Horses in War

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote
>Well, that was my original point - that PIE was apparently not being spoken
>by charioteers in the 2d millenium BC Near East.

In a message dated 2/1/00 6:46:50 AM, sarima at friesen.net replied:
<<Umm, I am still not sure we are in synch.  To be clear: I would suspect
that the earliest charioteers spoke an IE language (perhaps
Proto-Indo-Iranian), but not PIE itself.>>

Yes, we are.  Although the dates of appearance of the chariot or spoked wheel
in the evidence may be pertinent to other issues (e.g., the possible post-PIE
use and spread of *rotHo as a word for wheeled transport), they appear to be
too late to be to be relevant to the question of PIE dispersal.  Others on
the list may feel differently.

I wrote:
<<Neither mentions what I think was a major role for the chariot - jeeping
around the top brass - the guys who the court poets gave the credit for the
victory that was probably actually won by the slingers, archers and your
basic grunts.>>

You wrote:
<<That was actually a *later* development, after it ceased to be an effective
war weapon.  Prior to 1250 BC all of the major powers made the chariot
corps the mainstay of their army.  Entire combat units operated out of
chariots, not merely the brass. They would not have put so much money into
this sort of combat unit if chariots were useful only as non-combat
transport.>>

Here we have a problem.  I just don't find that kind of support for the idea
of the chariot being a 'decisive' tactical unit.  If the Egyptians introduced
the idea of the chariot as an archer platform, as it said in that piece I
quoted, then before that the chariot's other best function appears to be
mounted infantry - as it appears in Homer - so that it acted as transport
like APCs but not in combat.  Most military histories that I've looked at are
pretty insistent that the idea of using chariots for a direct charge would
have been a losing proposition.  Which relates to

<<cavalry's superiority to chariotry ->>

<<Only once the modern stirrup was invented.>>

The stirrup seems to arise in India and to be transported to Europe by the
Huns.

Long before this cavalry appears to have replaced chariotry almost everywhere
as the basic mounted unit.  The assyrians are apparently developing cavalry
before 1000BC and dropping chariots.  By 600BC Persians and Scythians and
Mesopotamians are all on horse back and chariots have pretty much been
relegated.  But the West Point book says that the first use of the horse in
an offensive tactic was with the development of the Macedonian heavy cavalry
and 'the hammer and anvil' scheme employed by Phillip and Alexander.  Even
there the anvil was the phalanx and the horse was employed in flanking
operations - much as described by Clancy in Armored Cav.  The British and
Gauls appear to use the chariot as a pre-game psychological device, but all
their main battles appear to feature footsoldiers versus footsoldiers.

The original statement was or was supposed to be that the horse was not
'decisive' in any battle before 1000BC - and that includes Kadesh (an
interesting word).  And I believe that still stands up.

Regards,
Steve Long