Uriah thinks about chariot wargaming.

I've been doing some background reading for my Biblical wargaming project, and it seems that there are some interesting parallels in Near Eastern armies before the first millennium BC.  The reason I record this here is that it has some impact on my proposed Biblical collection.

A tomb bronze model chariot. 

It begins with the Mittani,  probably the ones who modified the big six spoke, four wheeled carts, of earlier times, to the four spoke light chariots that came to dominate the Near East for about 500 years.

Mittani Maryannu or 'Young hero' charioty were a noble elite, holding land grants, the knights of their respective time, generally clad in bronze scale armour, fighting with a bow, and a large supply of arrows on board.  A chariot runner would accompany the Maryannu in battle, and indeed Egyptian chariots had a support crew of five men, not necessarily in battle of course.

The Mittani "empire" seems not to have existed for long (although both Stillman and Rohl point out that it lasted possibly as long as the British Empire, so let's not get smug)  The chariotry, or at least the idea, was exported far and wild.  Indo European tribes up in the back of beyond began using them, and the Hyksos spread them to Egypt.

Egyptian?  Or Canaanite perhaps.

 The list is a long one, even before we get to Egypt.  Babylonian,  Middle Assyrian, Elamite, Ugarit,  Israelite, Philistine, Hittite, Cannanite, even the Greeks.  The fighting platform moving quickly on the field of battle became the core of virtually all the city state armies.  Bronze scale armour, land grant noble warriors, professionalism and use of the bow, were all common factors.

Egyptian Chariot warriors had quite a difficult training regime tasks, Amenhotep could thread twelve targets, twelve yards apart, with arrows, while the horses were at the gallop for instance.   The Maryannu wears that bronze scale to save himself being peppered by foot, or other chariots, and the horses would be similarly armoured.

Egyptian chariots operated in formations of five, ten and fifty, as did the Mitanni, and most everyone else.   These were full time soldiers, regulars in DBM parlance, who practiced formations and tactics.  I would argue that the chariot forces of most city states would be very similar, and here's the wargaming point... they look identical.  Rohl makes much of the fact that they even spoke a similar language.  Egyptian chariotry was after all derived from the Hyksos,  Cannanite invaders, who later returned to Canaan.

We are told that the Egyptians struggled to breed horses that would compete with the more northern Maryannu chariots, and that Egyptians used horses which we would today call ponies.  I'm not as convinced that this would necessarily mean different tactics, and prevent the three man crew. The chariot runner seems to have been a long standing member of a Maryannu chariot team.  Despite some rather odd ideas in wargaming rules I would find it difficult to believe that any of the chariots from this period were intended as shock weapons, certainly not against formed infantry, but the use of chariot runners to protect the car and it's warrior and driver seems obvious.  Other members of the team could lead spare horses, postulated as the beginnings of cavalry among the Assyrians.

Battle of Quadesh relief.

The Egyptians used their chariot runners to fill the spaces, and interestingly they were expected to keep up, perhaps explaining that extra Hittite crewman on the reliefs.   The gap between chariots had to allow for manoeuvre, and the turning circle of a chariot seems to have been more than its length, as well as being dependant on its speed.  Stillman argues for threading an enemy formation based on this, and it seems plausible.

So then my conclusion is that chariots fought other chariots, or hunted down light foot.  So called "heavy" chariots were intended to kill enemy chariots rather than engage formed enemy foot.  Light foot troops would follow up the chariots as support, protecting them from being swamped by enemy light foot.  This seems to be what Homer is telling us in the Illiad, and I mention this because Homer's description of the Fighting seems to parallel this.  I don't mean the descriptions of heroes fighting, but Nestor's description of his chariot formations, fighting in rigid lines with foot support.

A heroic depiction of the Pharaoh, overthrowing his enemies.  

I argue then that Hittite, Middle Assyrian or even an Egyptian chariots, all look the same.  The vehicles seem pretty much interchangeable to me.   If you can tell the difference between the crews of those "nationalities" then you are doing well.  Yes, the Egyptians are distinctive, but only to a certain extent, yes the Hittites have long hair braids hanging from their helmets, and possibly being thus identified as both Homer's Amazons and Rameses' "women warriors," but in 28mm, at £14 for a chariot?  Get real here, I intend to use generic Maryannu, with perhaps a command chariot of the right nationality, and while I'm on the subject I intend to use generic Levy foot too, probably Canaanite, since they served as vassals or allies for virtually everyone anyway.

Cynically of course it's down to the lack of graphical evidence.  The Egyptian reliefs are impressive, but they are supported by evidence that is less so when it comes to the actual appearance of soldiery.  Army standards are distinctive, so that is an area I can use to differentiate economically.

The ubiquitous Maryannu.

In wargaming terms this logic means that a few Canaanite or Mitanni chariots would allow me to fight from Babylon to Ilion, or even down into Nubia without feeling too guilty.  My Libyan Chief will on occasion have to give up his chariot for a more northerly crew of course.

I have also taken other implications from my reading over the years.  Skirmish games can realistically use forces based on thimgs like a few chariots chasing tribesmen, Bedouin,  Shassu, Libyan, Nubian, or Anatolian Hillmen, take your pick.  Chariots were not restricted to a battlefield role, fast courier tasks, skirmishing around an army, or around the city, reconnaissance against an advancing host, catching groups of raiding bandits, raiding enemy villages, and into enemy cities cultivated zones.  It's a list that could spawn dozens of scenarios.   It has been suggested that dismounted chariot crews, better trained, armed and armoured than any availabe infantry, would fight in siege lines as archers, but I'm not sure I would go that far.  The Egyptians sent out chariots to keep enemy at bay, and it seems like giving a trained fighter pilot a rifle and putting him in the trenches.  Then again in the mindset of those Heroes of Homer's epics I'm sure those guys would not hesitate.  It would also make a good scenario!

This is a key point, and one that wargames battle rules don't really address.  Battles like Megiddo, or Quadesh, were generational fights.  Patrols to quell non city tribes and "Bandits" were routine.  Egyptian chariots needed a lot of maintenance, hence the high support staff, and the reason seems to be that they took a lot of bashing.  The crews trained hard of course, but it would also seem to indicate that they were used hard.

Larry the Libyan, undipped as yet, work needed ...

So that's where I'm at in Chariot Rampant, drawing up my scenarios, and working out chariot tactics.  My painting not so much.  I have a single Libyan Swordsman painted, and I just can't seem to get the skin tone right, or the detail on the leather cloak, which I may try to detail again as a giraffe skin.   I'll get there... It just may take a while.