Chariots....whose used them and what do you think?
Maerdwyn
First Post
mouseferatu said:
Really? I knew the Romans never had any luck in fully subduing Britain, but I thought they had reached Ireland, even if they didn't have much luck there either.
Are you sure? I mean, I'll admit that I could be wrong on this, but I could have sworn there was some Roman activity in Ireland...
Oh, well. Guess I should start paying for the History channel again...
There was some trading of Irish goods with the Roman Empire, but this was mainly done by British living under Roman rule. There was never a Roman military expedtion Ireland.
Rome considered invading Hibernia (Ireland) several times. In fact, one of the expeditions into Britian was made with the idea that Rome would be better able to conquer Ireland if they could attack it from two sides. What's that you say? Taking Britain wouldn't allow Rome to attack Ireland from two sides? Well, it would have if the Romans (as informed by Ptolemy) were right in their belief that Ireland was just north of spain, between Spain and Britain - they were a little off in Britain's placement, too....
Chariots superior to cavalry?
I disagree slightly with the proposition that chariots were superior to non-stirrup cavalry, at least in pure historical terms...
(1) I would argue that units like Alexander's Companion Cavalry and Hannibal's (later Rome's - after they switched sides) Numidian Cavalry would and did run rings around chariot forces.
(2) The utility of chariots was severely limited by terrain. They were next to useless on rocky, broken or marshy grounds. Cavarly maintained a higher level of effectiveness in these situation.
(3) A major reason that chariots were developed before cavalry by the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians and others and used for extensive period of time had more to do with size and strength of horses and the shock value of chariots against undisciplined foes than any intrinsic superiorty of the chariot over cavalry. A pair of small horses could easily pull a chariot, whereas a single horse from the same team had difficulty carrying a cavalryman for extended campaigns.
This was one of the reasons that the Celts of Britain and Ireland continued to use chariots long after their mainland brethren had eschewed them in favor of cavalry. The island breeds were fairly small...suitable for pulling chariots, but not strong enough to serve as cavalry mounts. After the Roman occupation of Britain, beginning in 43 AD, the chariot rapidly disappeared from the battlefield. The last significant recorded use in Britain was the heroic, but doomed, revolt of the Iceni queen Boudicca in 69 A.D.
(4) Tactically, chariots had many of the strengths and weaknesses of war elephants...they were primarily a "shock weapon", designed to charge enemy formations and break them. Undisciplined masses of peasant soldiers would often break before a chariot charge, leaving them to be pursed and butchered. Their utility was greatly diminished in the face of determined opposition, however.
Concentrated missile fire was very disruptive, since maiming or killing one of the horsed drawing the chariot essentially knocked the entire unit out of the battle, at least for a time. Both Alexander's troops and Roman armies simply opened lanes in their ranks to let the chariots pass through, then closed ranks and attacked them from behind using light troops and cavarly.
All that said, in a fantasy RPG, chariots (especially those drawn by creatures other than the standard horse) can make a cool addition to the battlefield!
Old One
I disagree slightly with the proposition that chariots were superior to non-stirrup cavalry, at least in pure historical terms...
(1) I would argue that units like Alexander's Companion Cavalry and Hannibal's (later Rome's - after they switched sides) Numidian Cavalry would and did run rings around chariot forces.
(2) The utility of chariots was severely limited by terrain. They were next to useless on rocky, broken or marshy grounds. Cavarly maintained a higher level of effectiveness in these situation.
(3) A major reason that chariots were developed before cavalry by the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians and others and used for extensive period of time had more to do with size and strength of horses and the shock value of chariots against undisciplined foes than any intrinsic superiorty of the chariot over cavalry. A pair of small horses could easily pull a chariot, whereas a single horse from the same team had difficulty carrying a cavalryman for extended campaigns.
This was one of the reasons that the Celts of Britain and Ireland continued to use chariots long after their mainland brethren had eschewed them in favor of cavalry. The island breeds were fairly small...suitable for pulling chariots, but not strong enough to serve as cavalry mounts. After the Roman occupation of Britain, beginning in 43 AD, the chariot rapidly disappeared from the battlefield. The last significant recorded use in Britain was the heroic, but doomed, revolt of the Iceni queen Boudicca in 69 A.D.
(4) Tactically, chariots had many of the strengths and weaknesses of war elephants...they were primarily a "shock weapon", designed to charge enemy formations and break them. Undisciplined masses of peasant soldiers would often break before a chariot charge, leaving them to be pursed and butchered. Their utility was greatly diminished in the face of determined opposition, however.
Concentrated missile fire was very disruptive, since maiming or killing one of the horsed drawing the chariot essentially knocked the entire unit out of the battle, at least for a time. Both Alexander's troops and Roman armies simply opened lanes in their ranks to let the chariots pass through, then closed ranks and attacked them from behind using light troops and cavarly.
All that said, in a fantasy RPG, chariots (especially those drawn by creatures other than the standard horse) can make a cool addition to the battlefield
!Old One
Vaxalon
First Post
To be more accurate, perhaps, chariots have the following advantages:
1> Allowed use of inferior horses
2> Greater shock value against undisciplined troops without significant missile weapons
As such, that's not much, but that's historically speaking. If we go to DnD terms, I'd like to point out that chariots allow you to carry more loot with fewer horses to protect from the monsters.
1> Allowed use of inferior horses
2> Greater shock value against undisciplined troops without significant missile weapons
As such, that's not much, but that's historically speaking. If we go to DnD terms, I'd like to point out that chariots allow you to carry more loot with fewer horses to protect from the monsters.
Vaxalon said:To be more accurate, perhaps, chariots have the following advantages:
1> Allowed use of inferior horses
2> Greater shock value against undisciplined troops without significant missile weapons
As such, that's not much, but that's historically speaking. If we go to DnD terms, I'd like to point out that chariots allow you to carry more loot with fewer horses to protect from the monsters.
Vax -
Great summary of my long-winded historical curmudgeon diatribe
!Your point about hauling loot is also well taken...
Long ago, I used a war chariot drawn by 2 huge bears (based on a Frazetta print, The Ice Princess, I think). Now that chariot had shock effect!
Old One
sword-dancer
Explorer
A chariot could be useful to maneuver spellcasters over the battle field.
Casting spells and hold your horse still could be difficult.
Casting spells and hold your horse still could be difficult.
MythandLore
First Post
Chariots really need roads.
Flying Chariots would be really good.
Normal ones, well, not so good.
Flying Chariots would be really good.
Normal ones, well, not so good.
Chris Coulter
First Post
Rules wise, and historicaly (after the styrup), Chariots stink.
But you just look so damn cool on one.
sigh. Nothing for it i guess.
But you just look so damn cool on one.
sigh. Nothing for it i guess.
