10-07-2010, 01:19 AM
It should be pointed out that Xenophon's "Cyropaedia" ( education of Cyrus) is a fictional work which allowed Xenophon many liberties with fact. It is in fact an allegory. "Persia" is in reality Sparta - even the 'Persian Constitution' set forth is a thinly disguised Spartan one, and all the habits of the "Persians" are those of Spartans - worshipping heroes, going into battle crowned with garlands, pouring libations, oaths sworn "By Zeus",passing the watchword up and down the line before battle, prizes for the best company or unit ( just like Agesilaus gave)....the list goes on and on. "Lydia" is a thinly disguised Thebes, and the main purpose of the fictional 'Battle of Thymbara' is to demonstrate how a Spartan army might deal with Theban 'depth' tactics, and also how it would handle outflanking. Despite the oriental embellishments of scythed chariots etc this was a moral lesson - as everything in the Cyropaedia was -in this instance on tactics, written after the disaster for Spartan arms at Leuktra.
One cannot read anything therefore into Xenophon's imagination of what might happen if scythed chariots worked as they were theoretically supposed to........
Having said that, it is always possible that Xenophon may have thought there was some tactical scope for the use of scythed chariots, "kamikaze" weapons as they were. The only actual historical occasion (AFIK) on which they seem to have had some success is a skirmish described by him. Pharnabazus uses two to break up a body of 700 or so Greeks, so that he and his 400 cavalry could attack them - but this is no line of fully equipped hoplites, but a mob of plunderers/foragers, probably servants, slaves etc who have hurriedly run together for mutual protection when they were caught by surprise, and are duly scattered by the two chariots. When Agesilaus and his hoplites come up, the Persians withdraw. (Xen Hellenica IV.1.17).
By contrast, at every major battle where they were used against heavy line infantry - Cunaxa, Gaugemala, Magnesia - they were a total failure. This was largely because even if the drivers could be persuaded to commit suicide, the horses could not, and simply would not rush into a wall of men with a prickling front of spears, and head off instead down any gap the infantry obligingly provided.......in fact, scythed chariots seem to have had trouble charging through light troops in open order, and it is often these who break up their charge with missile fire, before they even get to the main line
One cannot read anything therefore into Xenophon's imagination of what might happen if scythed chariots worked as they were theoretically supposed to........
Having said that, it is always possible that Xenophon may have thought there was some tactical scope for the use of scythed chariots, "kamikaze" weapons as they were. The only actual historical occasion (AFIK) on which they seem to have had some success is a skirmish described by him. Pharnabazus uses two to break up a body of 700 or so Greeks, so that he and his 400 cavalry could attack them - but this is no line of fully equipped hoplites, but a mob of plunderers/foragers, probably servants, slaves etc who have hurriedly run together for mutual protection when they were caught by surprise, and are duly scattered by the two chariots. When Agesilaus and his hoplites come up, the Persians withdraw. (Xen Hellenica IV.1.17).
By contrast, at every major battle where they were used against heavy line infantry - Cunaxa, Gaugemala, Magnesia - they were a total failure. This was largely because even if the drivers could be persuaded to commit suicide, the horses could not, and simply would not rush into a wall of men with a prickling front of spears, and head off instead down any gap the infantry obligingly provided.......in fact, scythed chariots seem to have had trouble charging through light troops in open order, and it is often these who break up their charge with missile fire, before they even get to the main line
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
