War Horse
Page 2
Javelins were stowed in quivers mounted on the vehicle. The use of javelins indicates that the battle wagons had to close within a relatively short range of the enemy to be effective. In fact, ancient depictions show vehicles riding over fallen enemy warriors. There was undoubtedly a psychological component to their employment—setting a precedent for mounted forces for centuries to come. The vehicles were an elite element of the army manned by members of the royal household. No evidence of these battle wagons exists in the last three centuries of the third millennium BC, which may indicate that over time infantry recognized their weaknesses and became accustomed to their presence, and this reduced their effectiveness.11
The heavy four-wheeled chariot had obvious battlefield limitations: it was difficult to maneuver, it was expensive, it required training of both drivers and animals, and it was not very stable. However, it established the precedent that a horse-centric weapons system had advantages over standard dismounted infantry forces. The advantages included speed, firepower (the number of javelins carried was greater than those of the dismounted individual), and some protection. These advantages further encouraged design improvements of the wheeled vehicle to reduce many of the limitations of the four-wheeled battle wagon and resulted in a new two-wheeled war chariot that would prove effective in combat operations during the second millennium BC.
The central Middle Eastern regions of the Mitanni kingdom and Canaan—a loose confederation of city states—sometimes united, sometimes not—improved upon the battle wagons of Mesopotamia in the middle of the sixteenth century BC. A two-wheel design became standard, as did a two-man crew: driver and a warrior. The warrior was an archer. The vehicle was sturdy and had a solid-wood body with a center-mounted axle. A four-spoke wheel that was lighter and larger, thus providing more ground clearance, replaced the solid wheel. The technology for the two-wheeled war chariot migrated in all directions, reaching the Egyptians via the Hyksos conquerors by 1650 BC. By 1400 BC the founders of the Sheng dynasty arrived with chariots in northern China.12 Within 300 years the horse-drawn war chariot was the standard of advanced military technology throughout the civilized world. It would remain the preeminent weapon of war for about 600 years.
The chariot was an expensive weapon of war. It took time, skilled craftsmanship, and money to build; then it required constant maintenance. In addition, it required breeding or importing horses, and training them to pull it. These significant investments of time and money spawned the rise of an aristocratic warrior class who specialized in chariot warfare and its associated skills. They managed an entire economic and social segment of society that designed, built, and maintained the vehicles, as well as providing and caring for the horses. The Mariyannu were the chariot warrior class within the Mitanni Kingdom.
The Mariyannu were professional warriors and, more specifically, professional charioteers. A fascinating training document for chariot horses is evidence of their sophistication. This training document comes from a Mitanni charioteer named Kikkuli who was enticed into the service of Mitanni’s western neighbor and rival, the Hittite king Suppililiuma. Kikkuli’s task was to improve the quality of the Hittite chariot arm. The document, called the “Kikkuli Texts,” dates from approximately 1345 BC.13
Kikkuli’s instructions were comprehensive. He described the evaluation and selection of horses, including techniques for determining any tendency toward res-piratory ailments. He also carefully explained horse feeding and diet. The horses were gently broken to the task of chariot driving. They were first trained by hand, then with an empty chariot, and finally with a loaded chariot and driver. In 1991 Ann Hyland, a doctoral student at New England University in Australia, replicated the Kikkuli seven-month training method with a herd of 10 modern Arabian horses. She found that by following the methods described by Kikkuli she was able to keep the entire herd sound and significantly increase their endurance—vital elements in chariot horse training. A horse’s endurance gave an army operational and tactical mobility.14 A horse had to get to the battle (operational mobility) and fight effectively when it got there (tactical mobility). For example, Hittite charioteers in one instance were required to march 48 miles overnight and fight the next morning.15 Chariot culture migrated from Mesopotamia through the Mitanni to the Hittites who controlled the dominant kingdom of central Anatolia. The Hittites generally adopted the Mariyannu approach to chariot warfare but placed a greater emphasis on close combat rather than archery. The Hittite tactical concept for the employment of heavy chariots was similar to that depicted in older battle wagon drawings—charging over helpless infantry. The heavy chariot was an offensive weapon. It was designed to physically break infantry formations, and once the formations were broken, to ride down the disorganized opposition and dispatch them, using spears and javelins, as well as horses’ hooves and chariot wheels. In this role, it was the army’s offensive centerpiece. The focus of army tactics was to bring the heavy chariots to bear in the decisive action of the battle.16
The Hittite approach to chariot warfare increasingly included armoring the chariot crew and the horses. Scale armor cloaks were characteristic of both Mitannian and Hittite chariot crews. The cloaks covered the shoulders and were typically calve-length. A wide bronze collar protected the neck, and a scale or bronze helmet provided head cover. The horses were the most vulnerable component of the system and also required armor. The horse’s armor typically consisted of a scale mail “coat” covering the back of the horse and may also have included a neck-protecting mail collar.17
While most of the information on the Mesopotamian battle wagons comes from interpretations of crude drawings, specific and detailed knowledge of early two-wheeled war chariots is based on archeological research and evidence from ancient Egypt. This includes the discovery of numerous well-preserved and conclusively dated vehicles. In 1922 archeologist Howard Carter discovered the incredibly well-preserved chariots of the Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamen. These chariots, dated to the year 1323 BC, illustrate the technological changes that had occurred in the 1300 years since the battle wagons of Ur. Also discovered among the royal treasures in the tombs were the pharaoh’s weapons of war—composite bows and bits of horse harness.
The Hyksos, foreigners who ruled Egypt from 1674 to 1565 BC, introduced the war chariot to the Egyptians. However, the heavy war chariot of the central Middle East did not perfectly meet the needs of the Egyptians. Therefore the Egyptian chariot evolved unique characteristics that complemented and improved the Egyptian way of war. One reason the heavy war chariot did not work for the Egyptians was the nature of the Egyptian army. The Egyptians were a culture that made a virtue of the organization of their population, and their army correspondingly was infantry based, as opposed to the Hittites and Mitanni where the horse and the aristocratic chariot warrior were central to the culture. After the eviction of the Hyksos, Egyptians discovered that under some conditions Egyptian infantry were at a great disadvantage when facing chariot warriors. The solution to this threat was to develop an Egyptian chariot arm. The purpose of the Egyptian chariot force, unlike the Hittite’s, was to counter the adversary’s chariots. This required a more maneuverable chariot that could accelerate quickly. The other factor that influenced Egyptian chariot design was terrain. The Egyptian chariots often had to contend with deep sand and other desert conditions, which necessitated a lighter, more versatile model.
The Egyptians gradually adapted the chariot to their needs. They mounted the wheel to the rear of the center of gravity, which created a more stable vehicle after loading and attaching it to animals. It also decreased its turning radius, making the vehicle much more maneuverable. The number of spokes increased, as did the wheel size, giving the vehicle greater strength, higher ground clearance, and improved mobility over rough terrain. Improvements in carpentry techniques also allowed the design of a relatively high curved forward surface that tapered to the rear. Hardwood used to build the vehicle offered greater strength with less weight. In addition, a major weight
-saving feature was the construction of a woven wickerlike floor. This floor also had some flexibility, which further increased the stability of the crew when faced with rough terrain or rapid maneuvering. The new war chariot, as employed by the Egyptians, was an extremely light vehicle, weighing approximately 75 pounds, was quite maneuverable, had a tight-turning radius, accelerated very fast, and was easily handled by a single warrior.18
The composite bow was also an essential component of the Egyptian war chariot. Javelins carried by the early battle wagons had significant limitations. They had very limited range when thrown from a vehicle—and were particularly ineffective if the vehicle was moving. In fact, the weapon was only effective when the thrower dismounted. Also, javelins were of limited use against enemy infantry and even less effective against other chariots. The composite bow was the weapon of choice for the Egyptian charioteer. Unlike the Hittites, the Egyptians did not employ the war chariot was as a weapon for shock action. Instead, they used it as a highly mobile firing platform.
Conclusively tracing the origin of the composite bow is impossible. However, the available evidence suggests that the bow evolved over time, much like the chariot. People discovered, tested, and adopted each facet of its complex construction independently, and then disseminated the design information through the ancient world by word of mouth, commerce, and warfare. Most likely it originated in the familiar areas of the southern steppes where lands occupied by skilled barbarian hunters touched upon those of emerging urban civilizations and their craftsman. By the second millennium BC, the composite bow was available in essentially the form known today. The composite bow differed from other bows in its construction. Bowyers used several different types of wood, bone, and glue to create a bow with far greater power than bows fashioned from a single stock of wood. Modern tests indicate that a second-millennium composite bow was likely to have about 100 yards greater range than the standard stick bow of the period. This special construction, however, made the composite bow extremely expensive and time-consuming to manufacture. These characteristics made it an impractical arm for standard infantry bowmen. However, it was a weapon ideally suited to specially selected, highly skilled, and elite warriors associated with the royal household: charioteers.
In the several hundred years between the use of the Ur battle wagon and the documented employment of the war chariot by the Egyptians, horses had evolved. During the period of the Ur battle wagon, horses were still a relatively rare and exotic phenomena in southwest Asia. Donkeys or onagers were more likely to draw battle wagons than were horses. By the second millennium, horses were more common, and humans had developed a greater understanding of their training and control. All the great empires established their own stud farm systems to provide mounts and retrain captured stock; horses were among the most prized war booty. In addition, merchants established a lively horse trade between the fringes of the European and Asian steppes and the heart of the Middle East. The horse was also larger (though still generally the size of a large modern pony), faster, and had a more refined appearance—a function of selective breeding by humans.
Horsemen developed more efficient means of controlling horses. The skeletal evidence from archeological digs in Egypt dated to 1675 BC indicates that horse bits were in use by this period. This evidence comes in the form of unnatural wear observed in the horse skeleton’s rear teeth. This wearing on the teeth is consistent with the presence and pressure of a bone or bronze bit.19 The archaeologists also discovered fragments likely to have been bits. These indicate the invention of simple snaffle bits consisting of a single or joined bar with connections for reins on either end. The invention of the bit permitted the chariot driver to control speed and direction simultaneously. Applying or releasing even pressure on the horse’s mouth through the bit controlled speed. Increasing pressure on one side of the bit or the other controlled direction. Unlike the earlier noseband, which could constrict respiration, the mouth bit gave control without limiting the horse’s performance.
Three critical components combined to create the war chariot, the first effective horse-based weapons system: lethality with the composite bow, speed and endurance in the trained modern horse, and a stable and maneuverable two-wheeled platform with improved harness. This system revolutionized the nature of warfare. Chariot-based armies dominated the centers of the civilized world in the Middle East from around 1800 BC to approximately 900 BC. The composite bow and a large ammunition supply permitted chariot warriors to decimate infantry formations from outside the range of most dismounted weapons. The speed and maneuverability of the war chariot permitted the charioteers to rapidly break contact and reposition if the slower infantry moved against them. The devastating fire killed enemy infantry, disrupted the integrity of their formations, and created opportunities for allied infantry attacks.
Egyptian drawings show pharaohs riding alone in the chariot with the reins wrapped around their waist as they simultaneously fired their bows. This is an idealized view of the pharaoh’s prowess as a charioteer. The bowman did have the reins wrapped around his waist, permitting him to work his bow, but the reins’ purpose was to assist the bowman in maintaining his balance. A charioteer drove into battle with the reins in one hand; the other arm wielded a shield. Egyptian charioteers also wore helmets and bronze scale armor. They also used armor and leather on the chariot to add protection, although it was always limited because of weight. Heavy cloth and occasionally armor was used to protect the horses.20
Under the right conditions, bow-armed charioteers in battle could destroy an enemy army without ever physically coming into contact with it. The most effective defense against enemy chariots was other chariot formations. Chariot against chariot warfare was often the decisive opening phase of battle. The adversaries had to drive off the chariots of their opponent in order to engage the unprotected infantry. After establishing favorable conditions, long-range effective chariot archery or a chariot charge by heavy chariots set the conditions for close infantry combat. Sometimes infantry combat never occurred because successful chariot skirmishing forced the bulk of the opposition’s infantry to withdraw without offering battle.
Chariot combat pitted the Egyptians’ speed and maneuverability against the Hittites’ armored heavy chariot. In such an engagement, the goal of the Egyptians was to prevent the heavy chariots from closing on their infantry. They did this by closing the range in a countercharge, avoiding physical contact, disrupting the formation of heavy chariots, and most importantly, killing charioteers and horses with deadly and accurate archery. If the enemy charioteers chose to attack the Egyptian chariots, then the Egyptians accomplished their mission. Delaying the adversary’s chariots sufficiently so that the Egyptian infantry had time to prepare to withstand the heavy chariot charge also accomplished the mission. After dealing with the enemy’s chariots, the Egyptian chariots turned their attention to the enemy’s infantry.
A component of the Egyptian chariot weapons system that is not well understood or well documented is the chariot runners. Chariot runners were lightly armed infantry who followed closely behind the chariots. From this vantage, they executed a variety of actions in support of the chariot operation: They could rescue dismounted chariot crews whose horses had been wounded or killed in action; they could use their bows and javelins to attack the enemy charioteers; they could kill or capture dismounted enemy charioteers; and they could replace Egyptian charioteer casualties, as well as claim and fight from unmanned chariots. The chariot runners gave added versatility to the Egyptian chariot arm and reduced its vulnerability in a wide variety of situations.21
Trained and conditioned horses permitted charioteers to move 30 to 40 miles in a day, which allowed commanders to send messages long distances and also allowed maneuver on an operational scale. The ability to quickly move across long distances allowed commanders to capitalize on tactical victory by pursuit and destruction of the enemy. This capability made tactical victory both operationally and strategically significa
nt. It also allowed them to control ground beyond the immediate presence of the army—facilitating the consolidation of conquests.
CHARIOTS IN BATTLE: KADESH, 1275 BC
Most of the major characteristics of chariot warfare are represented in the great chariot battle of Kadesh in 1275 BC.22 This battle not only demonstrated the decisive role of chariots but also highlighted the two competing tactical concepts of chariot warfare. The battle for Kadesh also holds a unique place in military history as it is the first engagement from which the surviving records are complete enough to permit a general reconstruction of events.
Kadesh was a confrontation between the Egyptian army under Pharaoh Ramses II and the Hittite army led by its king, Muwatallish. The battle occurred in May 1275 BC on the flat plain west of the strategically critical city of Kadesh. Although the detailed interpretations of the battle by historians vary greatly, the Egyptians documented the battle well, and enough uncontested material remains to demonstrate the nature of chariot warfare in the Bronze Age. The following description of the battle highlights the generally accepted course of events.23