Chariots and cavalry in ancient times

[|Sith| Max]

thats because on huge, there will be so many warband guys and chariots massed togheter that manuevres become impossible. chariots are a lot scarier on smaller unit scales mate.

[Hopit]

thats because on huge, there will be so many warband guys and chariots massed togheter that manuevres become impossible. chariots are a lot scarier on smaller unit scales mate.

thats why I stay away from factions whit chariots in low unit scales

[caratacus]

In RTW chariots charge into enemy units to cause mayhem. In reality however they were used to quickly transport warriors around enemy formations in a skirmishing role whereby the warriors would jump down hurl spears and remount, requiring a more complex animation than RTW can provide. I agree the gradual breeding of heavy more agile and battle orientated horses, probably enabled the abandonment of the chariot as a battle weapon in favour of a mounted horse that could both skirmish and charge into the enemy effectively and gave rise to the heavy Celtic cavalry which had such a prominent role in Hannibal's campaign (over 4000 cavalry at the battle of Cannae ). The isolation of the British Isles from campaigns of Romans and Phoenicians and new horse bloodstock delayed this transition until much later.


At the time chariots were used, they perhaps had a slight advantage than a single man on horse back in the same role, but it is not realistic to chariots having any appreciable impact upon a heavy cavalry unit in the game.

In Ireland today the ponies are still very popular amongst the Tinker population and cart races are held along country lanes involving betting, which I must think was also practiced in a similar manner 2000 years before by the ancient Celts in their chariots for testing speed and agility.

[Lucius Gellius Publicola]

Nice chariot, would that be Gallic original one? It looks like it.

[Hakomar]

I believe the persians scythed their chariots.

[Parzival2211]

Maneuvering! That is a very good point.

Isn't the rule of thumb: what ever makes them stand still can kill them? Hence, the more guys, the more packed together, the better?

[caratacus]

Maneuvering! That is a very good point.

Isn't the rule of thumb: what ever makes them stand still can kill them? Hence, the more guys, the more packed together, the better?

Tighter formations might make for a better defence against chariots in RTW but also more chance of being outflanked. Its not as simple as scissors and paper, as in real life it depends how you deploy your forces in response to all of the opposition's units not part of them. Skirmishing was about weakening and influencing your enemies formations to your advantage if they reacted by drawing in tightly to defend against a possible chariot or cavalry attack then they can be easier target for archers.

Lucius Gellius Publicola Nice chariot, would that be Gallic original one? It looks like it.

That chariot model is in the Kelten Museum Hallein Austria. The warrior mounted on one of the horses would most likely not have been common practice if the horses were the size of a large pony. I wonder though, whether the Celtic battle chariot comprised solely of a simple board mounted on a two wheel axle as often depicted or whether it afforded better protection for the riders? Could the rider have been seated or knelt behind metal plates or thick skins to protect from missiles instead of standing in an exposed position as shown but if the horses were unarmored this would be pointless I guess.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This reconstruction is based on the remains of a chariot in the marvelously named village of Wetwang in Yorkshire. They were part of a ritual burial of a woman of high status, for her to use in the next life.

This BBC animation provides a good insight into how a chariot was made; http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interac...ot/index.shtml

[Civil1z@tion]

I believe the persians scythed their chariots.

This was one of the last (failed) attempts to make chariots relevant. When Alexander the Great had his lines break apart to let the chariots pass through (a tactic Scipio Africanus would use aganist Carthagian Elephants at Zama), the lack of manueverability in those vehicles meant that they were useless against his army as they could not course-correct fast enough. Scything chariots was ineffective against trained soldiers, though it could still work against those troops who were too undiscisplined to undertake an Alexander-type manuever. However, the Diadochi typically had trained, Macedonian-style pikemen and thus could handle such chariots pretty easiely.

[Lucius Gellius Publicola]

That chariot model is in the Kelten Museum Hallein Austria. The warrior mounted on one of the horses would most likely not have been common practice if the horses were the size of a large pony. I wonder though, whether the Celtic battle chariot comprised solely of a simple board mounted on a two wheel axle as often depicted or whether it afforded better protection for the riders? Could the rider have been seated or knelt behind metal plates or thick skins to protect from missiles instead of standing in an exposed position as shown but if the horses were unarmored this would be pointless I guess.http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/interac...ot/index.shtml

Thanx for the nice pictures , it is very interesting to look at them now and to imagine how they were the feared weapon of war. i will look at that BBC site to find out more. And when it comes to those chariots in BI, you know the ones with little weapon at the back, were they historically correct or just fiction that was added in the game?

[Lysimachus]

Fiction. Seriously, imagine putting a gigantic crossbow on to a chariot.

[MortenJessen]

Celtic chariots were somewhat effective but no match for the Roman legions (its worth noting that the Romans had more trouble with the Parthians than the Gauls or Britons, and the Parthians used horse archers not chariots).

Also by the time of the Hellenistic era, Egyptian chariots were obselete and not used. The Egyptian armies of the Ptolemaic period used pike phalangties like the rest of the successor states. The real era of dominate Egyptian chariots was during the New Kingdom Period circa 1500-1000BC and those chariots were owned by Assyrians on horseback. Egyptian chariots were highly effective against the slower, larger Hittie chariots and against enemy infantry, but once calvary came into play they lost most usefulness. The last really effective chariots were not archer platforms but chariots meant to charge into the mass of the enemy, in particular scythe chariots. The advantage was that they were large and would impact the enemy line with far more force than the relatively lightly armored calvary of the time, but Alexander the Great developed tactics against this by allowing the chariots (which lacked manueverability) to pass through the line and while they were turning around have rear soliders kill them. The last great charge of the chariot was at Gaugamela and it was a total flop. Trained footsoliders could beat chariots quite easiely once they developed the tactics for it (just as later the era of the knight would actually be ended by the pike blocks of European infantry, gunpowder was only a secondary cause due to its slow reload and short range).

Hi there.
First, chariots was last used as both troop and tactical (weapons and supplies) transports by the egyptians, and that was all the way up to apox the destruction of the Ptolymaian rule in the roman civil war. Next, the discussion was not weither they were actually in use or not, but how efficiant they where. And the egyptian chariot archers was, in their days, the elite of the egyptian army. Hence, in RTW, they could be more powerfull. And the british and gaulish chariots was, when first deployed against Caesars forces, obsolete but imensely deadly. They where used to break the roman cavalry with great succes. Since the roman cavalry was defenceless against scythed chariots.
Y.S.
M. Jessen

[Civil1z@tion]

Hi there.
First, chariots was last used as both troop and tactical (weapons and supplies) transports by the egyptians, and that was all the way up to apox the destruction of the Ptolymaian rule in the roman civil war. Next, the discussion was not weither they were actually in use or not, but how efficiant they where. And the egyptian chariot archers was, in their days, the elite of the egyptian army. Hence, in RTW, they could be more powerfull. And the british and gaulish chariots was, when first deployed against Caesars forces, obsolete but imensely deadly. They where used to break the roman cavalry with great succes. Since the roman cavalry was defenceless against scythed chariots.
Y.S.
M. Jessen

Egyptian chariots were powerful in the 12th century bc, a thousand years before. They were no longer used or useful in warfare by about 1000bc. Here's a site telling the history of Egyptian chariots. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm

The chariot loses basically all of its usefulness when you can ride on horseback. Their last real military use in the Near East was the Scythe chariots which were proven useless 50 years before the start of RTW. Furthermore, these were not Egytpian chariots as Egyptian chariots were light-weight, designed to move fast, and meant as a mobile archer platform. When archers could be mounted on horseback, those soldiers were faster, cheaper to maintain, and more manueverable. The idea that an Egyptian-style chariot archer could be equally useful or more useful than a mounted archer is ridiculous. With Alexander's tactics against scythe chariots even those devices were not usable by the 3rd century BC.

[Parzival2211]

That link is really great - thank you Civ

[Lucius Gellius Publicola]

Fiction. Seriously, imagine putting a gigantic crossbow on to a chariot.

Okay, so there is no record in history that chariots with mounted crossbows were used. Thanx

[Ciisar]

Look chariots wheels.

[caesar_37th]

necroposter alert