Peltasts and chariots at Cunaxa

[Marja]

So I am not comfortable with any universal rule about combat between cavalry and infantry, at least not unless it is based on long and careful research.

Agreed.

I think it's important to approach these problems from multiple angles.

The historical accounts are indispensible, but they also compress a lot into a chapter or so.

The how-would-that-work questions are also indispensible, but we don't know that much about actual fighting.

The psychological effects should be taken to amplify the how-would-that-work questions, but a lot of times, I seem them used to substitute for the how-would-that-work questions. At least experienced infantry would be able to tell the difference between what looks most dangerous and what is most dangerous, although with inexperienced infantry, they might not, and with cavalry the horse's reaction may be as important as the rider's.

I can see scythe chariots being exceedingly effective against heavy cavalry - if the horses panic, then they panic; if they don't panic, and the two formations meet, if the horses run into the gaps between the chariots, some are cut down. But they don't seem like they'd be as effective against the infantry unless they carry archers or other missile troops, of if they catch the infantry changing formation, with an open flank, etc.