02-18-2013, 03:56 AM
[quote="Vindex" post=330765]As a matter of interest, do any of the contributors to this thread so far ride at all? (and not just round and round in a riding school).
/quote]
Haven't contributed thus far but would say that, as someone quite experienced with horses (recently was unhorsed though, broke my bow...
) I 100% agree with you that physical acquaintance really changes perspective. You can imagine the psychological shock. Especially if they're very colourful too. That's with a few dozen, a thousand heavy mail clad horses would be even worse.
I think this point is echoed in Macedon's post as well. He's right that these things were adapted to their environs, though I can't imagine anyone seriously referring to Eastern troops like the Persians, Carians, Assyrians etc as being untrained or whatever, though I may have mis-read that.
"In all, tactics should not be viewed only in terms of the few, really big battles we can study. It is naive to believe that shock cavalry and chariots were useless because in 10-20 battles they could accomplish little when used in a certain way. These arms and tactics existed because they were useful in the broader sense of war and battle. However, it is equally naive to suggest that because they existed they were as useful, when thus tactically used, in such battles too. Exactly like terrain, numbers, the composition of the army, its level of experience and training etc would make certain tactics more or less appropriate."
This is key.
I would also point out that for chariots we've studied very little of the available evidence. Crouwell seems to be the best overall study (at least for the bronze age) and that is saying something, Drews wrote a book that is...well its pretty dire both in its overall conception of the Greeks coming to Greece etc and its analysis of certain evidence e.g the Mahabharata.
/quote]
Haven't contributed thus far but would say that, as someone quite experienced with horses (recently was unhorsed though, broke my bow...
) I 100% agree with you that physical acquaintance really changes perspective. You can imagine the psychological shock. Especially if they're very colourful too. That's with a few dozen, a thousand heavy mail clad horses would be even worse. I think this point is echoed in Macedon's post as well. He's right that these things were adapted to their environs, though I can't imagine anyone seriously referring to Eastern troops like the Persians, Carians, Assyrians etc as being untrained or whatever, though I may have mis-read that.
"In all, tactics should not be viewed only in terms of the few, really big battles we can study. It is naive to believe that shock cavalry and chariots were useless because in 10-20 battles they could accomplish little when used in a certain way. These arms and tactics existed because they were useful in the broader sense of war and battle. However, it is equally naive to suggest that because they existed they were as useful, when thus tactically used, in such battles too. Exactly like terrain, numbers, the composition of the army, its level of experience and training etc would make certain tactics more or less appropriate."
This is key.
I would also point out that for chariots we've studied very little of the available evidence. Crouwell seems to be the best overall study (at least for the bronze age) and that is saying something, Drews wrote a book that is...well its pretty dire both in its overall conception of the Greeks coming to Greece etc and its analysis of certain evidence e.g the Mahabharata.
Jass
