the same is true of pigs, cattle and horses, the accidently killing part at least, although elephants have it worse

the becoming agressive part is exactly one of the parts that you need to get rid of for domesticating (that's the difference between domesticating and taming, a domesticated animal is ready to put to human use, a tamed animal needs to readied for human use)