Cavalry Vs Chariots

No, this isn't one of those death match threads i'm afraid.

Throughout much of the ancient world where horses were present, Chariots were used in a variety of forms and ways on the battlefield, but were eventualy replaced by cavalry.
What exactly led to this?
What was the final advantage that cavalry had which consigned charoits to the dustbin of the battlefield for good?

Originally posted by Cywr No, this isn't one of those death match threads i'm afraid. Throughout much of the ancient world where horses were present, Chariots were used in a variety of forms and ways on the battlefield, but were eventualy replaced by cavalry. What exactly led to this? What was the final advantage that cavalry had which consigned charoits to the dustbin of the battlefield for good?

 

 Good topic.

 Well at the start the chariot and the horse were 2 different platforms. THe chariots offers stability for the crew to shoot the enemy and has decent mobility, however the chariot mobility was restricted to unbroken terrain. On other hand, the chariot was a compromise btw mobility and stability. 

 The horses have unequalled mobility and can operate on most terrain, but offer little stability, the horseman has to use one hand to guide the horse and another to wield his weapon. This represent a major disadvantage and in the early time horses were neglected and chariot more popular. However with the invention of saddle, stirrup etc, the horseman was capable of controlling the horse with his legs therefore he could use both hand, one to wield a shield and the other a weapon during the battle. Saddle offers stability also. Eventually the horse as a  mobile platform became superior to the chariot and eventually replaced the chariot on the battlefield. 

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

A cavalryman could carry only one spear and when throw it on enemy had just his sword while chariot crew was able to fire much more missles than the horseman.

And chariot armed with scythes could have been used as tank.

The units which were not use to fight against charriots could have been also sucesfully surprised by chariot tactic. Thats what happend during Caesar's invasion of Britain.

Edited by Mosquito

Originally posted by Imperator Invictus A cavalryman could carry only one spear and when throw it on enemy had just his sword while chariot crew was able to fire much more missles than the horseman. A horse archer can turn and run in circles while a chariot can't turn as easily or else the chariot will fly off to one side. Chariots can't turn around.

While this is truth you must also consider the fact that not every ancient army had skilled archers or even such skilled archers who could have been horse archers. That is why more often horsemen were spear throwers than horsearchers. Many armies had javelins instead of archers.

The chariot doesn't make the charge more massive in the front because the horse is not rigidly fastened to the chariot. So if the horses don't run though the infantry line, it'll be squeezed by the oncoming chariot that it drags. In this case, the chariot isn't that good in melee because the horse is now stuck in between the battle lines. The horse becomes easy sword meat and doesn't really help.

In the ancient armies cavalry was rarely used to frontal attacks against infantry. The same limits which apply to chariots apply also to cavalry. A horseman who would try to use lance in the way in which medieval knights were doing it would have been dismounted in instant. And charging from front with sword against infantry pikes would be a suicide.But for the flank or rear asault chariots could have been as succesfull as cavalry if not more. They would disorganise enemy infantry and scythes attached to the chariots even if wouldnt be very effective in killing had great psychological effect. Imagine yourself as a infantryman whose unit is attacked from flank. You see chariots with scythes which cuts your friends on pieces. I would panic. While if i was attacked by horsemen i wouldnt be afraid that much. Both sword and scythe kills but the way you die and the way how the death looks are completelly different. A soldier before battle may be ready to die but during the battle if somthing unexpected happends, when enemy have weapons which looks terrible and causes fear, he may panic and try to flee. Same with elephants, one may not be afraid to be pierced by spear but may afraid of being smashed by giant animal. Same was with polish winged husars in the 17th century. They were causing such fear that enemy often was fleeing before they clashed his lines.

 

Edited by Mosquito

This is interesting thread. After reading many battle accounts, this is my personal view.

I think that as long as phalanx or line was the main battle formation for infantry, chariots were very effective, due to the fact that phalanx can move only in one direction and cannot deal effectively with chariots which were often used to destroy their formation, by ramming it. Psychological effect of all these blades attached to axels must been terrifying too for a Hoplite that could not get out of way. When roman legions started to use square formation that could fight and maneuver in any direction and could simply let chariots pass and reform after, their usefulness died. This is how Romans dealt with elephants as well. They let them pass and cavalry or rear units would take care of them, while front line stayed intact.

What do you think?

 

Edited by cavalry4ever

Originally posted by Temujin in my opinion the main reasons where difficulty to manoevre effectively and depndancy on even terrain.

But think for example about briton chariots. They were fast, were well manuevring and were appearing from nowhere, hitting Caesar's army and dissapearing.

Edited by Mosquito

In the ancient armies cavalry was rarely used to frontal attacks against infantry. The same limits which apply to chariots apply also to cavalry. A horseman who would try to use lance in the way in which medieval knights were doing it would have been dismounted in instant.

After Alexander's conquest, the chariot disappeared in Perisan armies. The Parthian "cavalry" did not have chariots, just horse archers and armored lancers. Other Near eastern armies, such as the Palmyrenes and Armenians also deployed Cataphracts as the main "mobile punch" force. Their advantage over the chariot was the they could charge, then fight well in the following melee - and it would also be mistaken to think that ancient cavalry could not charge. The Sassanids did not have stirrups and yet their armored lancers were among the most noted units as recorded by the Romans. In pitch fights the chariot was also defeated by cavalry, as in the battle of Hydaspes. As mobile missile platforms, the chariot was easily replaced by the horse archer in near eastern armies or horse javelinmen in other armies.

Likewise the Chariot in eygptian armies disappeared after macedonian conquest.


Edited by Imperator Invictus

Originally posted by Mosquito But think for example about briton chariots. They were fast, were well manuevring and were appearing from nowhere, hitting Caesar's army and dissapearing.

perhaps, but that was just one battle, and the briton chariot was quite different from other chariots, and i don't think that they were as effective as in your opinion.

 

 I was just reading the first volume of the book: Warfare in the Biblical Land. In one of the photos they have the picture of a well preserved specimen of an egyptian chariot (forgot which dynasty). Anyone here have any idea how the wheel was built? The rim of the wheel look like it is composite. Look like some formidable technology, too advance for that age if you tell me. And the chariot look very agile but it wouldn't maneouver as well as a horse on broken and muddy terrain.

 As for chariot was used to charge the enemy, this is an an exxageration I think. It was rarely used that way. The chariot was used to concentrate fire onto a decisive spot during the battle. The mobility of the chariots allow  them to maneouver almost freely on the battlefield, and to regroup at a decisive spot when summon.

 

Edited by Quetzalcoatl

Well, i never said that chariots were better than cavalry. For the sake of discussion I just wanted to stress that they had some advantages and well used could have been an important weapon in the ancient battle. And for long were.