No, I’m certainly not talking about an historical Nestor. But even in your account, Nestor is not fighting from his chariot, he’s riding it to the battle. I’m fairly sure Nestor’s kill count in the entire Illiad is a goose egg. He’s an old man, whose advice is markedly outdated by recommending bold chariot manuevers.
In the battle in Book 8 which you refer to, Diomedes does do a hell of a lot of fighting from a chariot and kills the odd Trojan prince or two, but generally, we see chariots as a conveyance to battle and a place to throw a spear from (usually to kill the charioteer of some other hero) before dropping down and fighting from the ground.
I’ve certainly read enough accounts of scythed chariots to believe they existed, but I have great difficulty in understanding how they were supposed to work, particularly in charging down at a line of infantry, as in this account:
The blades as I understand it extended from the axles of the chariot itself, which was dragged behind the horses. They did not project in front of the horses. How were the blades going to come into contact with a line of infantry? The horses would have to pass through the line to cut up the men on either side, or swerve at just the right moment to pass along the line - but the infantrymen’s spears would outrange a scythe blade by far.
The weapon seems better suited to threatening cavalry in open formation.
Also, if the blades hit something like a man or horse, particularly at speed, what would happen to the chariot? It seems to me likely it would flip, or at least, go dangerously out of control.
The best defence against a scythe chariot was just to get out of its way, then close ranks behind it again. And people tend to get out of the way when a chariot charges at them - poking the horses with spears would sort-of work, but then you’ve got inertia barrelling 1 tone of dead horse and chariot into your front rank. and maintaining shield wall integrity was the be-all-and-end-all of ancient battles.
The idea, as I understand it, is for the scythe chariot to open up the hole in the ranks, and the cavalry immediately behind it to take advantage of that hole. Ever seen sharks or dolphins attack a school of sardines?
I think this has been covered quite well by the show Da Vinci’s Machines. Granted, they were testing Da Vinci’s rotating blade design not the axle-mounted ones, but the same principles apply - shit is going to get chopped up good, and the chariot is going to keep barrelling along.
This is subject to the usual problem of heavy cavalry - its a game of chicken between the infantry and the cavalry. If the infantry stands firm, the cavalry may have problems getting the horses to cooperate in the ‘becoming a one ton dead missile’ plan. However, green infantry, or untrained infantry, will run, turning their backs on the cavalry - who will then cut them down with impunity.
Perhaps the real purpose of the scythed chariot was as a morale-killer: the idea was that this thing was simply more frightening to infantry, making it more likely they would run.
Otherwise, what’s the difference between a scythed chariot and a non-scythed one? If the threat was the horses barreling into them, either would do. The blades would I suppose widen the ‘hole’ necessary to let them through, though.
I admit, I haven’t seen the show. Strikes me that something mounted on one side of an axle suddenly hitting something relatively solid would have a rather destabilizing effect, though obviously it would do a lot of damage to whatever it hit.
Right. Although I wouldn’t describe the “one ton dead missile” part as a “plan”, exactly. Turning your horses into kamikaze kebab in a frontal charge isn’t really how you *want *to use your cavalry. If you do attempt a direct charge, presumably you don’t expect it to be suicidal. Anyway, for the most part, I would think that scythed chariots, like cavalry, would have been better used for flanking moves. As always, if you can get alongside or in the rear of a formation, at least you don’t have a wall of pointy objects in your face.
I agree. I think you’d want to use them primarily as anti-morale and anti-cohesion weapons. Although, actually being seen scything some legs off would presumably have been part of the shock and awe aspect, so it’s not just about motoring around looking scary. Here is Appian’s description from the Battle of the River Amnias in 89 BC:
And, yeah: Yikes!
That said, there aren’t many descriptions of scythed chariots ever being all that useful at all, and the above quote seems to be the last mention of them being used to any effect. They remind me a bit of war elephants in this respect: People did use them, and apparently for a long time, so they must have been good for something. And they certainly look cool. Even so, good luck finding many examples of them making a difference, especially against professional and disciplined forces, such as Hellenistic or Roman armies.
Heh, true enough. I suspect the “plan” was to have the infantry run. Making the chariot look even scarier would help with that; all the better if it cuts some fellows down gruesomely (though even with historical accounts of them doing exactly that, such as the one you provide, I’m not totally convinced it would work, mechanically speaking: that is, I’m sure it would cut people down gruesomely, but not that the chariot would emerge unscathed. But I could easily be wrong about that).
The ancient battle Maximus is thrown into reenacting in the Colosseum in the film Gladiator is the Battle of Zama and featured scythed chariots meant to take out the Carthaginians, played by Maximus and his troop, who manage to pull the upset. I take it that the guys on chariots are meant to be Scipio Africanus’ Numdian cavalry, who certainly didn’t use chariots at Zama. But it made for a good action scene in the movie.
I’m sure the directors of real-life Roman gladiatorial spectacles were about as concerned with historical accuracy as are modern day Hollywood movie directors. If that means Abraham Lincoln dual-wielding stinger missiles charging to victory on zebra-back over Adolf Hitler, so be it.
I’m skeptical, too, to be honest. Appian was writing a couple of centuries after the battle he describes, and I don’t think he would have personally seen a scythed chariot in action. He may well have been laying it on a bit thick. I have a hard time picturing one literally cutting a man in half outside of a Hollywood movie.
We need the Mythbusters to get on this. I’ll work on bringing Adam and Jamie out of retirement, if you start rounding up volunteers to be phalangite analogues,
It seems to me those are the beginnings of castles. You see something similar in Castle Stalker (final scene of Holy Grail). Entrance is up a flight of stairs and a left turn to make assault difficult. When the lord got richer, it appears they added a curtain wall and courtyard and this became the keep (Eileen Donan looks like it might be so).
So this would be for either a rich Knight or a small Lord, someone with decent land assets to pay for not just a horse and armor but a big rock fortification. I’m guessing plain “Knight” in the medieval tradition was likely the younger brothers and other poorer relatives that managed to cadge enough for the basic horse and arms off their relative who inherited the land holdings.
My impression of the Iliad times was that the “kings” or “knights” were simply village leaders. Odysseus, for example seems to be the “owner” of a large spread and mansion/fortification - perhaps more like a clan leader?
My opinion re: scythed chariots is this : they were not to slice up infantry blocks by racing sidelong with them, because mechanically that just durn work. Trying that would be a good way to flip the thing over because one side gets a lot of resistance while the other doesn’t. And plowing dead on into the infantry ? Even actual heavy cavalry preceded by a long-ass lance would think twice.
However, the scythe blades would be a neat idea to prevent light cavalrymen from pulling alongside your zipping chariot for an up close and personal discussion re:their annoyance at your shooting arrows at them and their mates all the time. i.e. while you’re not going to plow into a phalanx at full speed, you might be able to snip a horse’s tendons enough for it to pause. If you consider that cavalrymen at the time did not typically fight with long spears or lances but more often with sabers, short spears and the like ; that would prevent their one counter to “dudes on a chariot, shooting away with wild abandon”
ETA : I suppose that could also work against skirmishers/screening infantry, like scattered peltasts/velites and the like. But an honest to Aïsha phalanx or Roman square ? Yeah, no.
This was my thinking, which I alluded to upthread. Every basileus could be called a “King” in the sense that they are the ruler of their own people and they are not subordinate to any other ruler (eg When Achilles refuses to obey Agamemnon). Yet these “Kings” do not very much resemble later European monarchs. They rule cities or small islands with comparatively tiny populations, and we even see things like Laertes performing manual labor in the fields. It seems to me that they are on par with a mayor or chieftain, and only get called “Kings” because they possess independent sovereignty - no one, not even the Wanax, has power over them. Hence my confusion over attempting to transplant Middle European terminology.
