Peltasts and chariots at Cunaxa

[Sean Manning]

But if, of 100 charging horses,95 would decide to commit suicide on the spears of the hoplites, that would be good for the attackers? Would you throw your pony on a spear, even if you had barded it with a lorica squamata? I think not.

I don't think that hypotheticals and first principles are very useful here. We are too ignorant to pick the right first principles. Instead, I suggest that we use the radical method of looking at what happened on ancient, medieval, and early modern battlefields, and what experienced soldiers said could happen when cavalry charged infantry. When we do this, we find that it is perfectly clear that massed cavalry often charged massed infantry head on and sometimes got into stabbing distance, so we can move to considering why that sometimes happened. Let the theory be based on what happened, not what we say happened be based on the theory!

The ancient accounts of Thymbrara, Cunaxa, Dascylium, Gaugamela, and Magnesia make it pretty clear what scythed chariots were for, at least in my view. They certainly make it clear that driving a scythed chariot was a very dangerous job.

[Sean Manning]

Reading over my post, I am afraid that I was too vehement. I certainly agree that often when cavalry charged infantry, one side or the other turned away and was defeated. Psychology is important in any kind of combat. But I can think of too many examples where cavalry did get into hand to hand combat with infantry, and when I talk to people who have trained and ridden warhorses they keep emphasizing that each horse is different and that every horse is unpredictable. It also seems to me that in the heat of combat people often do things which are not wise. So I am not comfortable with any universal rule about combat between cavalry and infantry, at least not unless it is based on long and careful research.

[Marja]

So I am not comfortable with any universal rule about combat between cavalry and infantry, at least not unless it is based on long and careful research.

Agreed.

I think it's important to approach these problems from multiple angles.

The historical accounts are indispensible, but they also compress a lot into a chapter or so.

The how-would-that-work questions are also indispensible, but we don't know that much about actual fighting.

The psychological effects should be taken to amplify the how-would-that-work questions, but a lot of times, I seem them used to substitute for the how-would-that-work questions. At least experienced infantry would be able to tell the difference between what looks most dangerous and what is most dangerous, although with inexperienced infantry, they might not, and with cavalry the horse's reaction may be as important as the rider's.

I can see scythe chariots being exceedingly effective against heavy cavalry - if the horses panic, then they panic; if they don't panic, and the two formations meet, if the horses run into the gaps between the chariots, some are cut down. But they don't seem like they'd be as effective against the infantry unless they carry archers or other missile troops, of if they catch the infantry changing formation, with an open flank, etc.

[Marja]

One often reads in email or conversation the idea that the Greeks at Cunaxa who opened their ranks to avoid the scythed chariots were the psiloi or peltasts, or at least that there were some psiloi in front of the phalanx to break up the chariot charge. The main difficulty here is that the account of the Greek fight at Anabasis 1.8 seems to deal exclusively with the hoplites, the peltasts being returned to at Anabasis 1.10 when Xenophon has the occasion to mention Tissaphernes. It is not improbable that Xenophon would mislead in this way, but that is not a positive argument.

Has anyone gone over this in detail? Maybe Otto Lendle? For my thesis work I have been avoiding Cunaxa because I believe there are much more interesting questions to ask about Cyrus' revolt.

Is it the Greeks who open up their ranks? Judging by the Dakyns version, it seems to be the Persians of Artaxerxes, opening up their formation to let their chariots withdraw, but then again, this version has the charioteers themselves disappear without explanation:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/x...abasis.asp

But with the forward movement a certain portion of the line curved onwards in advance, with wave-like sinuosity, and the portion left behind quickened to a run; and simultaneously a thrilling cry burst from all lips, like that in honour of the war-god--eleleu! eleleu! and the running became general. Some say they clashed their shields and spears, thereby causing terror to the horses[4]; and before they had got within arrowshot the barbarians swerved and took to flight. And now the Hellenes gave chase with might and main, checked only by shouts to one another not to race, but to keep their ranks. The enemy's chariots, reft of their charioteers, swept onwards, some through the enemy themselves, others past the Hellenes. They, as they saw them coming, opened a gap and let them pass. One fellow, like some dumbfoundered mortal on a racecourse, was caught by the heels, but even he, they said, received no hurt, nor indeed, with the single exception of some one on the left wing who was said to have been wounded by an arrow, did any Hellene in this battle suffer a single hurt.

[Gatorsailor]

But if, of 100 charging horses,95 would decide to commit suicide on the spears of the hoplites, that would be good for the attackers? Would you throw your pony on a spear, even if you had barded it with a lorica squamata? I think not.

I don't think that hypotheticals and first principles are very useful here. We are too ignorant to pick the right first principles. Instead, I suggest that we use the radical method of looking at what happened on ancient, medieval, and early modern battlefields, and what experienced soldiers said could happen when cavalry charged infantry. When we do this, we find that it is perfectly clear that massed cavalry often charged massed infantry head on and sometimes got into stabbing distance, so we can move to considering why that sometimes happened. Let the theory be based on what happened, not what we say happened be based on the theory!

The ancient accounts of Thymbrara, Cunaxa, Dascylium, Gaugamela, and Magnesia make it pretty clear what scythed chariots were for, at least in my view. They certainly make it clear that driving a scythed chariot was a very dangerous job.

The principle that you fail to overlook here is that no normal cavalry horse, or formation of cavalry horse, will charge a solid wall. Whether they be hoplites with shield spears, Macedoneans with shield and longer spears, legionaries with shield and gladius, or a square of British infantry with muskets and fixed bayonets. When confronted with what it senses is something solid, the horse (the creature of the pair with the brain), takes charge and maneuvers around and away.

[Dan Howard]

That's simply not true. Every time this subject comes up people produce plenty of eyewitness accounts of horses doing just that. It would be nice if somone put all of them in a single post so that one link can be posted here instead of having to wade through past threads every time. It is pretty clear that some horses can be trained to ignore their natural tendencies and hurl themselves against a line of spears/pikes/bayonettes.

Edit: here is one example
http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27507

[Sean Manning]

The principle that you fail to overlook here is that no normal cavalry horse, or formation of cavalry horse, will charge a solid wall. Whether they be hoplites with shield spears, Macedoneans with shield and longer spears, legionaries with shield and gladius, or a square of British infantry with muskets and fixed bayonets. When confronted with what it senses is something solid, the horse (the creature of the pair with the brain), takes charge and maneuvers around and away.

I am not overlooking that theory, I am ignoring it because I believe that it is wrong outside the specific context of Napoleonic European warfare. I have read too much contradictory evidence, and my colleague who has spent the last decade training warhorses disagrees.

I suggest that if someone wants to talk about chariots or cavalry charging spearmen, they create a new thread for it.

[koechlyruestow]

Take it outside, boys. Well, I just have. It is called Cavalry and chariots against infantry. I hope you will use it for this very interesting discussion.

Dan, Sean, I have copied your reactions to this topic.

[Sean Manning]

One often reads in email or conversation the idea that the Greeks at Cunaxa who opened their ranks to avoid the scythed chariots were the psiloi or peltasts, or at least that there were some psiloi in front of the phalanx to break up the chariot charge. The main difficulty here is that the account of the Greek fight at Anabasis 1.8 seems to deal exclusively with the hoplites, the peltasts being returned to at Anabasis 1.10 when Xenophon has the occasion to mention Tissaphernes. It is not improbable that Xenophon would mislead in this way, but that is not a positive argument.

Has anyone gone over this in detail? Maybe Otto Lendle? For my thesis work I have been avoiding Cunaxa because I believe there are much more interesting questions to ask about Cyrus' revolt.

Is it the Greeks who open up their ranks? Judging by the Dakyns version, it seems to be the Persians of Artaxerxes, opening up their formation to let their chariots withdraw, but then again, this version has the charioteers themselves disappear without explanation:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/x...abasis.asp

Hi Marja,

It has taken me some time to reply because I wanted to look at the Greek of the passage.

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae text of that passage (Xen. An. 1.8.20) is as follows:

τὰ δ' ἅρματα ἐφέροντο τὰ μὲν δι' αὐτῶν τῶν πολεμίων, τὰ δὲ καὶ διὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων κενὰ ἡνιόχων. οἱ δ' ἐπεὶ προΐδοιεν, διίσταντο· ἔστι δ' ὅστις καὶ κατελήφθη ὥσπερ ἐν ἱπποδρόμῳ ἐκπλαγείς· καὶ οὐδὲν μέντοι οὐδὲ τοῦτον παθεῖν ἔφασαν, οὐδ' ἄλλος δὲ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ μάχῃ ἔπαθεν οὐδεὶς οὐδέν, πλὴν ἐπὶ τῷ εὐωνύμῳ τοξευθῆναί τις ἐλέγετο.

So “And some of the chariots were rushing through the enemy, and others without their drivers through the Greeks, who whenever they saw them coming divided. Someone was overtaken, stunned like a man in a horse race, but they say that he suffered no harm, nor did any other of the Greeks in this fight suffer anything, except that someone on the left wing was said to have been shot with an arrow.” Since the context is the charge of the Greek hoplites, I think that the natural reading is that the Greek hoplites divided. The Cyropaedia tells us that Xenophon believed that the Persian charioteers jumped out before their chariots met the Greeks, and that he believed that scythed chariots could be effective against the front of a phalanx of hoplites if the drivers were brave and bold. But it is hard to say whether this last is based on experience!

[koechlyruestow]

You all assume that the chariots were scythed, but I did not find that in the Anabasis.

[Sean Manning]

You all assume that the chariots were scythed, but I did not find that in the Anabasis.

Hi Eduard,

You must have overlooked Xen. An. 1.8.10: πρὸ δὲ αὐτῶν ἅρματα διαλείποντα συχνὸν ἀπ'
ἀλλήλων τὰ δὴ δρεπανηφόρα καλούμενα· εἶχον δὲ τὰ δρέπανα ἐκ τῶν ἀξόνων εἰς πλάγιον ἀποτεταμένα καὶ ὑπὸ τοῖς δίφροις εἰς γῆν βλέποντα, ὡς διακόπτειν ὅτῳ ἐντυγχάνοιεν.

That is "In front of them [i.e. Artaxerxes' soldiers] at wide intervals from one another were the chariots called 'scythe-bearing'; they had scythes extending from the axles towards the side and under the bodies looking towards the ground, in order to cut up whoever they happened to meet."

See also the listing of the King's forces at Xen. An. 1.7.11 (here). There may be other passages, such as the scene where the Greek soldiers use the wood from the chariots to cook dinner, but I don't have time to track down all the references.

[koechlyruestow]

I stand corrected.