RomanArmyTalk

In the new Osprey publication Mons Graupius 83AD, Duncan Campbell suggests that the Caledonian tribes of northern Britain in the late 1st century used chariots with scythed axles (p30-31, mainly). This seems to be a rather unusual claim, as I had believed that scythed chariots were confined to the eastern states - Persia and successors - and the British usage was perhaps some sort of Victorian fable. hock:

However, the book provides literary evidence. While Tacitus mentions nothing about scythes, he uses the word covinnus to describe the British chariots. Pomponius Mela writes that covinni were British chariots 'armed in the Gallic fashion... on which they use scythed axles' (verum et bigis et curribus Gallice armatis: covinnos vocant, quorum falcatis axibus utuntur - Chorographia III.43). Silius Italicus (in Punica 17.418-9) describes a 'blue-painted native of Thule' who 'drives around the dense battle-lines in his scythed chariot' (agmina falcigero circumuenit arta couinno.) Again, the word is covinnus. Frontinus (Strategems 2.3.18) also claimed that 'Gaius Caesar met the scythe-bearing chariots of the Gauls with stakes driven in the ground, and kept them in check' (C. Caesar Gallorum falcatas quadrigas eadem ratione palis defixis excepit inhibuitque), and Lucan, in Pharsalia (1.426), describes Gallic warriors directing 'the scythed chariot 'gainst his country's foe'.

The book doesn't mention another possible source: the Irish 'Cattle Raid of Cooley', which has a supposed dramatic date of the 1st century AD and features a chariot armed with scythes, barbs, hooks and spikes! (quoted here). I don't know how accurate the translation is, though - Full text in English

This is quite persuasive, but not without problems, I would say. Principally, there's the description of British war chariots by Caesar (also quoted in the book), who was an eyewitness to their use. Not only is there no mention of scythes, but he specifically says that the chariot (which he calls essedum) is used as a mobile missile platform, following which the riders dismount and fight on foot (Bellum Gallicum 4.33). He also says that the chariot was obsolete in Gaul, and only used by the Britons, which would perhaps invalidate Mela's notion of scythed chariots being 'armed in the Gallic fashion', and Frontinus' claim that Caesar, in Gaul, had repelled them with stakes. Would the vainglorious Caesar have neglected to mention such a thing?

There's also a poem by Martial, again cited in the book, in which he receives a covinnus as a gift - but he implies that it's a closed carriage in which he can ride about in comfortable solitude! (O Iucunda, covinne, solitude, carruca magis essedoque gratum facundi mihi munus Aeliani! - Epigrams 12.24).

The biggest problem with this interpretation of the covinnus is in Tacitus' own description of the battle of Mons Graupius, where the British chariots perform very poorly. After the chariots have become 'embroiled in the infantry battle' (Campbell uses Stan Wolfson's revised translation of the Agricola, suggesting that it was the Roman infantry rather than the cavalry that dealt with the chariot attack), Tacitus writes that 'runaway chariots or terrified horses without their driver, as if guided by fear, dashed against [the Roman infantry] from the side or head on' (Agricola 36.3). But for a chariot to attack effectively with scythed wheels, then 'dashing against' infantry - particularly 'from the side' - is exactly what they would have to do. The implication is that only unguided or terrified chariot horses did this, and that otherwise the charioteers would have kept themselves clear - perhaps to fling missiles, as in Caesar's description.

Added to this, the British chariot was a relatively lightweight thing of wood and wicker, driven and ridden by (probably) unarmoured men. To drive such a vehicle close enough to a formation of heavily armed and armoured men for the scythes to have an effect would surely have been a suicidal tactic. Although it could be argued that these chariots were designed for use against rival Caledonians, who maybe presented a less disciplined target...

I'm not entirely convinced either way - I like the idea, but it seems problematic. I wondered what others might think about it though :wink:

- Nathan

Are sythed chariots proven in the east?

You would have thought it was a small detail that Caesar would not have failed to mention....
Perhaps he was too distracted by senatorial inspired conspiracies.....?

Do scythed and "normal" chariots have to be mutually exclusive? I mean, could they have been used at some times for specific reasons and not at other times? This would explain the varying reports.

Quote:Are sythed chariots proven in the east?

Not 'proven' by archeology, but well known in literary sources, yes. Xenophon describes them used by the Persians (at Cunaxa), as does Ctesias, as does Arrian. Darius used them against Alexander at Gaugamela. Later we have Plutarch's account of the wars against Mithridates (Lives of Sulla and Lucullus), when the Roman infantry defeat the attack of scythed chariots by opening ranks. There may be some controversy about the interpretation of 'scythed' references in Xenophon etc, but I think it's generally taken to be accurate. Alexander K. Nefiodkin (On the Origin of the Scythed Chariots, 2004) suggests they were a specific battlefield response to the Greek phalanx.

As for the British ones - if we set aside the references in poetry, and the Frontinus mention (which relates to Gaul - and he calls them quadrigae anyway), then it comes down to the reliability of Pomponius Mela. He was writing c.43AD - did he have some information gained from the Claudian invasion, maybe? Trouble is, the chariots he's describing would be, at best, southern British ones: the same that Caesar encountered a century before. Caesar uses the word essedum, but that, I think, is the Latin word, same as the light racing chariots used in the circus. Covinnus is maybe the native British word, or a latinisation of it, but does that mean that this is a different sort of vehicle, or a specific variation?

David's idea of a multi use chariot is possible, but it might be worth asking what the use of a scythed chariot on the British model might be. The heavy Persian variety seem to have been used against infantry - a sort of ancient tank, perhaps. Running down scattered footsoldiers might have worked, and the psychological effect would be an issue too. We know from the Vindolanda tablets that the north Britons had 'many horsemen', but a man on a horse can move and manoeuvre much more quickly than a man in a chariot. One possibility might that chariots were used against other chariots - we could imagine Caledonian nobles engaging in chariot jousts, with the scythes intended to crippled the horses of the opposition... Plausible, maybe, but not exactly attested as such.

- Nathan

Quote:(Campbell uses Stan Wolfson's revised translation of the Agricola, suggesting that it was the Roman infantry rather than the cavalry that dealt with the chariot attack)

Not translation, Nathan. I always make my own translations. It's the garbled Latin text of Tacitus that Wolfson has revised, in my opinion successfully.

Quote:

Nathan Ross:265xf22d Wrote:(Campbell uses Stan Wolfson's revised translation of the Agricola, suggesting that it was the Roman infantry rather than the cavalry that dealt with the chariot attack)

Not translation, Nathan. I always make my own translations. It's the garbled Latin text of Tacitus that Wolfson has revised, in my opinion successfully.

My apologies, Duncan. It should have been Wolfson's revision of that particular passage then. I mentioned it in case others who haven't read your book (yet) and are relying on older translations are confused by the reference to infantry fighting chariots.

Caesar fights the southern tribes.

Mons Grapius is fought 100 years later against the northern tribes.

Could there not have been regional differences in the use of a chariot?

You know, this is going to really confuse the general public if this theory gains weight and becomes established. Historians have been telling the public for decades that Boudica's chariot didn't have scythes afixed!!! hock:
It would be a very nice reversal though...

Iron Age Britain was extremely regionally diverse.

I bet scythed chariots would be very effective against enemy cavalry; they could break/hamstring the legs of the horses.

Against open order infantry (like a charging British warband) they'd also make a pretty neat mess.

If you have JSTOR access, in The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 10
(1881), pp. 127-128, there is an article by J. Jeremiah and E. B. Tylor called The Alleged Existence of Scythe-Chariots in Ancient Britain.

Basically, no archaeological evidence of this, although there are a good few vehicular burials to go by, as well as some numismatic sources. Also, the article shows that the main source for the claim that the Brits used scythed chariots is Pomponius Mela - and he never went there.

Frankly, I think that it's not likely to be true.

The problem I have always had with this is that in order to "work" the chariot has to enter enemy ranks, without the horses or driver being hit by the opposition missiles.

If the infantry were close order then it would be a smash & crash within a few feet with the sythes hardly getting to work. Both driver & animal would be killed.

If in open order then a gap could be opened to let them pass through, to avoid this they would need to have a group of chariots spaced closely, which would be as dangerous to themselves as the enemy! I can see it being a hard job steering a chariot close enough to enemy combatants to get them with a (meter length?) sythe, whilst avioding being speared by those he would inevitable miss.

I just can see them working.

Quote:I just can see them working.

They manifestly did not work at Mons Graupius! But whether they "worked" or not doesn't change the fact that they existed.

Quote:Basically, no archaeological evidence of this, although there are a good few vehicular burials to go by, as well as some numismatic sources. Also, the article shows that the main source for the claim that the Brits used scythed chariots is Pomponius Mela - and he never went there. Frankly, I think that it's not likely to be true.

Jeremiah's 1881 article is preposterously slipshod. Having established that two different types of chariot are known (scythed and non-scythed), and that ancient sources (Mela and Tacitus) mention the one which is scythed, he decides that this must be wrong because there are no archaeological finds. Tylor's postscript (it is not a joint article) points out that Lucan and Silius Italicus also refer to scythed chariots. He might have added Martial, Frontinus and Vegetius, too. And, of course, Arrian for scythed chariots at Gaugamela. But I'm puzzled as to why Jeremiah disbelieved a historian of Tacitus' standing in the first place.

Quote:ancient sources (Mela and Tacitus) mention the one which is scythed

Does Tacitus mention scythes? hock:

Jordanes certainly does, and seems to be working from some older source:

Quote:{The Britons) paint their bodies with iron-red, whether by way of adornment or perhaps for some other reason... They fight not only on horseback or on foot, but even with scythed two-horse chariots, which they commonly call essedae.
Jordanes, Getica, II.14-15

But perhaps he gets this from Mela? Clearly he's describing the situation a long time before his own...

S.G Brady, in Caesar and Britain (The Classical Journal, Vol. 47, No. 8, 1952) mentions in a footnote that there are coins of Caesar's showing chariots with scythed axles. This might be pretty compelling evidence, but does anyone know the coin(s) in question? I think I remember seeing something of the sort, but I could only find this:



Bit hard to see if there's something attached to the wheel, or the spokes are just a bit wonky :?

As for Italicus and Lucan's poetical references - it occurs to me that the only adversaries of Rome who used chariots at all were the armies of Mithridates et al and the British. Since the scythed chariots of the eastern monarchies were well known in Rome, might the popular and poetic imagination of the Romans have merely transposed the bladed wheels of the east to the rather different vehicles of the west?

- Nathan