Chariot Warfare

Dear Adrian! Welcome!
RE; Chariot Warfare, I would suggest that chariots were mostly basic mobile platforms for bowmen, and as a transport for the more heavily armed troops (knights) in an army as well as their armor bearers, etc.

Thus, in the Greek Vs. Troy sagas, it appears to me that the chariot was merely the method whereby the knights, Hector, etc., were transported to important batle points whereby a few of them could hold and hamper many of the lessor armed enemy, their attendants would both carry their lances/spears, back-up weaponry, bows and arrows, and cover the knight's back! The chariot itself would be kept away from the fray and standing by to retreive the knight when he became too tired to perform, and then whisk him from the field for rest, etc. A bowman might well stay around the chariot to provide covering fire for the knights as well?

Note, all of the above is merely my speculation! But, I feel that the same circumstances would also apply in medieval times, and later! The entire premise of heavily armored knights in both mail and or sheet metal, riding upon their mighty steeds, could only be effective if they could count upon not being un-seated! But, if they were thrown, or their horse disabled, they sometimes, it seems were so protected that they could get up and fight on foot. But, if you have seen some representations of these knights in jousting matches, you will notice that they were only seated upon their nags via a lift system, and I feel the same system was also used to un-seat them!

I also feel that most knights were more interested in fighting the opposing knights rather than the un-armored rabble, so they would be transported to these particular areas whereby noble hand to hand battles would take place.

One also has to consider that the horses themselves were quite easy targets for the enemy, and arrows that would be ignored by the knight might well spook a horse, as well as create numerous wounds, thus we have to assume that most horses were also armored! The very type of horse used by a heavily armored knight also needs to be considered!

Thus, one might well consider that at the height of mounted knight encounters, the knight would be mounted upon a very large animal such as a beast similar if not exactly like one of the famous Budweiser Clydsdales! These animals are huge, like 17 hands high or better, and weighing over 1500 lbs! Thus they were capable of actually carrying a knight whose weight might well exceed 240 pounds!

A fully armed and armored knights was not much in a foot race! Laugh! And in a melee', a mounted knight surrounded by a dozen or so footmen with spears and/or swords, etc., might easily disembowel or cripple an un-armored horse, at least it seems so to me! A knight, no matter how good he might be, just could not cover all sides at all times! A blade struck across the thin fore-leg (is this called a fet-lock?) of a horse might easily disable it or cause the horse to unseat the knight himself!

Lots of things to consider?
Hope the above might help you?
Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 27-Oct-2009 at 08:50

Young Adrian, of course some battle fields were more condusive to chariot or even cavalry attack than others. One can just imagine how hard it would be to merely stay upon any chariot on a stony battle field? But, our consensual history states that it is so! But, I argue that these were not anything like the racing chariots seen to race in Roman arenas, or in Egytian sands, etc., but were rather simple armored wagons, which were almost the same as those supply wagons which made up the Laager of most of these armies! Maybe you might well look up the word Laager? It seems that even the attack of the "Sea People" during the time of Ramesses II, or Necho II, were hampered by their "laagers?"