Peltasts and chariots at Cunaxa

[Sean Manning]

One often reads in email or conversation the idea that the Greeks at Cunaxa who opened their ranks to avoid the scythed chariots were the psiloi or peltasts, or at least that there were some psiloi in front of the phalanx to break up the chariot charge. The main difficulty here is that the account of the Greek fight at Anabasis 1.8 seems to deal exclusively with the hoplites, the peltasts being returned to at Anabasis 1.10 when Xenophon has the occasion to mention Tissaphernes. It is not improbable that Xenophon would mislead in this way, but that is not a positive argument.

Has anyone gone over this in detail? Maybe Otto Lendle? For my thesis work I have been avoiding Cunaxa because I believe there are much more interesting questions to ask about Cyrus' revolt.

[Lyceum]

Is there no serious commentary on the Anabasis? Curious. Could one argue that it is infact an omission then? It would be useful to cf Xenophon's treatment of light armed troops in general I suspect contra the hoplites. No idea, I haven't even looked at the Anabasis for like 5 years. Sorry.

[Dan Howard]

In my book I suggested that Xenophon exaggerated the effectiveness of the hoplites and it was really the peltasts that neutralised the chariots. It seemed pretty clear to me that contemporary commanders considered heavy chariotry to be capable of dealing with heavy infantry. The phalanx needed protection from a screen of light infantry.

[Sean Manning]

Is there no serious commentary on the Anabasis? Curious. Could one argue that it is infact an omission then? It would be useful to cf Xenophon's treatment of light armed troops in general I suspect contra the hoplites. No idea, I haven't even looked at the Anabasis for like 5 years. Sorry.

Otto Lendle's is good, but I only have intermittent access through interlibrary loan. I have his "Der Bericht Xenophons über die Schlacht von Kunaxa" but that is not the easiest article for this Ausländer to skim. I figured that I can get a citation here, if there is any, then see about locating the right book.

I will see what Dan has to say- I am still reading his book in bits and pieces as I have time.

[Dan Howard]

The first chapter. It is just a brief outline, not a detailed analysis, since the book was supposed to concentrate on Bronze Age warfare but it might give you a starting point.

[Sean Manning]

The first chapter. It is just a brief outline, not a detailed analysis, since the book was supposed to concentrate on Bronze Age warfare but it might give you a starting point.

Ok, I remember. I will have a look. And Lendle must say something if I look again ...

I think that what happened at Cunaxa is very hard to figure out (especially since Xenophon, the "primary source," keeps using phrases like "they say that" and "it is said that" and had very good reason to emphasize Artaxerxean cowardice) but it is hard to ignore the battle completely.

[Marja]

I'm wondering how chariots fought, and why it would be necessary, or even useful, to open up the rnks against chariots. As far as I know, chariot-riders fought with the bow. No matter how many spikes and scythes are attached to the chariot, a hedge of spears should stop the horses at the front.

[Sean Manning]

I'm wondering how chariots fought, and why it would be necessary, or even useful, to open up the rnks against chariots. As far as I know, chariot-riders fought with the bow. No matter how many spikes and scythes are attached to the chariot, a hedge of spears should stop the horses at the front.

These were scythed chariots, and they fought by riding straight towards the enemy, breaking up their formation and slashing the soldiers' legs. The Greek hoplites were running forward in a wavy line at the time, so standing firm and changing their spears to an underhand grip was not an option unless they wanted to be barraged at close range by Persian archers. And even then, in the dust and confusion some chariots might have run into their phalanx before the horses realized that there were scary things in the way.

The doctrine that no horse would ever come into stabbing range of a steady phalanx of spearmen is based on selective reading of 19th century sources and circular logic (if the cavalry did connect, clearly the spearmen broke first, and we know that the spearmen broke first because the cavalry got into melee). George Silver once heard a similar argument, that he would never get seasick as long as he kept a pebble in his mouth. And indeed, he did spit out the pebble a moment before he threw up, but somehow he was not satisfied with this solution.

[Dan Howard]

Yep. Every time this subject comes up on various forums, people produce plenty of examples where horses did throw themselves against an unbroken line of spears. Sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The question is what percentage of horses can be trained to do this. If 100 horses charge towards a line of spears and 95 of them shy away before contact, then the outcome won't be good for the attackers.

[Marja]

Opening up the ranks to let the chariots through sounds like it's what the chariots need to use the scythes offensively. Closing up the ranks means there's no way to use the wheel scythes in a frontal attack, and are they effective in a raking attack?

For the charioteers, keeping their distance, using their bows against formed infantry, and using the scythes against formationless infantry such as skirmishers, seems more suitable.

For the hoplites, if they have archers or slingers attached, maneuvers which allow each to protect the other could be useful against chariots.

[Sean Manning]

Opening up the ranks to let the chariots through sounds like it's what the chariots need to use the scythes offensively. Closing up the ranks means there's no way to use the wheel scythes in a frontal attack, and are they effective in a raking attack?

For the charioteers, keeping their distance, using their bows against formed infantry, and using the scythes against formationless infantry such as skirmishers, seems more suitable.

For the hoplites, if they have archers or slingers attached, maneuvers which allow each to protect the other could be useful against chariots.

To be honest, I am not too attached to any interpretation. I tend to think that Dan's idea, that they had the same general role as armoured cavalry with lances, is likely. Here is the key evidence.

Xenophon gives us our three main pieces of evidence on Persian scythed chariots. In Anabasis 1.8, the chariots which reached the Greek phalanx were empty, and the Persians ahead were running away so the Greeks parted their formation to let the chariots through harmlessly. Without drivers, the horses had no reason to ride close to the edges of each gap and rake the hoplites' legs. In Hellenica 4.1.17-19 two chariots and several hundred cavalry smashed a party of pillagers who had gathered into a clump when the enemy approached. In Cyropaedia 7.1.30ff they do well against the cavalry and the Egyptian phalanx but many of their riders are killed. Xenophon seemed to believe that the key was the courage and unity of their riders: if the riders charged boldly the chariots could break up the enemy formation, if they jumped out too early the chariots were no good. He also believed that chariots could smash directly into a phalanx of hoplites if their drivers were brave.

The ones at Gaugamela (Arrian, Rufus, Diodorus) had mixed luck: the ones who charged the cavalry and skirmishers on Alexander's right were shot down, the ones who charged the gaps in the phalanx on Alexander's left did great damage (see the paper by my colleagues Graham Wrightson and Carolyn Willikes and my supervisor Waldemar Heckel in in E. Carney & D. Ogden (eds.), Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son, Lives and Afterlives. (OUP, 2010) pp. 103-113). Scythed chariots continued to be used for several centuries, so clearly they were effective at something.

At Cunaxa, Xenophon gives the impression that all the Greek light-armed were at the Greek right flank. But he almost forgets to mention them at all during the battle, and tends to forget to mention small groups of light-armed attached to a large hoplite formation.

Edit: The other point is that these chariots had no archer, just a driver whose hands were busy with the reins of four horses. So they could not stand off and shoot- a feature they share with many other shock troops.

[Robert Vermaat]

I tend to think that Dan's idea, that they had the same general role as armoured cavalry with lances, is likely.

Odd that these chariots did not have archers (which we do see on earlier Assyrian chariots) - perhaps the Persians developed them to disrupt enemy cavalry formations? Against a Macedonian phalanx, any use would be limited.
The head-on charge: evidently a 'last resort' tactic, especially if the enemy is a disciplined infantry that won't budge.
Into a gap: potentially succesful if you can get the flank of a formation, where the scythes do most damage.
Across the front: depends on the enemy - I doubt that a phalanx would let any chariot get that close.

Chariots can indeed be succesful, but against untrained infantry or loose cavalry, plus you need unbroken ground.

[koechlyruestow]

But if, of 100 charging horses,95 would decide to commit suicide on the spears of the hoplites, that would be good for the attackers? Would you throw your pony on a spear, even if you had barded it with a lorica squamata? I think not. I would suggest you all take these things too literally. Mostly, both men and horses shy away from a confrontation, those that blinked first lost. Police horses easily run down rioters and knock down the occasional offender that finds himself in their path, but if the rioters are hemmed in and have no way to escape, those horses suddenly shy away. And horses cannot be fooled, if 10.000 hoplites in clancking armour, shields and weaponry and screaming their heads off run towards you through the dust of a battle-field, any horse knows what is coming.

[Dan Howard]

It is a game of chicken. You want the guy with the spear to flinch before your horse does, so you need a horse that has the capacity to throw itself against a spear wall even though this is not the result you actually want during a successful charge. You want your mount to wheel away on YOUR command, not when it decides to.

[M. Demetrius]

It was probably not career-enhancing for a cavalryman to be thrown from a horse into the massed ranks of infantry. Just sayin'
:unsure: