Re: War horses (was RE: How Mil Specs Live Forever)

[Aelfgar GreySeas <aelfgar@access.digex.net>]

Poster: Aelfgar GreySeas <aelfgar@access.digex.net>

Lord Liefer writes:
 
> Lord Aelfgar, there were a few thousand chariots, used on both sides, at 
> the battle of Khadesh c. 1500 BC.  I wouldn't be surprised if the users 
> didn't choose the ground for their battles rather carefully, but that 
> doesn't mean they weren't fighting from the things.
> 
> Now I know that a reading of the Illiad suggests that the Trojans and 
> Greeks would ride their chariots to the battlefield, where they would 
> dismount and fight as infantry.  That doesn't make the chariot a 
> non-combat vehicle.  After all, Harald Hardarian (sp) dismounted and 
> fought on foot at Stanford Bridge.  Does that mean that the Norman 
> knights did not fight from horse that same year at Hastings?
>

Allow me to expand a bit on my previous post. In describing the chariot
as a less than effective weapon system, I do not imply that it was not
used in ancient warfare. Allow me to quote from O'Connell's _Of Arms
and Men_, in a discussion of the Akkadian military:
   Also, it would be surprising if the Akkadian nobility did not ride
   into battle on chariots similar to the  four-wheeled, onager-drawn
   vehicles of the Sumerians. This was a weapon peculiarly suited to,
   even archtypical of, this kind of warfare. Most sources agree it 
   was essentially worthless as an instrument of destruction. Yet as
   an instrument of intimidation its impact was sufficient to win it
   a stable place in the Eurasion hero-oriented army until at least
   the time of Alexander.For the implied speed and power of this 
   multi-equine vehicle served as a reliable means of terrorizing
   the weakly motivated, fulfilling the traditional role of bluff in
   intraspecific combat. Meanwhile, it further reinforced the heroic
   warrior's image of himself as far more valuable in combat than
   lesser men.

I find this evaluation of the chariot as a visually intimidating, panic-
inducing but ultimately non-lethal system to be compelling. As I 
mentioned in my earlier post, as a weapons platform the chariot
leaves much to be desired. I confess I find myself unable to picture
any method by which chariots, even in considerable numbers, could be
effectively employed against steady, disciplined infantry with secure
flanks.

So, to sum up. I do not claim that the ancients did not use chariots in
battle, merely that their effect must of necessity have been primarily
psychological rather than physical, and that as armies became more
disciplined, the chariot quickly became ineffective. They remained
useful to leaders as a swift method of moving about on the battlefield,
and a great way to stay as visible as possible.

If any of these points remain unclear, let me know, and I will happily
pontificate further.

Your servant,

Aelfgar
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org