Persian Scythed Chariots

[easye]

This is a pretty niche topic, but I want to get the perspective of some of the folks here.  In this case I am thinking NFE, Bob or anyone else.  

So, I am starting with a crazy premise.  That premise is that Persian Scythed Chariots did not exist.  Instead, they were a Western fiction/fantasy that was used as a literary trope to juxtapose the solid, citizen Heavy Infantry vs. exotic, foreign, and barbarian rivals.

Here is why. 

1. Almost every account of the Scythed Chariot follows the same basic formula.  We are told about them being very effective against allies or light units.  Then, they get used in a big, decisive battle against Heavy Infantry and the discipline of the Heavy Infantry easily overcomes them by splitting the ranks. 

2. Ancient writers had a different agenda than modern ones.  They were trying to entertain and/or create propaganda.  They were not above using standardized tropes in their writings. 

3. I could not find any Persian evidence of a Scythed Chariot.  No artwork, written lines, etc.  That doesn't mean it does not exist.  It is just I can not source it.  In fact, the only Persian reference I found was a gold chariot model in the Oxus treasure that is a four horse, two-man chariot with no scything involved. 

Therefore, I am not sure if there is any evidence of Persian/Eastern Scythed Chariots beyond what Ancient Historians told us that they exist?  I would love to see or hear more on this very niche topic. 

Thanks in advance.   

Edit: Here is a brief and laymen synopsis of Scythed Chariots in the historical record.  

penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.html

 

[bobtheinquisitor]

How often did the Persians and Greeks fight on terrain suitable for chariots in the first place?

I tend to think of the Persians as a cavalry heavy force compared to Greeks, but my knowledge of history comes from half read Osprey books and a couple skimmed hardbacks recommended on the Wargames Atlantic forum. If you want to say they didn’t really exist except as a sort of bogeyman, I say go with it.

Personally, I tend to assume there were more complex weapons and more adept specialists than history books portray just because historians tend to take a more conservative approach to what ancient people were capable of.

[Disciple of Fate]

In the stories about Alexander, Darius III famously had his army prepare the battlefield at Gaugamela for his scythed chariots.

But we're talking about a period when chariots had already become almost obsolete in warfare. Cavalry was a much more powerful factor, for chariots to be in large scale use, you have so go back at least a few centuries before the classical Greeks and Persians (or to places like India or the British Isles). The Levant, Egypt and Mesopotamia were the regions that chariots had their most famous time in the spotlight for the modern day viewer, so it's not like the terrain is inherently unsuitable in the region, you just pick your location based on what suits your chariot needs

Scythed chariots might have been in use similarly to elephants, both seem very impressive, but are relatively 'easy' to deal with when you have the knowledge. They have their place in warfare for their shock value, but without the shock value they are hard to use effectively (or you need massive numbers like in India). At least elephants can scare horses. If their role was limited, then they might have only made up a very small number overall in the Persian (and others) armies, therefore getting less attention in the overall records.

[easye]

I find it very interesting that Chariots were made obsolete before the end of the Assyrian Empire, which the Medes (Who later became the Persians) participated in! Then, there is a 200 or so year gap between seeing them at Gaugamela, and then again against Mithridates vs. Romans.

Granted, our records of Persian battles against the Scythians or other Steppe peoples is VERY scarce. Therefore, it is possible they played a better tactical role in those campaigns on the steppe against a mix horse men and infantry foes.

I am surprised how little physical or other sources we have for their existence. We just take the ancient writers on this topic at face value, and I am not sure that is entirely warranted. I mean, Herodotus has proven we can not take his writings at face value. Have you read what he said about the Etruscans! Therefore, without secondary evidence can we really take it at face value that Scythed Chariots ever really existed?

[Disciple of Fate]

Well we also have Xenophon and he is a little more reliable than Herodotus, given that he writes a more 'gritty' account in which they feature. The difficulty is that secondary evidence not being found (yet) doesn't have to rule them out, we know that the Persians supposedly had war camels as well, but we lack depictions of said camels outside of civilian roles afaik. However, we know that historically war camels are a thing, via depictions and even more 'recent' use. The Persians still left depictions of chariots.

[easye]

True, and many people think that the Persians were the first to connect 4 horses to a chariot. A claim I have not looked into deeper. Plus, I believe some Chariot Scythes may have been discovered in China. Since the Persians were connect to what later became the Silk Road, adoption of a Chinese practice along that route is not unheard of.

I tend to be very critical and skeptical of the sources and almost never take them at face value. After all, most were written as propaganda pieces at best, to make money at worst, and very few are written to educate.

[mdgv2]

Well., I guess…

What are the sources for their existence?

What do those sources actively described? Are there illustrations? Has any physical archaeological trace been found?

I can see bladed wheels being possible, but perhaps more to dissuade anyone thinking of jumping aboard?

[easye]

Well, bladed wheels were not really how they are supposed to work. They are blades coming from the axle, but not really spinning. They just stick out about knee level, and then potentially blades from other areas.

"These had thin scythes extending at an angle from the axles and also under the driver's seat, turned toward the round, so as to cut through everything in their way" (Xenophon, Anabasis, I. 8).

Per Diodorus

"From each of these there projected out beyond the trace horses scythes three spans long, attached to the yoke, and presenting their cutting edges to the front.

The University of Chicago has a lot of resources on the topic, but here is an overview:
penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/chariots/scythedchariots.htm


I think it is odd that "barbarian" forces (Persians, Eastern Satraps, Britons/Celts) are traditionally the ones who the Romans talk about using these weapons. It feels a bit Trope-y the way Westerns talk about who uses them. We know ancient writers were not afraid to lean into certain tropes/repeated stories/historical parallels in their writing to drive home themes, moral points, or entertainment value.

The fact that these "enemies" have no historical record of Scythed Chariots themselves, leaves me scratching my head. Now, there are also some discussion of these weapons in SW Asia and China as well. However, that has been outside of my scope of knowledge.

China's Chariots
www.pbs.org/video/chinese-chariot-revealed-muk4qo/

[mdgv2]

If as said above this was an age where Cavalry was on the rise, fixed axle blades may have served a purpose for breaking up a charge, and forcing a mounted foe out of sword reach when doing so? And even a relative few such Chariots could be used to force Cavalry into temporary bottlenecks, and maybe an equine pile up?

Because if loose memory serves, Chariots were typically used as a fast moving, stable platform for archers, who would harass closing infantry/flanks, but not do a Warhammer type charge. Instead trundling in and out of bow shot, and being a nuisance.

[Disciple of Fate]

I don't know if you can dismiss Roman accounts in such a manner, the chariot still had a place of great honor in Roman society, such as during thriumphs. Their military tactics had just evolved beyond them (if they even employed them given their phalanx tradition).

Their numbers might have been inflated and their use minor, if they existed. But they wouldn't be the only weapon described in sources without secondary evidence. The Library of Alexandria is only known to us through written sources. Greek fire is another famous one only described. Or think of even recent German/Japanese WW2 prototypes that we know existed but are not preserved.

I'm not saying scythed chariots were real, I'm just saying that 2.000 years is a long time to preserve something that might not have existed in great numbers.

[Haighus]

Aug 19, 2024 15:52:32 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

I don't know if you can dismiss Roman accounts in such a manner, the chariot still had a place of great honor in Roman society, such as during thriumphs. Their military tactics had just evolved beyond them (if they even employed them given their phalanx tradition).

Northern Italy isn't the most conducive region for chariots so it does make sense that they wouldn't be favoured in warfare there.

[Disciple of Fate]

Aug 19, 2024 16:13:25 GMT -5 Haighus said:

Aug 19, 2024 15:52:32 GMT -5 Disciple of Fate said:

I don't know if you can dismiss Roman accounts in such a manner, the chariot still had a place of great honor in Roman society, such as during thriumphs. Their military tactics had just evolved beyond them (if they even employed them given their phalanx tradition).

Northern Italy isn't the most conducive region for chariots so it does make sense that they wouldn't be favoured in warfare there.

The Mycenaeans used chariots in Greece, so it's not unthinkable that the ancestors of Rome used chariots to some extent before they adopted the phalanx. It just depends on how you employ them.

[easye]

There is no tradition of Roman chariots in war that I am aware of. Chariots were more for sport and mostly from later periods.


Of course, you are right @disciple. However, the way Scythed Chariots are portrayed and used is very Trope-heavy.

1. Narrator describes the Scythed Chariot
2. The narrator tells us how dangerous Scythed Chariots are
3. Provides an example with grotesque details about their effectiveness
4. Enemy force uses Scythed Chariots against the Heavy Infantry
5. Superior Heavy Infantry discipline thwarts Scythed Chariots
6. Enemy using Scythed Chariots are defeated, the Chariots having no effect on the Heavy Infantry

That whole narrative structure to their usage is also a red flag to me. However, I am not a classicist, so I maybe over-simplifying it from dim memory.

@mdg- How ancient chariot based armies even used chariots is a hot topic! The fact is we don't really know how they were used.

[Disciple of Fate]

Sure, but replace chariot with elephant and you basically have a rough draft of elephant warfare for the Diadochi and the Romans.

1. Encounter unknown thing.
2. Have no tactics against unknown thing and get mangled.
3. Invent tactics against said thing.
4. Beat said thing.

It's just a very succinct history of warfare/technology, that can be applied to a lot of conflicts/tactics.

1. People describe Tiger tank.
2. Story about horrific effectiveness of Tiger tank.
3. Tank destroyers outnumber Tiger tank.
4. Tiger tank loses against superior numbers.

It sounds tropy, because history is often written by the victors, so the thing they're fighting can't have been too scary if they won.

Edit: again, not saying they existed, but the sources aren't too outlandish if you compare them even to modern (popular) history.

[sirwinston41]

What Persian sources exist?