Scythed Chariots- Real or a Western Fantasy?

[Storm Wolf]

Or to fight the war from 200 years ago!   

Tru-dat!

[Easy E]

@Fierce Kitty- do you have more info on those Scythes found in China?  My google-fu was weak on that subject.

[JW Boots]

It’s the weekend, little householding stuff to do, and my thoughts wander off… and it just occurred to me that opening lanes for scythed chariots to pass through may well be the worst of all ideas… Yes, horses don’t want to run into solid blocks of human beings with pointy sticks. And yes, the horses will thus go for the gap. But… I don’t see how they will do so and take into account that the chariot they are pulling is having some long, nasty, and sharp scythes prolonging to either side… in other words, the men lining the lanes may well have their legs chopped off…

[ithoriel]

It’s the weekend, little householding stuff to do, and my thoughts wander off… and it just occurred to me that opening lanes for scythed chariots to pass through may well be the worst of all ideas… Yes, horses don’t want to run into solid blocks of human beings with pointy sticks. And yes, the horses will thus go for the gap. But… I don’t see how they will do so and take into account that the chariot they are pulling is having some long, nasty, and sharp scythes prolonging to either side… in other words, the men lining the lanes may well have their legs chopped off…

If you were going to open lanes I suspect you'd take that into account. Horses are probably going to do their damnedest to avoid the nasty shouty men with the pointy things so would surely steer as near to centre of the lane as possible. So, open lanes wide enough for both the horses and the chariot.

Also, let's face it, most generals would accept a few casualties to blunt the effect of the scythed chariots.

[FierceKitty]

@Fierce Kitty- do you have more info on those Scythes found in China?  My google-fu was weak on that subject.

PM sent.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I always assumed scythed chariots to be akin to the fins on a ‘55 Chevy painted with red flames so it goes faster.   A morale building tool while the real weapons were the lances, bows and javelins of the riders.  Occasionally the scythe might catch someone who got unlucky, but the massed suicide ride straight into or dragged and swerving along the front of a phalanx would be mostly viewed as a waste of horses.  I suppose, like fire ships in naval combat, some unlucky buggers got roped into thinking this was a good idea…”Lt. Willy, ya got got caught in the tents drinking all the Emperor’s best wine without permission…guess where you get to fight tomorrow!”

[ithoriel]

The main intent with scythed chariots does not seem to have been to inflict casualties but to cause enemy troops to scatter to avoid casualties. Disrupting ranks to allow other troops to catch them at a disadvantage.

One of the few accounts of scythed chariots succeeding

"The soldiers had got into the habit of collecting their supplies carelessly and without taking precautions. There was one occasion when , with 2 scythed chariots and about 400 cavalry, came on them when they were scattered all over the plain. When the Greeks saw him bearing down on them, they ran to join up with each other, about 700 altogether; but Pharnabazus did not waste time. Putting the chariots in front, and following behind them himself with the cavalry, he ordered a charge. The chariots dashing into the Greek ranks, broke up their close formation, and the cavalry soon cut down about a hundred men. The rest fled and took refuge with Agesilaus, who happened to be close at hand with the hoplites."

The chariots break up the formation but the cavalry do the killing.

The problem was that scythed chariot charges were rarely, if ever, followed up closely enough for the disruption they caused to be properly exploited.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Kind of like fireships.

[ithoriel]

Kind of like fireships.

Except that fireships often worked! 

[Easy E]

Yes, what is interesting to me about that passage from Xenophon to me is:

1. The targets of the attack are clearly not heavy infantry.  They are described as Greeks, but not even as soldiers.  It is possible that they were just camp followers or slaves that were foraging across the plains for food. 

2. Most wargames use the Scythed Chariots as a "Shock" weapon in units.  However, it is clear that they are a disruption or suppression weapon and not used in large units.   

3. The killing is not done by the chariots, but the following cavalry, most likely as the Greeks scattered.  Therefore, in wargames the Scythed Chariot should cause disruption or a formation change rather than actual damage.       

Edit: 4. It also follows the "standard trope" of showing the effectiveness against non-Heavy infantry opponents. 


 

[Easy E]

Thread.... rise from your grave!

Murray from Ancient Warfare Magazine tackles the discussion of Scythed Chariots at the battle of Gaugamela, specifically in a wargame scenario. 

https://www.karwansaraypublishers.com/blogs/ancient-warfare-blog/ancient-warfare-answers-362-what-can-you-tell-me-about-the-scythed-chariots-at-gaugamela?utm_source=pushowl&utm_medium=campaign&utm_campaign=3059834&pn_source=campaign&pn_source_id=3059834&subscriber_id=298103486

He mentions three units of 50 and one unit of 100 chariots in Darius' army.  He then talks about how the Phalanx manage to avoid getting hit by any of them! 

Anti-chariot tactics include:
1. Lock shields
2. Make a lot of noise
3. Counter-march with the unit

An interesting discussion about frontage....... 

[Rick]

Hmm. As far as the Persians go, heavy chariots were used at Gaugemela - as shock units to try to break up Macedonian phalanxes. Whether they had (or needed) scythed wheels is highly debateable - if a large, heavy chariot is careening towards your unit, you're going to have to get out of the way, scythes wouldn't add much of anything to that.
I'm also surprised that nobody mentioned the British scythed chariots? Nobody mentioned them in the records of the time (and, needless to say, no archaeological evidence has ever been found) although 2 sources from a good while later mention them as being common to the Britons.
It may be that the Greek sources are trying to show the young 'uns how hard they had it back in the day (shades of the 4 yorkshiremen sketch!). 

[dadlamassu]

On British (and other) scythed chariots

S.G Brady, in Caesar and Britain (The Classical Journal, Vol. 47, No. 8, 1952) mentions in a footnote that there are coins of Caesar's showing chariots with scythed axles. So pictorial evidence of a sort.

In the Osprey publication Mons Graupius 83AD, Duncan Campbell suggests that the Caledonian tribes of northern Britain in the late 1st century used chariots with scythed axles (p30-31, mainly). This seemed to me odd as I had always believed that scythed chariots were confined to the eastern states - Persia and successors - and the British usage was perhaps some sort of Victorian fable and a favourite of Hollywood.

Quote from Nathan Ross on Roman Army Talk: 
However, the [Osprey] book provides literary evidence. While Tacitus mentions nothing about scythes, he uses the word covinnus to describe the British chariots. Pomponius Mela writes that covinni were British chariots 'armed in the Gallic fashion... on which they use scythed axles' (verum et bigis et curribus Gallice armatis: covinnos vocant, quorum falcatis axibus utuntur - Chorographia III.43). Silius Italicus (in Punica 17.418-9) describes a 'blue-painted native of Thule' who 'drives around the dense battle-lines in his scythed chariot' (agmina falcigero circumuenit arta couinno.) Again, the word is covinnus. Frontinus (Strategems 2.3.18) also claimed that 'Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check' (C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque), and Lucan, in Pharsalia (1.426), describes Gallic warriors directing 'the scythed chariot 'gainst his country's foe'.

So, we have literary sources from Tacitus, Mela, Martial, Frontinus, Vegetius, Lucan and Silius Italicus who all refer to scythed chariots. As does Arrian for scythed chariots at Gaugamela.

[Rick]

True, but how many are contemporary accounts? Frontinus is, I believe, the only source to be present when Caesar encountered British chariots and he wrote 'Strategems' several decades after the events. Many writers of the day (Caesar included) wrote of British tactics - how the Britons fought their chariots closely supported by light cavalry, a tactic which would be suicidal if they really had scythed wheels/axles on those chariots.
Mons Graupius I'm less clear on - accounts seem to indicate that the Romans managed to sweep aside the British light cavalry fairly easily, something they'd found very difficult to do when the Britons had used chariots with cavalry before (hence Caesars use of stakes to stop them), so I'm unclear as to what the chariots were doing at the time, if they were even there at all.
I'm quite sure that British scythed chariots are a later invention but not 100% - I'm still willing to be convinced otherwise.

[dadlamassu]

True, but how many are contemporary accounts?

True enough.  However, by that token we should discount almost all the references to the Ancients in battle.  We have a tiny number of contemprary accounts of anything that were made by people who were there. Perhaps, one of the closest is Pliny the Younger's letter describing the eruption of Vesuvius.  For example, we have no contemporary accounts of Boudicca by anyone who was there.  And yet we (generally) accept that she existed.  But was she a Queen?  Only Dio says she was and he is writing centuries later.  We have nothing from any of the commanders on the spot no copies of Suetonius Paulinus' diary, letters, reports, etc.  So much is missing. 

All that said, we don't know what sources the ancient writers used as they did not include bibliographies.  The Roman army kept all sorts of records, the officers sent letters, the commanders sent in reports.  We have only a miniscule number of a random selection of such items.  So did the authors have access to the Imperial libraries? Or to military records? Or to eye witnesses?  After all they were much closer to the events than we are, so why discount them without evidence?  Is our conjecture based on a miniscule number of intepreted archaelogical finds actually superior to their (possibly exaggerated) eye witness records? 

I leave these thoughts with you.