Charioting in ancient Egypt: the tactics

**DAVIDE** · November 28, 2010, 04:11 PM

BRIEF INTRODUCTION ABOUT POLITICAL CLIMATE IN EGYPT

Hyksos entering Egypt

The Egyptian rulers of XIII dinasty, around 40, which ruled the country in a period 120 years long, were weaker than their predecessors even if they have been successful in maintening the control on Nubia and managing a centralized administration. In the last years they had challenging with the rival rulers coming from XIV dinasty which had acquired the control of the region of delta and also contrasting the Hyksos invasions, a Semitic population comind from western Asia. The Hyksos were stationed already during the end of XIII dinasty, in the Nile delta's area where advantaged by an anarchy climate created there by locals, this fact gave them the possibility of living thanks to pillages. When in the Middle East the pressure of Indoeuropean tribes as Hittites, Kassites and Hurrians grew up esponentially, the penetration of Hyksos became stronger and more intense than ever and the total lacking of a solid central power conceided invaders of taking possession of Egypt. First they occupied the area of delta and the town of Haware where they created an authonomous state and then in a 50 years long period, they have been successful extending their dominion till Memphis. The conquer was easy in the end even because Hyksos used the war chariots, a unknown weapon for the Egyptians. The forming of a Hyksos dinasty in Egypt signed the starting of the second intermediate period, lasted like 205 years, characterized by instability and lacking of political unity. The Hyksos of XV dinasty set as their capital Haware, in the oriental delta of Nile, keeping control of the central and northern regions of the country. They adopted the Egyptian royal titles and Egyptian uses and costumes, also keeping in the higher grades of bureaucracy Egyptian officials. Simultaneosly, in the middle Egypt the XVI dinasty has born and those people were probably puppets of the same Hyksos. Major indipendence was exercised in the south by a third center of power, headquarter of Theban XVII dinasty ruling in the territory included between Elephantine and Abydos. Already the Theban king Kamose (1576-1570BC circa) of XVII dinasty had fought against Hyksos with alternate success but it was his brother Amosis I the guy able reunifying the country defeating the Hyksos, destroying their capital Haware and forcing them to refuge in the low Palestine. The Hyksos during the period in which they ruled Egypt, introduced some important innovations as the the vertical frame, the colture of olive, the processing of bronze and in military field, the usage of brandnew weapons as the war chariot

BRIEF INTRODUCTION ABOUT CHARIOTS

Well, the first Egyptian chariot used came from just after the Hyksos invasion and we can clearly say it was a pure copy and paste as we could call it in modern times. infact it was just a light wooden box opened in the rear part mounted on an axis linked to two wheels made by four radiuses per wheel, drag by two horses. On the box it was mounted a fixed quiver because the driver was also the shooter.. so there was no time seaching an arrow after shooting the previous one...

Shardana's chariot with 4 radiuses per wheel

In 1400 BC circa some little technical modifications have been set to chariots for improving enormously their tactical capability. Wheels have been reinforced with bronzed material and each wheel now have six radiuses to let the chariot able trasporting one passenger more than before, the driver and the archer or javeliner able improving the ratio of shooting and accuracy than in the past especially when the driver was also the shooter. The driver in the two spots chariot have the role of a shield carrier too, protecting the archer/javeliner whilst this one's reloading..both have a bronze and leather armors to protect the body in case of hit or fall from the box while chariot's running.. and prerogative of this chariot, i mean the improvement the first type of charior hadnt's that this brandnew chariot was completely totally removable, to be transported by mules or donkeys in case of need or impossibility caused by the morphology of territory.

Six radiuses chariot carrying driver/shield bearer plus additional archer

EGYPTIAN CHARIOTS AT WAR: THE TACTICS

Well, let me start saying that in the standard of Ur by the Sumerians, the javeliner puts his hand on the shoulder of the driver, this is a more practical position, as demonstrated by English reenacters because this creates a sort of natural damper which accompanies the shooter whilst he is in his motion to drive. But within Middle East we have seen different and easier cases about charioting as with disarmed driver onboard or with a driver and javeliner/archer in the same time..

Approaching phase

Chariots proceed scaled through a fast trotting because in this way an immobilized chariot isnt able to obstruct the race of the others of following ones. The enemy infantries are probably equipped with javelins and then they may face the chariots from the distance with their own weapons. Each chariot occupies the front of at least 4 men and is therefore disadvantaged in terms of intensity of shooting about 12 to 1.

First shooting phase

The chariots however had the advantage of mobility and they exploit it quickly entering and exiting by the useful distance of shooting.. this motion brings the opponents to waste a big part of their arrows/javelins looking to hit the chariots and this takes infantry to clutter their formation. Neo Assyrian and Syro Hittite chariots were even better prepared for this tactic.. they had a large shield attached/fixed at the rear to protect the crew during the going away phase after the shooting. This is not an easy manourvring to be made because the axis of the chariot cannot rotate, but it is fixed to the flat part of the chariot requiring large training by thge driver to be made with a radius of curvature sufficiently small. The shooter is leaning with his left arm and with the shield at his left shoulder, shooting when the driver of chariot is curving parallel to the enemy front, taking also advantage by the speed of the chariot to give more strength to its shooting. The concatenation of chariots focuses the shooting on a precise point in the enemy formation: movement recalls the "caracol" by Reiters or fake attacks by animal predators inducing their prey when they are in a unapprocheable compact flock to come disunited, in a way to be able in hitting the most vulnerable and isolated enemy soldiers.

Second phase of shooting

The chariots exert a strong deliberate pressure in a point of the enemy formation. loops continue at great speed with the time passing and the enemy formation not only starts becoming thinner by the losses, but also begin cluttering in order to avoid enemy fire and to go out from chariots trajectory of the charge: probable targets starts amassing themselves at the sides of the line of fire, pushing away their mates and crowding on each other.

Preliminary phase of attack

When the confusion of enemy becomes evident, chariots take advantage of situation increasing their own pressure, approaching the opponent: with enemy chaos the pressure of the chariots become unsustainable and holes in the enemy formation start to be more wider.

Final phase

At the first chance, the head of the chariot contingent roughly interrupts the caracol and addresses his own chariot firmly towards a hole opened in the enemy formation: the other chariots follow him immediately reducing the distances between chariot and chariot and placing themselves lightly enlarged, hitting like a wedge between the enemy lines. The charge of the chariots is overwhelming and the enemies at this point are now just a shapeless mass of men seeking for safety escaping from the battlefield.
It 'a signal also for own infantry which immediately takes advantege of enemy disorganization giving the final hit to battle

**MAXlMUS** · November 28, 2010, 06:49 PM

well the diagrams pretty much sum up how crucial chariots were in any bronze age army. or why muwatalli made a truce with ramses after his charioteer force was decimated by ramses at qadesh, despite the main body of his army being virtually intact

it's also interesting to note how the hittite chariots and the egyptian chariots developed differently - while the egyptian chariot was light (but solid), this allowed for greater maneuverability and speed, which made them ideal as shooting platforms against massed infantry before charging. on the other hand the chariots of hatti were more suited for being shock troops i.e. as an assault weapon, with 2 warriors ( + the driver) being able to ride instead of the 2 man egyptian crew. as a result the hittie chariots were heavier and slower, but the main problem with the hittie design was that the axle of the vehicule was more centrally placed then the egyptian model in order to accomodate the weight of the extra fighter, with the result being less stability (and maneuverability) at high speeds. these factors, as well as having no support from their main army, left the hittite charioteers hopelessly exposed at qadesh, despite their early gains.
+rep.

**DAVIDE** · November 29, 2010, 04:35 AM

Yes basically the role of Egyptian chariots was supporting the infantry which remained the primary force, mainly deployed to protect the flanks of the Egyptian army against enemy chariots designed as breakthrough weapon using their weight of vehicle to crash causing chaos as in Qadesh for example. In many cases or terrain conditions or as in a direct 1vs1 i can clearly say, looking how Asians developed their vehicles, that Hittite chariot being heavier was clearly superior as destruction impact to Egyptian counterpart. This is why Egyptians decided to stay away from Hittite chariots during the battle, just limiting hitting them with a hit and run tactics basically

**SigniferOne** · November 29, 2010, 12:54 PM

The central usefulness of the chariots was, then, if the enemy was undisciplined, i.e. not organized and disciplined in the modern (by which I mean Greek and Roman) methods, am I right? I have a hard time seeing why the soldiers would let the chariot through in the above picture, otherwise.

**DAVIDE** · November 29, 2010, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by SigniferOne

The central usefulness of the chariots was, then, if the enemy was undisciplined, i.e. not organized and disciplined in the modern (by which I mean Greek and Roman) methods, am I right? I have a hard time seeing why the soldiers would let the chariot through in the above picture, otherwise.

Well, basically the tactics i posted in the first post was the standard one used by Egyptians of the Pharaohs indipendently by the eventual "organization/discipline" of the enemy. Only way it could vary a bit during a battle was about enemy having heavy/light war chariots deployed as well as the Hittites for example in Qadesh. Considering the heavy structure of an Hittite chariot granting 3 passenger aka driver plus archer plus the spearmen and also taking note that Egyptian chariot was lighter and without the spear carrier at all, only way Egyptians had trying having some strategical advantage during the battle was to focus all their chariot divisions on enemy ones trying to move the skirmishing far away from the Egyptian infantry because enemy chariots could smash the first Egyptian lines easily in case of direct breakthough. So usually in this case it wasnt that hard to see an exclusive chariot skirmishing at the very beginning of the battle

**MAXlMUS** · November 29, 2010, 02:01 PM

The central usefulness of the chariots was, then, if the enemy was undisciplined, i.e. not organized and disciplined in the modern (by which I mean Greek and Roman) methods, am I right? I have a hard time seeing why the soldiers would let the chariot through in the above picture, otherwise.

the effectiveness and use of the chariot as a fighting force was drastically reduced long before the (classical) greeks or the romans rose to prominence...

and the egyptian army (infantry) of the new kingdom wasn't that unorganised... the army would be separated into army corps of 4000 men, which would in turn be seperated in 20 companies ("sa"); each one of these corps would have it's specific standard (i.e. 'bull in nubia', or 'prowling lion'). each one of these "sa" would then be divided into units of 50 men, with the veterans (menfyt) serving in the front ranks, and the rookies (nefru) behind.

mind you the rout of the ra corps was due to the "surprise" attack and the ensuing panic more then anything else

**Ramesses the Great** · May 11, 2011, 04:57 PM

Originally Posted by davide.cool

Well, basically the tactics i posted in the first post was the standard one used by Egyptians of the Pharaohs indipendently by the eventual "organization/discipline" of the enemy. Only way it could vary a bit during a battle was about enemy having heavy/light war chariots deployed as well as the Hittites for example in Qadesh. Considering the heavy structure of an Hittite chariot granting 3 passenger aka driver plus archer plus the spearmen and also taking note that Egyptian chariot was lighter and without the spear carrier at all, only way Egyptians had trying having some strategical advantage during the battle was to focus all their chariot divisions on enemy ones trying to move the skirmishing far away from the Egyptian infantry because enemy chariots could smash the first Egyptian lines easily in case of direct breakthough. So usually in this case it wasnt that hard to see an exclusive chariot skirmishing at the very beginning of the battle

So the Egyptians chariots would gain the upper hand in a direct conforntation between them, right? Because the Hittites were heavier and slower, then they coudn't reach the Egyptians, while they would attack from afar. All of this leading to a fight between the unsupported infantires, or they would have to wait for the winner of the chariot skirmish to attack with their support. So does this means that the Egyptians had a strategic advantage in a straight fight against the Hittites?

**RollingWave** · October 27, 2011, 03:58 AM

A few question I've had with this sort of tactic.

Given how this was setup, the Infantries can't stay THAT far away from their chariots right? otherwise there would be no infantry to follow up the final charge, but if that was the case, that would mean a limited room for the chariots to manuver... aka if the enemy simply march foward the chariots would soon run out of room to run as they'll run strait back into their own infantry? Given the relative low arrow density ratio even assuming no shield / armour it couldn't have been THAT dangerous to charge those circling chariots right? Given their limited turning ability and that ancient bows probably weren't exactly the furthest hitting things ever (let along javlins). wouldn't the idea simply be to just run really fast towards the chariots and mob them?

It does seem that Chariots were at least partially intended to fight less than cordinated enemies. that it was the developement of using minimal human resource for maximum effect instead of just throwing bodies against each other. The Chinese development of Chariots seem to have coincided most heavily with their expansion along the Yellow River plains as well. When they seriously began to fight each other the Chariots started to drop out quite rapidly.

**Blatta Optima Maxima** · October 28, 2011, 02:51 PM

The chariot appears to have had the role of a modern main battle tank. The infantry were mere assistance when it came to finishing off pockets of resistance, urban warfare, guard duty, etc. This was probably because "greek style" discipline (disciplined infantry formations were to be found in Anatolia and Mesopotamia first) was not invented yet, as well as more capable infantry missile weapons and horse riding cavalry (which was doom for chariots, as the Assyrians found out in their wars with the Medes).

**Condottiere 40K** · October 28, 2011, 04:33 PM

It takes an awful lot of resources to manufacture and maintain a chariot force, or so I'm told; special stables and blacksmithies had to be built, and experts in construction and maintenance recruited. A nation is able to maintain this elite force, probably recruited from a noble caste, so impact per trooper would be the primary consideration.

What changed this probably was mass conscription, and breeding of horses that can carry an armoured rider, which made the mobile arm more flexible in where it can be deployed, as well as cheaper per trooper.