Carthaginian Chariots

The following is an outline, based on some extracts from the consultancy info I sent to a colleague teaching Classics overseas regarding Carthaginian chariots:

Carthage, as you may or may not  know relied primarily on her navy, but also maintained a large army made up of Carthaginian forces, and "mercenaries" although we should remember that some mercenary units were mercenaries as we would apply the term today and others were more like levys of allied troops. These included large numbers of Libyan forces, Numidians, Iberians, Greeks, Sardinians and Celts (Gauls, Celto-Iberians and Galatians).

The Carthaginians themselves used chariots in civil processions and chariot racing throughout Carthage's history. In warfare they originally seem to have used a thick and sturdy quadriga (drawn by four-horse team like Seleucid chariots.) They are first mentioned at the Battle of Crimisus River in 341 BC. They were important in the early Carthaginian army and it seems that up until during the Second Punic war the Libyans supplied the bulk of these. (Warry, John. Warfare in the Classical World. pp. 98-99.) This sounds at first a little surprising, given the semi-arid climate of North Africa, but chariots (and horses perhaps a little earlier, but not very common common until they were introduced to Egypt c. 1500 BC) appear in rock art in a number of sites throughout North Africa and the Northern edges of the Sahara - it seems that North Africans, Libyans among them had probably adopted and maintained chariotry and horse breeding for centuries prior to the rise of Carthage, although later Hellenistic and Persian influences would have been established by the Punic wars. The Carthaginian use of chariotry in warfare declined during the Second Punic war and was gradually phased out and completely replaced with war elephants.

How would the Carthaginian chariots have been used? They were drawn up in units at the front of the Carthaginian army (Plut. Tim. 25.1,27.2), like war elephants we should not be too quick to underestimate just how much of a pyschological impact this would have had on unnerving enemy troops, The chariots would then charge forward, firing arrows to thin enemy ranks, and perhaps javelins too at closer quarters, while the sounds of the galloping hooves and thundering wheels, not to mention the dust would be quite intimidating. Horses will not charge a densely packed phalanx of spears, so the chariots would then either whirl away and repeat this several times before the infantry went in, or if they had created a weak point of injured or fleeing troops in the enemy line, they could exploit this and charge through/create more havoc on this gap in the lines and then the infantry could stream through or even encircle and cut down the enemy in the wake of the chariots.

Even though the Carthaginians gradually abandoned chariotry, throughout the Punic Wars Carthaginian forces had smaller but still significant use of mercenary (allied) Celtic chariots. The Gauls were extremely skilled with their light, mobile and manoeuvrable biga (two horse drawn) chariots as Julius Caesar noted in the Gallic wars. In fact our word chariot (and car, and carriage) are derived from Latin Carrum which is a loan word from Gaulish Karros. The Celts tended to use their chariots as "battle-taxis" hurling several heavier javelins at range, but primarily to move elite heroic warriors to, from and to different points on the battlefield, although the warriors tended to dismount and fight on foot and then be driven away to their next destination on the battlefield. The exception seems to have been the Galatians that settled in Asia Minor, as they seem to have adopted the Persian scythed chariot, with rotating blades coming from the axle.

*Now, I did hear once that some Galatian scythed chariots were used by Hannibal's forces to deceive effect on several occasions early into his Italian campaign, however I haven't been able to verify (nor completely rule out) that yet.
 

When is a Chariot a Chariot?

Following the recent circulation of  some Early Bronze Age  Georgian "chariots" with 4 wheels. These are probably more accurately referred to as ("pleasure" or "prestige") "carriages" as described by the likes of Staurt Piggott to denote a variation of light, usually spoked-wheeled prestigious (and perhaps ceremonial) transport for rulers or elites, that they could sit on/within. These would have never have been used as mobile military platforms in battle, nor were they even theoretically capable of being used so because of the design. These pleasure carriages were probably used for official processions, transporting images of the gods, in this context the funerary procession and burial, and perhaps elite weddings in a similar manner to "Royal Carriages" used to this day.

 

http://www.livescience.com/46491-early-bronze-age-chariot-burial-photos.html

I wrote the following to Ancient and Medieval military expert Mike Loades on what I have been finding about the fluid use of chariot in academic archaeological publications:

      When is a chariot a chariot? Well this is one of a number of questions I am working on in my current Ph.D thesis on early chariots in the Ancient Near East and adjacent regions. Astonishingly enough chariots have not been studied in great detail in their own right until recently (largely from the eighties onwards and even then more of a gradual trickle of information), before that it was always either broadly in very little detail, site/object specific or in relation to larger debates like horse domestication, migrations of various ancient peoples etc...so because of this there is no universal standard of exactly what a chariot is, but rather a loose set of ideas about structure and function. So in English language literature a (True) chariot is generally considered to be a light vehicle with 2 spoked-wheels, usually drawn by horses (at least capable of being drawn by horses even if in some cases mules, donkeys or oxen could be used when it wasn't in battle) and at least theoretically capable of being used in warfare (whether or not that was actually the case is perhaps less important, eg a raceing chariot, a ritual chariot, a funerary chariot), a hunting chariot). We tend to class civilian 2/3 wheeled vehicles as carts, heavy four wheeled vehicles as wagons and 4 wheeled vehicles but with spoked wheels as carriages. Howrver not everyone uses these terms all the same way. French research papers will tend to class many kinds of vehicles as chariots, German literature will call most of these wagons - sometimes a more specific term is used but sometimes it is not. Russian academic literature has different tendencies again and different attitudes pre and post the collapse of the Soviet Union. In other cases in other countries chariot is used more to evoke a link to antiquity, or to describe any prestigious elite vehicle rather than a technical term for a specific kind of vehicle. Depending on one's own first language, what language the material is being published in, where and for who the information is being circulated to, ideological and personal motivations and preferences - there are many factors that can influence exactly what is being called a chariot in a given context. Finally to complicate it further there are examples of vehicles, either found whole or in part, sometimes only as partial impressions as the organic material has long ago rotten away, as well as models, and visual representations such as in some sculpture and rock art where it is not always clear whether a vehicle belongs to one or another, or is a transitionary form or something different again.

So all chariots are vehicles but not all vehicles are chariots, and not all vehicles that get called a chariot really are chariots depending on your point of view. Context and the details of any individual vehicle are the best ways to decide if what you are looking at is a chariot.

Based on what seems to be the emerging trend in research written in English, but not set in stone just yet either, I would suggest that if a vehicle has 2 spoked wheels and is light enough and maneuverable enough to be capable of being drawn by horses as a mobile fighting platform for warfare, then it can be considered to truly be a chariot.

 

The link between the Space Shuttle and the Roman Chariot

There is a well known argument that has circulated the internet that claims that the measurement for the width of the Roman chariot and the solid rocket boosters on the back of NASA's space shuttles are the same unusual measurement of 8 feet 4 1/2 inches (around 1.4 metres). What an intrigueing idea. It goes a little something like this:

• 8 feet 4 1/2 inches is the standardised (internal) railway gauge in the USA


• this is because the early railway tracks in the US were built and designed (at least in a substantial part) by British ex-pats, and, because that was the gauge the trains ran on


• because that was the railway gauge in Britain where the early trains were built.


• The trains in Britain were built to run on track this guage because railway lines followed old trolley cart/tram rail lines


• The tram lines were this gauge because they were built along pathways horse darawn carriages and carts went along


• The carriages and carts were the same measurement (from wheel to wheel) bcause they ran along ruts used by old wagons


• The medieval wagons wore ruts this size because they were standardised so they could run along the old roads between main towns


• Those old roads were mostly old Roman roads still in use


• The Roman roads were standardised to that size to accomodate Roman war chariots


• Roman chariots were standardised to this size because....


• that was the size of two (Roman?) horses's rear ends!

The twist in the tale follows, that the solid rocket boosters of the space shuttle are assembled in Utah (I heard Canada in the first version I came across) and need to be the same size to fit onto a railway carriage and be transported by rail, onclueding through a few rail tunnels, to Florida. Hence the need for an unusal size. Dah daaah! Thus one of mankind's most advanced machines owes part of its design deminsions to an ancient machine, linking the Romans to space flight!

The story spread virally around the net, and s still readily in circulation, although I have not come across who first wrote it. It is often taken prima facie as fact. There are also a number of "counter articles" out there attacking the story, although the critiques vary a lot, and are sometimes, well simply not very interesting, effective and in the worst cases - not factual either.

Contrary to the story, it is true that railway gauge, not to mention carriage, cart and wagon widths have varied over time. Another obvious critiscism is that Roman chariots were not used for warfare, and surely if anything more carts carrying upplies, pack animals and infantry would have been on those Roman roads in Britain, with few if any Roman chariots, and certainly not war chariots. Horses too vary in size and larger and larger horse breeds than the Roman had have been developed through the Middle Ages and into the early Modern draft horse breeds, which are considerably larger than the more pony-like breeds from antiquity.

The NASA Technical Standards Program has produced a good critique in response to the widespread story, here: standards.nasa.gov/documents/RomanChariots.pdf

‎

 Another thing not given much consideration is actual Roman roads. Sure, there are many in Britain but these have often had some changes over time. There are 4 main kinds of Roman roads:

Roman roads could be of four types:

i. "viae publicae" - public roads built at public expense (taxpayer's money or war booty)

ii. "viae militares" - military roads, built by the army at their own expense but would eventually fall into the first category of public roads.

iii. "actus" - minor roads, built and maintained by local councils

iv. "privatae" - yep, private roads built by private individuals at their own expense within their private property.

Most Roman roads were consierably wider than 8 feet 4 1/2 inches to allow two horse drawn carts to cross past each other in different directions, although this wasn't always possible in some kinds of terrain. About 9 f/3m was the most common road width.

 

It is interesting to note:

 

'The width of the road would be planned to allow horses and cariages along it or where it was too narrow such as on a mountain pass, regular side-stops would be planned to allow transit.The width of roads varied with the importance of the road: A width of 3m or over (9ft) was normal for roman roads to allow to carts to drive past each other in opposite directions although road widths as great as 7m (21ft) have been found. The edges of the road would be closed off by stones placed lengthways, which in city centres would act as the step for pavements. In cities such as Pompeii and Osita the roads have been found to be a relatively consistent 4m (12ft) in width for major roads, with a further 4 meters worth of pavements ie 2m either side). Minor roads in the city were anywhere between 2 and 4m (6-12ft).

It is interesting to note the ruts worn into Roman roads by the regular passage of carriages which were evidently built to standard width in the region of 1.3m (4 ft). It also seems that the ruts were not always worn by use but at times actually applied in instances such as steep or very tortuous mountain roads, rather like laying tram lines to render the roads more secure for the carts which might otherwise slip over the edge.'

 

http://www.mariamilani.com/ancient_rome/rome_building_roads.htm 

 

Of course, like many stories, myths or legends, there is sometimes a bit of truth to the basis of them. A very good break down of what is truth, what is fiction, and what could be a bit of either or niether can be found here by Cecil Adams:

 

 

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2538/was-standard-railroad-gauge-48-determined-by-roman-chariot-ruts  

He also notes:

'I have heard tell of certain wheel ruts having a gauge of you-know-what at the gate to an old Roman fort called Housesteads on Hadrian's Wall in the north of England. Legend has it that George Stephenson based the gauge he used for his locomotives on the width of these ruts. Here's what Housesteads by James Crow (Batsford, London, 1995, pp. 33-34) has to say on the subject:

"The gauge between the ruts is very similar to that adopted by George Stephenson for the Stockton to Darlington railway in 1837 and a 'Wall myth' developed that he took this gauge from the newly excavated east gate. There is a common link, but it is more prosaic and the 'coincidence' is explained by the fact that the dimension common to both was that of a cart axle pulled by two horses in harness (about 1.4m or 4ft 8in). This determined both the Roman gauge and Stephenson's, which derived from the horsedrawn wagon ways of south Northumberland and County Durham coalfields."

So then, while there may not be a direct unbroken chain, nor will it have been the same in all cases, but there is a link there that seems to be far more than a quirk of history. Admitedly there are some errors in the original story, some facts that are simply wrong or misleading, and while railway track guage, not to mention wagons and carts have varied somewhat over time...there is nonetheless a link, not so much to the Roman chariot per se but a link between Roman horse drawn veichles, railways and the space shuttle.