...do those qualify as armoury?

From about 2000 - 500 BC they were THE weapon of war so they do have a point in their favour ;)

In the battle of Quadesh some 7000, zeven THOUSAND, of them were employed.

I have two questions.
1. is there an expert on chariots on MA?
2. who knows any sources for info on the Hittites and Mitanni?

Thanks,

Peter

I don't think anyone here would consider themselves "experts" about anything. We are but enthusiastic students :)

If you are interested in war chariots then get ahold of anything written by Mary Littauer and Joust Crouwell.

One of the best books on the subject is "Chariot" by Arthur Cotterell.

For info regarding their use in the Bronze Age then Robert Drews has summarised a lot of the research in his book "The End of the Bronze Age"

If you have any specific questions, I could endeavour to answer a few of them.

FWIW battle chariots evolve during the time in question. During the Middle Bronze age the chariot is a light archery platform and is used as such by virtually every major power on the planet from China through the Middle East and Egypt to the Mykenaians in the Aegean. By the end of the bronze age chariots had evolved from archery platforms to the "battle taxi" described by Homer and as platforms for javelineers. During the Iron Age the chariot archer begins to move onto horseback to become a horse archer. The chariot then evolves into the heavier vehicle used for "shock" tactics. It becomes obsolete when heavy cavalry (Macedonians, Thessalians, etc) begin to perform the same function.

In 'Archaeology of Weapons' Oakeshott suggests that the critical element in the change from chariot to cavalry was an increase in the size of horses. Chariot using societies had smaller horses that could only be effectively used for chariot warfare and not for cavalry.

I forget the origin of the larger horses though.

Peter-
The evidence for horse riding prior to horse driving is debatable. And there is no evidence for military use of horses prior to war chariots.

To: Peter Bosman

Your previous messages have alluded to a number of pieces of evidence which I do not know about, and which you do not clearly explain or cite. Please elaborate on precisely what was found about the following, who found them, and what they are supposed to prove:

1) Horses in NW Africa. I assume this means modern Morocco and maybe Algeria. To the best of my knowledge, this was not a major site of horse breeding, nor did mounted (or chariot borne) armies arise out of these lands and overrun the Mediterranean basin. As far as I know, horse breeding and domestication are thought to have arisen further east - modern Central Asia, Iran, perhaps northern Iraq or eastern Turkey.

2) "The problem with that is that riding may predate the chariot by 10 or even 15 thousand years." Riding presupposes domestication. I assume that you know of positive evidence that horse domestication predates the first cities of Sumer? Speculation about the lack of negative evidence would not be approrpriate to support a positive assertion.

3) The first depictions of men riding in war vehicles drawn by animals (i.e. chariot like machines) are from Sumerian times; and the animals are clearly not horses. If horse domestication and riding predates the Standard of Ur by millenia, please explain why asses are pulling these proto-chariots? These finds are, I believe, fairly well dated.

4) "No I do not believe the mounted bowman replaced the chariot. It simply became obsolete by the development of warfare." Explain, please. A useful weapon becomes obsolete because a better one replaces it - flintlock muzzle-loading muskets were replaced by breech loading rifles. A useful weapon doesn't simply disappear, as long as it is useful. In the Middle Eastern lands where the chariot was used, horse archers continued to be used into early modern times; and mounted riflement were used thereafter, followed by motorized firing platforms.

Buenas Felix,

The study of mitochondrial DNA has prooved that domestication of the horse was not a one-time affair with spreading of the jorse afterwards but rather the spread of knowledge adn domestication of local species-subspecies.
Also indications are that it took place WELL , as in many millenniea, before the first chariot burial.
The horse-breed that is local to NW-Africa is genetically identical to that from the iberian peninsula and endemic to these regions and not related to the eastern or northern strains.
THE problem with this is the question HOW this horse got to NW-Africa. It seems likely it was brought there by celt-iberians, implying the hores was already quite well domesticated and mounted.

I have mentioned VARIOUS findings that can be considered proof, would be considered proof if the chariot-burial and asian mounted-nomad theory were not firmly established.

The thing with history like with evolution is that it developments are NOT lineair nor sequential in time. Things are both forgotten and invented independly.
Although mainstream thinking is still leaning to 4000-5000 BC for the start of horse domestication including mounting, the view is broadening increasingly.
There ARE several artefacts that both predate and are well outside the accepted model. I alreay mentioned the Lourdes carving and cave art in Spain.

It MAY be that the horse was first domesticated in Asia and it MAY be that man started with inventing a metal bit etc. This is becoming increasingly doubtfull and new developments like the DNA-research are opening very interesting new perspectives. It could very well be that domestication first took place in SW-Europe (iberian-peninsula, southern France) and that knowledge spread EASTWARDS. This is no longer an impossibillity and in line with the likely age structure of gene-clusters.
It may however be more likely that the process started in the wake of the use as foodsource in several regions independantly and that the spark of mounting spread from SOMEWHERE.

The fact that chariot were established in the east may be explained by the the terrain.
Sociological reasons for driving rather than riding may just as well work the other way. In SW-Europa, NW-Africa driving never was a big thing whereas riding was fit for kings and reserved for nobility.
It surpises me that if ONE horse is found in Egypt that is proof for local development of the chariot but that a single artefact found near Lourdes is not accepted because of socalled lack of context. To me this is searching for evidence to match a theory and not basing a theory on the base of all availeable evidence.

My point to the lack of solid proof for riding is simply that there only CAN be circumstantial proof and circumstantial proof there is. One does not NEED a metal bit nor a harness or saddle to mount a horse so it seems rather logical to me that those are not found nor will they be if, as seems logical, these were invented specifically for driving as you DO need them for driving...

To conclude this discussion about a ongoing reseach I want to comment that for ME, and obviously AT PRESENT, the findings of discs that are explained as for headcollars are a solid a proof for riding as one will ever find untill a piece of art is found in an indisputable early context.
For ME the whole case about domestication and riding is open and not concluded in any direction although I am inclined to consider the prevailing model to be unlikely.

Peter

I am still a bit puzzled by the ascendancy and decline of war chariots.


They appeared in the Bronze age in Egypt, Greece, Northern India and almost every place between those points. But what kind of an advantage does a mobile archer platform such as the chariot give over more traditional infantry armies? What did the infantry armies they opposed look like? Were they spear and shield armed soldiers with archers or slingers fighting in a formation or loose bands of warriors, large armies or really tribal warbands?

Surely the chariot would have allowed humans to travel faster than ever before but they cannot scale ladders, climb up steep slopes or fight in forests. Was this the reason for their use being centered in the middle east?

Back to the pitched battle against infantry: How would chariots defeat infantry, did the speed of the chariot impart additional velocity/range unto the arrow shot from it? Could infantry not hit the chariot with it's own archers or did their shields fail to stop the arrows? Did chariots execute charge like movements to break up the formation while shooting at them from close range?


Excuse me for asking so many questions in so few lines but perhaps it enables someone to use those questions as a guideline to explaining the rise of chariots.

As for their decline.

I've heard people say it was due to smaller horses present then being unsuited for cavalry, cavalry equipment finally allowing it to overtake chariots and cultural changes.

But people have been using relatively small horses as cavalry for a really long period of time, have they not?

People such as the Numidians (and possible ancient germans) rode without saddle yet this does not seem to hamper their combat ability. I do not know much about Alexander the great but didn't his Companion cavalry ride without saddle and stirrups, using only a saddle cloth. Of course all of these soldiers were around long after chariots had kicked the bucket.

So, cultural changes then? Did people get sick of the bumpy ride? Were infantry armies competitive enough? Did iron tipped spears and arrows suddenly render the mobile archers platform useless?

This is covered in detail in my book
http://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Bronze-Age-Mil...ent/p/3272

It can't really be satisfactorily explained here but it had nothing to do with stirrups nor the size of the horse.

It is very clear that horse archers replaced chariot archers. We even have evidence of an evolutionary development in between where the chariot has gone but the driver (now sitting directly on the horse) still controls two horses while the rider on the other horse shoots arrows.

Here is one illustration showing how the Assyrians used one man to control both horses while the second rider shot a bow. It dates to the 9th century - exactly when one would expect to see a transition from chariot archers to horse archers.
[ Linked Image ]

This sketch might be easier to see
[ Linked Image ]

Chariots were still used for hunting during the same period. This also dates to the 9th century.
[ Linked Image ]

But, in warfare during this time, chariots were used more by javelin wielders and skirmshers.