British Scythed Chariots

[Conal]

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:

And this was something JC didn't mention, how he defeated British Scythed chariots :| |

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

I accept the absence of evidence isn't etc etc ... but I would have to ask why have something which manifestly does not work? I have read that the British had the chariot longer as its native horse breeds were on the small side for cavalry but sufficed as chariot pullers which goes soem way to explaining why they had it longer than most.

[D B Campbell]

Does Tacitus mention scythes? hock:

It's curious that Tacitus uses the word covinnus. There was a perfectly good word essedum, which is the normal chariot that Caesar saw amongst the southern British kingdoms. But Tacitus chooses covinnus for the Caledonians.

His readers in Rome evidently knew what this word meant. As you've mentioned, Pomponius Mela gives a definition of the covinnus as a scythe-bearing chariot.

He's not the only one, though. Agricola's contemporary Silius Italicus wrote a poem in honour of the Flavian dynasty, in which he refers to the "blue-painted" Caledonian "driving around the close-packed battle-lines in his scythe-bearing (falciger) covinnus". (Falciger is, of course, redundant if the covinnus was, by definition, scythe-bearing, but Silius is emphasizing the main characteristic of the chariot for his audience. And he's writing poetry.) In fact, I believe that he is evoking a memory of Mons Graupius.

At broadly the same date, Martial, the scurrilous poet, uses the same word (covinnus) in contrast to essedum, so he knew there was a fundamental difference. He was a colleague of Silius', and perhaps lifted the allusion from him, in order to appear topical.

Frontinus, a contemporary of Tacitus', clearly knew about scythe-bearing chariots, no doubt because they were in the news after Mons Graupius. He attributed falcatae quadrigae ("scythed chariots") to Caesar's Gallic adversaries, apparently wrongly. But Agricola's reports would have been fresher in his mind than Caesar's. Nevertheless, Lucan, another contemporary poet, thought that the Belgic tribes of Gaul used the covinnus. Maybe he was right.

Jordanes certainly does ... Jordanes, Getica, II.14-15

Thanks for this reference. I was unaware of it.

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?

But why? The main references -- Tacitus, Silius Italicus, Pomponius Mela, Martial -- are in a British context. The usual argument is that, because such chariots were used in the east, the writers who record them in Caledonia must be wrong. Why?

[Nathan Ross]

But why? The main references -- Tacitus, Silius Italicus, Pomponius Mela, Martial -- are in a British context. The usual argument is that, because such chariots were used in the east, the writers who record them in Caledonia must be wrong. Why?

I suppose because we have numerous literary sources on the eastern ones, and no dissenting voices to contradict them. There are no descriptions of Cunaxa, or Gaugamela, or Chaeronea (afaik) that do not mention scythed chariots, or describe chariots performing some different function. In the west, on the other hand, none of our principal campaign narratives actually mention this type of chariot - or not directly. Caesar ignores them, Dio never mentions them (writing of the Claudian invasion, Boudica and Severus), Tacitus uses the word 'covinnus' in the Agricola, but is no more specific (and uses 'currus' to describe Boudica's chariot, interestingly). Should we not, therefore, be more wary of those sources which do mention British chariots armed in this way, and quiz them rather more rigorously...?

It's curious that Tacitus uses the word covinnus. There was a perfectly good word essedum, which is the normal chariot that Caesar saw amongst the southern British kingdoms. But Tacitus chooses covinnus for the Caledonians.

Sure, there might have been two (or more!) different types of vehicle used by the Britons. The problem here is that Mela is also describing the chariots of the southern Britons, not the Caledonians. Besides which, the terminology seems to be used very loosely even by the sources you mention - Mela and Italicus call a scythed chariot a covinnus, Frontinus calls a scythed chariot a quadriga, Caesar calls a light missile-chariot an essedum, Jordanes (or rather his source) calls a scythed chariot both currus and essedum, Tacitus calls a chariot of undisclosed nature a covinnus, Martial calls a civilian carriage a covinnus. And so on.

The Jordanes quote's latin, btw, is: Non tantum equitatu vel pedite, verum etiam bigis curribusque falcatis, quos more vulgari essedas vocant (Getica, as above)

Agricola's contemporary Silius Italicus wrote a poem in honour of the Flavian dynasty, in which he refers to the "blue-painted" Caledonian "driving around the close-packed battle-lines in his scythe-bearing (falciger) covinnus"... In fact, I believe that he is evoking a memory of Mons Graupius.

The dates would certainly fit - I think the Punica is dated 84-93 or thereabouts. There's also Juvenal's satire on Domitian's court, dramatic date of 82 or so, with talk of British King Arviragus falling off his chariot pole. So Britons, and their chariots, would have been 'in the news', as you put it! The problem might be that the popular conceptions of metropolitan Romans about their far-flung barbaric foes (Britons=chariots / chariots=scythes) might owe more to fantasy than reality. We can't blame them for this - do modern action movies really present a true picture of, say, the martial abilities of special forces troops? We know these things are exaggerations - perhaps the Romans with their blue-painted scythed-chariot-riding Britons were no more credulous?

Still, I don't doubt that it's possible - I like the idea, and would like to believe it. It's always fun when historiographic 'common sense' is questioned. But in this case, I think there's still a very big question mark over it... :wink:

- Nathan

[Marja]

If they were scythed chariots, that doesn't mean they had the same role as 'classic' eastern scythed chariots. I can think of at least three roles:

1. Charging into infantry; I am not sure how.

2. Charging into cavalry; if the opposing horses either turn away, or try to pass between the chariots, this could be very effective.

3. Missile platforms and/or taxis, with the spikes and scythes protecting them.

In Arrian, the Persian chariots at Gaugamela seem to perform the first two roles, but he's writing centuries after the event.

[Robert Vermaat]

In order to limit the scope of this discussion and in relation to such topics already being discussed in other threads, please limit your answer to discussing BRITISH chariots and circumstances.

[Alanus]

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.

In general, a lot of things seem to have never existed to a lack of archaeological evidence... including the helmet I'm wearing. When you get multiple historical sources describing a particular British weapon, you are on safe ground... no matter how that weapon was speculatively used. D.B. Campbell made his point and it's a correct one.

[Sean Manning]

Are sythed chariots proven in the east?

Not 'proven' by archeology, but well known in literary sources, yes.

Pierre Briant has an interesting comment there, from p. 1037 of Peter T. Daniels trans., From Cyrus to Alexander. "A war chariot has recently been found near Sardis, at the site of Bin Tepe, and a scythed chariot in the Granicus Valley; they are both being analyzed.” I have been unable to find more information. I hope that this does not break the commandment to speak only about British chariots!

[Dan Howard]

There are four or five different chariots described in the Nuzi tablets. At least two of them were meant for battle and none of them had scythes. Why could the British not have had just as many types of chariots? My thinking is in line with Nathan's - I've not seen anything yet to convince me that the British had scythed chariots. I also thought that the idea of the blue-painted pict had been discredited?

[D B Campbell]

I also thought that the idea of the blue-painted pict had been discredited?

But I see them on my way to work every day, Dan.

[LVCIVS SERGIVS ANTONINVS]

I can see them sometimes too, though unfortunately with no scythed chariot. :-D

[Alanus]

There are four or five different chariots described in the Nuzi tablets. At least two of them were meant for battle and none of them had scythes.

There are four or five different types of firearms found at Dunkirk. At least four of them were meant for battle and none of them had bullets. :woot: illy:

[Nathan Ross]

I also thought that the idea of the blue-painted pict had been discredited?

Really? I know there were some problems with the idea of woad as body paint, but I believe there's literary evidence for some kind of painting/scarring/tattooing in north Britain between the 3rd and 8th centuries. Or has that been discredited too?

[Alanus]

I can see them sometimes too, though unfortunately with no scythed chariot. :-D

Actually, those woad-painted warriors are riding in a a 4-man scythed chariot. The photo was cropped, and you can't actually see the vehicle... but it's painted blue and has running lights. The chariot-maker was planning to install a rear-view mirror and a pair of hanging dice, but that wouldn't be authentic. :whistle:

[Alanus]

I know there were some problems with the idea of woad as body paint, but I believe there's literary evidence for some kind of painting/scarring/tattooing in north Britain between the 3rd and 8th centuries. Or has that been discredited too?

It must be authentic, because we see blue Woads in the film King Arthur. :dizzy: