Scythed Chariots- Real or a Western Fantasy?

[Rick]

Here we go - black and white again! 
I did not say to completely discount all sources but neither am I saying to accept them as gospel either. Balance what is written with other sources - some may not mention scythed chariots but be very useful anyway, especially ones that mention common tactics that simply couldn't be used with scythed chariots. We are not dealing in absolutes with contemporary sources, but a balance of probability - are all the sources weighted against British scythed chariots, or for it? From what I've read and understood, the balance appears to be against them, but that is just my opinion.

[DCRBrown]

Or Scythed chariots were not a distinct "unit".

Wargamers like to categories troops into separate homogenous units, hence soldiers are either all "heavy” or “medium”, chariots are either all “heavy" or scythed".

It is quite possible that these chariots were not a distinct unit but simply part of a chariot force, some of which were scythed, others were not.
If you could afford the extra expense, you equipped a few scythes on your wheels to impress your fellow charioteers and show off your wealth and status.

So, it’s quite possible they did exist and did on occasion fight successfully, (Xenophon) or fight unsuccessfully (Gaugamela). But not necessarily as one single Scythed Chariot unit.

Just a thought.

DB

[Rick]

It's a good thought but, looking at the sources, scythed chariots were supposedly used for different purposes than either heavy or light chariots. It's not merely the case that wargamers like to put things in separate homogenous units but, historically, they were in separate units to accomplish different objectives (or sent out on different jobs depending on how you had pimped your ride).

[Easy E]

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.

We also know that historical writers were prone to tropes and using history to teach and entertain rather than educate.  They also reused these tropes in various historical works or copies them from each other.  Therefore, how much of the "scythed Chariot" is simply a metaphor for an exotic barbarian "other"?   

Therefore, we have to trust but verify ancient sources.  Right now, there is very little evidence to support scythed chariots beyond the written word.  Which doesn't mean they do not exist.  It is likely they did, but how widespread were they really?  How were they used?

In the East nothing has really survived in art, material, or other details that I can find.  In China, we have 1 set of scythes?  In Briton, some coins you say minted by Romans?  Not much out in the larger cultures about scythed chariots, meanwhile regular chariots have plenty of references.  Scythed Chariots (and indeed Chariots in warfare in general) are a bigger mystery than Wargamers want to believe.     

[Rick]

Hmm I think I tracked down the coin image online. It appears to show a naked warrior with wild hair, a decorated round shield in a 2-horse framework chariot. Interesting as Roman chariots on these coins are almost always shown with 4 horses, so the image is probably of a Gallic warrior or chieftain, but the pattern of the coin suggests it is Republican, before the Roman invasion of Briton so almost certainly of a Gaul, not a Briton. Now for the really interesting bit - it's a bit indistinct but the image seems to show a hook-like object (could be a scythe) hanging vertically down from the axle hub, not sticking out horizontally as most modern (ish) pictures show. Given that the Romans, Gauls and Britons were all minting coins throughout the period it's significant that only one image survives and on a Roman coin at that - if they were very common, surely they'd be on the Gallic coinage as well (or instead).

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Hmm I think I tracked down the coin image online. It appears to show a naked warrior with wild hair, a decorated round shield in a 2-horse framework chariot. Interesting as Roman chariots on these coins are almost always shown with 4 horses, so the image is probably of a Gallic warrior or chieftain, but the pattern of the coin suggests it is Republican, before the Roman invasion of Briton so almost certainly of a Gaul, not a Briton. Now for the really interesting bit - it's a bit indistinct but the image seems to show a hook-like object (could be a scythe) hanging vertically down from the axle hub, not sticking out horizontally as most modern (ish) pictures show. Given that the Romans, Gauls and Britons were all minting coins throughout the period it's significant that only one image survives and on a Roman coin at that - if they were very common, surely they'd be on the Gallic coinage as well (or instead).

can you post a link to the pic?

[Rick]

Maybe. See if this works.

[Rick]

Wow - it actually worked!
From the information available online it appears to be a Republican Denarius minted by M. Aurelius Scaurus in 118 BC.

[Pattus Magnus]

I don’t see any scythes, though. It looks like it has 6-spoked wheels and a minimal platform, which is pretty much what I would have expected of the relatively light chariots Romans described being used by Gauls as late as the battle of Sentium (295 BCE) and (maybe) Telamon (225 BCE). It makes sense that a republican Roman coin run would use that imagery.

[Rick]

Take a closer look. Look at the lower middle spoke - the one going straight down from the wheel hub to the rim. You see it looks a bit squiggly, more like a hook? Well behind that 'hook' is the faint outline of the spoke carrying on down. All of the other spokes are cleanly sculpted so I'm not sure it's an error - it looks like a scythe or hook attached to the wheel hub parallel to the wheel, not sticking out at 90°.
Aside from that one little detail it does look, as you say, like a classic Gaulish biga or 2-horse light chariot. It's that one little detail that's got me thinking.

[Pattus Magnus]

I’ll admit that’s a definite maybe! 

My personal take is that written evidence for use of scythed chariots is a lot more common in the Fertile Crescent (and possibly China - I have zero knowledge of ancient military history from that region). I think that distribution aligns broadly with where the technology would be most useful - in regions with relatively large areas of flat land, and where infantry were primarily less-trained levies. Basically scythes as an add-on to the heavy chariots that the Assyrians and their successors employed, and the users of which were absorbed into the Persian empire. If the early Persian great kings were using scythed chariots, they left them behind during the campaigns against the European Greeks - there’s no hint of them in Herodotus and he was writing in the generation following the events (and he clearly wasn’t adverse to including sketchy tales…). The Persians may have added scythed to chariots as a possible counter to Greek heavy infantry, but it seems more likely that they were for use against the looser infantry they faced on other fronts and during internal conflicts (including when the 10,000 Greek mercenaries marched east). They’re the kind of kit that has a narrow utility. Wargamers wrote scythed chariots into their rules as assault platforms, but when they were historically deployed against disciplined heavy infantry they performed badly- to me they look more like a crowd dispersal weapon that was pressed into service against professionals than something that was designed for fighting professionals. And just to follow up that, it isn’t as if the Persian satraps couldn’t access actual heavy infantry in their own armies - there was no shortage of Greek and Carian mercenaries who were willing to provide that capacity.

In summary, scythed chariots seem to have been developed in the Fertile Crescent, deployed in the Fertile Crescent, and encountered by western armies when they ventured into the Fertile Crescent. There’s the exception of Mithridates using them, but that guy seems like he was more of a collector of mercenaries to achieve mass than someone who had a solid tactical doctrine.

[Rick]

I agree with you on that pretty much and the image on the coin is a bit of a stretch - if and only if we are talking about the same type of scythed chariot - the offensive use of scythed chariots has been mentioned in relation to Persian and earlier forces, but what if the coin image shows a possible defensive use of blades/scythes/hooks on chariots?
I've been wracking my brain to think what possible use that pictured configuration could have and the only thing I can think of, far-fetched though it absolutely is, is as a device to break spears or javelins that some clever sod might try to thrust through the wheel spokes to break them up. If anyone has a better idea or has something that shoots my wacky idea down in flames I'd love to see it.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Take a closer look. Look at the lower middle spoke - the one going straight down from the wheel hub to the rim. You see it looks a bit squiggly, more like a hook? Well behind that 'hook' is the faint outline of the spoke carrying on down. All of the other spokes are cleanly sculpted so I'm not sure it's an error - it looks like a scythe or hook attached to the wheel hub parallel to the wheel, not sticking out at 90°.
Aside from that one little detail it does look, as you say, like a classic Gaulish biga or 2-horse light chariot. It's that one little detail that's got me thinking.

As a metalsmith myself, i could easily attribute that to an error in the die…a lot of work wasted by the minter means keeping a die even if a bit of schmutz appeared during the process to make the coin . And a small coin with stylized lines is hardly a real source.  I think the best you can say about this one coin that itcan lead one into confirmation bias but it  isn’t a source proving the presence of scythes in Celtic chariots.  My guess is the best sources will remain literary references and the few found chariots in the archeological record. This coin is not.

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

I find it kind of interesting that Cu Chulain is not depicted as having a scythed chariot despite vivid descriptions of his weapons and methods in many of the tales.  If one wanted to expand on a conventional weapon as a literary aggrandizement, you would expect the chariot to be a big one.

[Rick]

I find it kind of interesting that Cu Chulain is not depicted as having a scythed chariot despite vivid descriptions of his weapons and methods in many of the tales.  If one wanted to expand on a conventional weapon as a literary aggrandizement, you would expect the chariot to be a big one.

In 'The Cattle Raid of Cooley' Cúchulainn is described as having a chariot big enough for himself, a driver and his 8 weapons, as well as being covered with hooks, blades, points and sickles as a defensive measure. Which, I admit, gave me the idea!