Diet Coke, Chariots and the Divine Julius.

A full Committee meeting of the Marshal Petain Club was recently convened in a local hostelry.  As club Treasurer I was on chariot driving duty, and during a discussion of the Iliad in a moment of diet coke driven clarity, I pointed out that there was actually an account from a reliable (almost) source, of a similar style of chariot warfare to that of old Homer’s verse, but that it gave a different view of those heroics.  It outlines the role of the chariot in battle, not as simply a ceremonial transport for its heroic owner.   Actually it reports the viewpoint of a regular professional army meeting chariot riding heroes of a similar vein to Achilles and his mates.  

The divine Julius is one of the only generals from Antiquity who left us his direct account of fighting against chariot warriors.  His analysis of their use is invaluable but bears close scrutiny.  Of course, given that this is Caesar’s military and more importantly political memoir, it must be read with caution.  Caesar is reporting one of his few defeats, yet he was voted twenty days of festivals by the Senate for his exotic fictionalised victory.  Chariots formed part of this exotica, and recalled the days of 150 years before when Celtic armies using chariots had threatened Rome itself.

He describes an ambush on the men of the 7th Legion, out gathering supplies. (By his orders!) who were attacked by a larger force of British chariots and cavalry

… then attacking them suddenly, scattered as they were, and when they had laid aside their arms, and were engaged in reaping, they killed a small number, threw the rest into confusion, and surrounded them with their cavalry and chariots.

The chariots seem to have disordered the Romans, who were disordered anyway, and who had been isolated from the main Roman body.  They inflicted some casualties upon them, before Julius rescues his careless boys from his own mistake.

Caesar breaks off his narrative to supply some analysis of the use of chariots, and it seems to fall into two phases:

[4.33]Their mode of fighting with their chariots is this: firstly, they drive about in all directions and throw their weapons and generally break the ranks of the enemy with the very dread of their horses and the noise of their wheels;

He seems to be describing a swarm of irregular troops.  The emphasis is on speed.  The initial contact has perhaps an emphasis on the throwing of javelins (more literally in translation "firing their darts"), and the use of morale effects of the proximity of chariots and their sound, in an attempt to break the enemy formation.  It seems clear that the “enemy” being referred to here are Roman horsemen, or isolated groups.  Celtic chariots are a weapon to be used against opportunistic targets or enemy horsemen, not formed Roman legionaries.  They also use mounted firepower, at least initially, until they close in for melee:

...and when they have worked themselves in between the troops of horse, leap from their chariots and engage on foot. The charioteers in the meantime withdraw some little distance from the battle, and so place themselves with the chariots that, if their masters are overpowered by the number of the enemy, they may have a ready retreat to their own troops. Thus they display in battle the speed of horse, [together with] the firmness of infantry;

There is an echo perhaps of “heroic” warfare in this.  Dismounting is however mentioned elsewhere by Caesar, as a tactic used by “savage” German cavalry, and by cavalry in these societies we mean nobility.  Aggressive foot getting among disordered cavalry caused real problems.  The speed of the chariots seems to be the factor that allows this.

Caesar also recounts:

and by daily practice and exercise attain to such expertness that they are accustomed, even on a declining and steep place, to check their horses at full speed, and manage and turn them in an instant and run along the pole, and stand on the yoke, and thence betake themselves with the greatest celerity to their chariots again.

This has always confused me, and the Penguin edition I first read years ago translated it in a similar way.   It seems on face value to be claiming that the chariot warriors could remount by running along the chariot pole, ie… from the front of the vehicle.   I'm not sure that makes sense, or even that this is the meaning.   If he is retreating, as Caesar says, then he would surely want the chariot pointing away from the guys chasing him. Looking at a bare translation:

and in a short time and spurred on his horse down the steep place,
and in the run through the pole and the yoke of the bend, and to regulate the speed vehemently, and to depart from it and in the car in the shortest possible accustomed to betake themselves.

Not as clear I think.  Perhaps on a different reading the warrior can dismount from the front, over the yoke incredibly rapidly, after the driver does an emergency stop, even on a steep slope, and that the vehicle can be turned rapidly emphasising the maneuverability of the chariot itself.  It seems to me that the Celts practice these maneuvers, indicating a degree of martial prowess.  Interesting that this is the practice he emphasises rather than throwing the darts.

Another writer, the Greek Historian Diodorus Siculus almost echoes Caesar, or more probably uses Julius account to write:

"In their journeyings and when they go into battle the Gauls use chariots drawn by two horses, which carry the charioteer and the warrior; and when they encounter cavalry in the fighting they first hurl their javelins at the enemy and then step down from their chariots and join battle with their swords.  Certain of them despise death to such a degree that they enter the perils of battle without protective armour and with no more than a girdle about their loins. They bring along to war also their free men to serve them, choosing them out from among the poor, and these attendants they use in battle as charioteers and as shield-bearers

My interest in Julius account stems from my current army building phase.  The Bronze Age Egyptian chariots are being constructed, and I am more than curious to find out their use in battle.  Caesar gives us some clues, but allows us to see some differences.

The primary weapon of a Maryannu was a bow.  Egyptian chariots carried a good supply of arrows and the prowess of their professional crew was such that unlike the Celts, who emphasise the practice of individual warrior heroes, the Bronze Age Egyptians trained in terms of firepower, and teamwork.

Caesar’s account of the speed and maneuverability of the Briton’s chariots is interesting.  These vehicles, like those of the Egyptians, were light and fast.  A Libyan or Caananite bowman would need to be good, lucky or numerous to hit one of these.  The Hittite’s use of spearmen as chariot crew at Qadesh surprised the Egyptians, yet the Pharaoh was not defeated… quite.  Indeed Egyptian chariot warriors would have a spear as a backup weapon. Running around outside the chariot however… well the Egyptians had a more sophisticated answer than that in their chariot runners.

Like the Celt’s use of chariots to attack Caesar’s horse, I suspect that Egyptian chariots were a weapon used against enemy mounted troops… other chariots, and to ride down isolated groups using their speed.  Skilled horse mounted bowmen can be tremendously accurate, and the trained and professional Maryannu from a more stable platform than a horse's back would have been quite deadly.

If the Celt’s use of chariots echoes the heroic fighting of the Iliad then it seems the Egyptians resemble more the professionalism of the Romans themselves.  Probably...

Now Mr Uriah Sir,  when I slap the rail of the chariot I want you to behave as if a member of the public has stepped out into the chariot’s path, and do an emergency stop.  Ready…

Slap.

Bloody hell man you just ran over him at full speed… ah… you're  a Hittite aren't you!