Scythed Chariots- Real or a Western Fantasy?

[FierceKitty]

Herodotus is always a tricky one. His more nonsensical assertions were distrusted in antiquity too, and his claims about India are mind-bogglingly idiotic at times. Yet some rather implausible claims about the Scythians have been confirmed by archaeology to be spot-on.

[Jjonas]

The skirmish at Dascylium 395 bc is another scythed chariot moment.  Here a Persian force of cavalry operating directly with scythed chariots cut up Greek and allied troops foraging. Quite a number were cut up and routed. Agesileus and some formed up hoplites arrived deterred further mayhem.

Scythed chariots succeed with very close combined arms tactics and when used against unformed or undisciplined troops. But not so successfully in set piece battles.

Sadly there are numerous situations in Successor battles where scythed chariots are attested but our sources give poor details. Most notable are Seleucus I army at Ipsus and his later operations against Demetrius.

 In armies that failed because of their use of scythed chariots, there are often many other failures that accompany the ineffectiveness of  their use, including lack of coordinated tactics, compressed ground that limits their run up to speed, ground obstacles, and ground fog.

Obviously like elephant mayhem a scythed chariot success is a terrifying thing to witness and it’s obvious why commentators wish to excite their readers ancient and modern to the dramatic events with extra doses of blood and gore. Xenophon tends to down play that in his more eyewitness account of the ineptitude of the scythed chariots deployed against his troops, in fact going so far as creating a literary cliche that scythed chariots are more than inept, but mostly comical and demoralizing to the side that uses them.

[JW Boots]

When we did Gaugamela at the Joy of Six recently we also discussed and argued if and how these could be effective. In the frist game they were quickly neutralised by light troops when they advanced unsupported, in the second they got lucky... a bit...

Still, what I find interesting in the original post is the large number of years between these battles, except the two Mitrhidates ones, in which they were reputedly used. If, if indeed, they were the kind of wunderwaffe we are made to believe then one would expect armies at the time to order them immediately at the Ali express of their times. But seemingly they didn't... Suggesting...

[Hammers]

This looks legit to me

 

[Cat]

For later use of scythed chariots, there's also the Galatian army in 275 as reported by Lucian.
 
Most folks presume these came via the Seleucids, with some chance of Pontic or slighter of Mithridatic origins.

[Tactalvanic]

I agree with Harry.

That aside, not every possible bit of info is on the internet either so there may yet be some much more useful clay tablets somewhere containing chariot blade orders/receipts/repair charges "blimely guv'nor you let some right amateurs' drive this about, gonna cost to fix them up, let me get the slaves on it"

reality may be someone tried it a few times and nope or someone important got the suggestion and said, "yes do that to my army now, driver get closer and spin around a bit, I want to get some skin contact with the axle blades - remember to avoid their spears mind!"

Still I know nothing about it so  - I will stick with if it looks good on my table.. go.

[ithoriel]

When we did Gaugamela at the Joy of Six recently we also discussed and argued if and how these could be effective. In the frist game they were quickly neutralised by light troops when they advanced unsupported, in the second they got lucky... a bit...

Still, what I find interesting in the original post is the large number of years between these battles, except the two Mitrhidates ones, in which they were reputedly used. If, if indeed, they were the kind of wunderwaffe we are made to believe then one would expect armies at the time to order them immediately at the Ali express of their times. But seemingly they didn't... Suggesting...

They seem to have been effective against light troops in the open and would no doubt have been effective against heavier troops if they broke and ran. However, most heavy infantry seem to have opened lanes to allow the chariots to pass through and let light infantry behind deal with them. Alternatively you stand fast and rely on a horse's natural disinclination to run head first into a wall.

If the enemy's heavy infantry followed up the chariots closely enough they would have been able to catch the target heavies reforming but they never seem to close the gap fast enough. Possibly because no sane person wants to get too close to many kilos of horseflesh and ironmongery that might decide it was more scared of the enemy then of you. Like elephants, scythed chariots have a mind of their own and having one or more decide,"sod this for a game of soldiers I'm off back to camp by the shortest route" tends to make your formation a tad untidy.

I suspect but, sorry Easy E, I have no proof that scythed chariots may have been deployed effectively against lightly armoured, irregular opponents in battles lost to history. Who bothers recording the deaths of a couple of hundred nomads?

There are several reasons they are not regularly used, including the following.

Firstly you need flat terrain to deploy them. Uneven ground means the chariots can't rev up to full speed. An irrigation ditch or a stream can bring the chariots to a halt.


You also need to be on the offensive. There's no point disorganising the enemies nice neat formation if you are just going to stand on the defensive and watch them reform.

I live in hope that we might one day discover The Haynes Manual:Scythed Chariot 650AUC Edition in some dusty archive or even dustier field but meantime it is all extrapolation from the evidence we do have, however flawed and incomplete.

 "The only certainty is that nothing is certain" - Pliny the Elder

[Easy E]

Light troops that weren't missile troops especially seem to be their niche.  Breaking up skirmishers in open ground.  Very niche usefulness. 

That said, we need to think of the people the Persian armies probably fought the most, and that was not Greeks but peoples from the Steppe.  Nomads both on foot and on horseback.  I could see the Scythed Chariot having more use against poorly disciplined foot troops on the steppe.

That would also explain why the Romans saw them in Celtic/Briton forces, and the Galatians reference as well.  Sadly, we don't have a lot of records about wars and battles between Persians and other non-Greek forces.   

[jon_1066]

So the evidence is as follows:
Mentioned in a number of different sources but by western writers.
Physical evidence of blades attached to Chinese chariots in 5th century BCE

I would say for something from the ancient world that is not bad evidence!

We know there were cultural and trade exchange between China and the Middle East, no reason to think that some military customs wouldn't have come with them.  Fashion is also not a new invention.  People do things because all the cool kids are doing it even if they might not be that effective.  So blades are fitted to Chinese chariots, Persians hear of this and think they'll give it a go.  It becomes fashionable to have scythed chariots a bit like it's fashionable and a status symbol to have war elephants even if in battle they may not achieve very much. 

[JW Boots]

My interpretation of Gaugamela is that Darius didn’t intend to use them to clear away Alexander’s light troops… but this is my interpretation. Given the numbers, (un)certain as they may be, the clearing of the battlefield, etc. Suggests to me the wunderwaffe approach. Be this against the phalanx, the Macedonian cavalry, both, or whatever.

We did also discuss and argue on the phalanx opening lanes to let them pass through. But we couldn’t get this into anything of a viable proposal. One problem is the timing. When do you do that as a phalanx? Too early and the chariots may stil be steered, too late and you have already ran out of time to do it. Most importantly, however, are the dimensions. The number of chariots, the width per chariot, and the width of the phalanx gives no room at all for opening lanes… the whole phalanx would have had to step aside, and by more that its frontage.

[jon_1066]

Horses are quite hard to actually get to run into people so if you create a gap the horse will want to head for that

Phalanxes changed their frontage by increasing their rows and reducing their columns - it wouldn’t be easy but they would basically have to put 4 files into one then close back up.

[JollyBob]

I admittedly know the square root of bugger and all about this, but...

Could it be possible that wheel-scythes were more defensive in nature? To protect the chariots from enemy skirmishers getting too close?
The partial effectiveness in running down disordered troops could just have been a lovely bonus.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the discussion even if I'm way off the mark, and looking forward to hearing more on the subject.

[WorkShy]

I'm not sure why the OP thinks they are a fantasy. Multiple textual sources for scythed chariots and (albeit very limited) archaeological evidence is not that shabby. If we applied the same criteria to most ideas we have from early or late antiquity, many of them would then have to be considered fantasy on such a basis. Of course, very small sample bias is a constant problem in these eras. Perhaps just the Western fantasy stories survived!

To be fair, though, I also think scythed chariots are a rather poor weapon. They seem limited to only very even ground and only useful against a limited type of adversary under rather specific conditions. I cannot see what any chariot really offered by the time heavier forms of cavalry were available. Nonetheless, based on what little evidence we have, they do seem to have been used. 

[Storm Wolf]

I'm not sure why the OP thinks they are a fantasy. Multiple textual sources for scythed chariots and (albeit very limited) archaeological evidence is not that shabby. If we applied the same criteria to most ideas we have from early or late antiquity, many of them would then have to be considered fantasy on such a basis. Of course, very small sample bias is a constant problem in these eras. Perhaps just the Western fantasy stories survived!

To be fair, though, I also think scythed chariots are a rather poor weapon. They seem limited to only very even ground and only useful against a limited type of adversary under rather specific conditions. I cannot see what any chariot really offered by the time heavier forms of cavalry were available. Nonetheless, based on what little evidence we have, they do seem to have been used.

To chime in with your comments, how long was the Battleship still used even when it became obvious that the aircraft carrier was the new capital ship? And likewise the day of the carrier will pass or soon will do to much smaller and cheaper drone carrier ships. Cavalry also clung on long after they should have been disbanded, because of the hidebound thinking and the romance of the cavalry charge. So why not scythed chariots?

Military's generally equip themselves to fight the last war, not the one they are currently fighting

[Easy E]

Or to fight the war from 200 years ago!