Horses in War

[Stanley Friesen]

At 07:47 AM 2/1/00 -0500, X99Lynx at aol.com wrote:
>Stanley 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,

Even if they introduced *archery* to the chariot, there are still thrown
spears.

> 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.

Agreed.  The prior decisive tactical use was as a mobile missile platform,
though not necessarily for *archers*.  A sudden, dense, rain of darts on a
combat line is a pretty effective way to disrupt it, or at least shake it up.

It was only after the development of effective infantry defenses against
these tactics that the chariot devolved to use as a mere troop carrier.

>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.

Some analyses I have seen of Qadesh would dispute this.

[I cannot comment on the reliability of these analyses - I just point out
there is disagreement].

--------------
May the peace of God be with you.         sarima at ix.netcom.com