Charioteers

Now, looking at the numbers available for the auxilia, we have 215,040 set aside for the corps out of 300,160 - 85,120 are still available to play with. With 42 legions with 80 officers in heavy chariots, only 6,720 of them would be needed to fill the chariot positions. This means the charges described for heavy chariots could be adapted to the attack of a legion.

One thing Egyptian chariots had to help out their users was a 20 inch rawhide platform on which they could stand. This gave them an extra height advantage that allowed them to more easily see and swing their bow around to where they needed to shoot. The front and side walls could be used to brace with the hip of the archer. Meanwhile the back foot could brace on pole that formed the back of the frame.   Typically, the horses were the most exposed and the biggest targets. Thus anything wishing to disable a chariot would do better aiming for the horses. As a result hardened rawhide was attached to cloth to form a sort of horse gambeson. Scale armor made with leather or bronze would be common for chariots, but mainly on the torso and arms. Leather attached to the chariot itself would protect below the waist.

The most common weapons in historical chariots appear to be spears and bows. Bows naturally are a much better fit because they are easier to maneuver on the chariot and a chariot can fit more arrows than spears. But longbows are, well, too long. The recurve bow is ideal for chariots because they can be short enough for the archer to hold the bow outside the chariot to aim and still get a full draw. Also, due to the recurve bow being able to get the same force with lighter pound draw weight, the archer does not have to sacrifice power for practicality. This actually benefits them in that they can hold the draw longer without sacrificing their endurance. Given the increased difficulty of aiming, this would allow them to be more accurate.

Generally, chariots were open air vehicles with two wheels and two crew. They could be pulled by between 2-4 horses. The crew mentioned above included an archer and driver. The Hittites used a chariot with three horses and crew. The extra person used a spear or sword, or simply held a shield to protect the rest against arrow fire. There were also records of armies native to the Persian region attaching scythes to their chariots for extra damage.   Egyptian chariots tended to have the archer on the left side while the Chinese preferred to station the archer to the right of the driver. Typically though the Chinese version would work better as this allowed the archer to fully draw their bows without hitting the driver with their elbows. The "Runner" position was typically armed with spear and shield. His job was more of a support position - fixing harnesses, getting more arrows, keeping skirmishers from attacking from the back, dealing with captives, clearing obstacles and so forth.   Chariots in combat apparently require wide and flat plains and are weak against phalanxes. Also, they had no defensive power and infantry could simply disperse and reform behind the chariots. The other major disadvantage is that they take more horses than the soldiers carried by the chariot. Cavalry has a ratio of one horse per soldier. This not only grants better maneuverability, but also allows more mounted troops. We know from heavy cavalry how powerful regular cavalry can be and that numbers are key to a charge. More importantly, heavy cavalry can be much denser - the utility of density in a charge cannot be overstated. Yet chariots were effective shock weapons and work well to scare the enemy. Would this be as good as a solid charge from heavy cavalry with lances? I don't think so. This is born out in the gradual shift from chariots to heavy cavalry in this role.   But there was one point where chariots do apparently shine. That is being impressive on the battlefield. The wide plains on which they were typically used in history meant that the charge was quite visible the second they got going. The wheels and hooves would stir up epic clouds of dust. Out of these clouds would come the enemy at full speed. So the value of chariots might be more in their impacts on enemy morale. In this sense they would be the same as lance charges of heavy cavalry. Just chariots would be more specialized for a certain type of terrain.   Another area where they would be better than traditional heavy cavalry is chariots can be better at delivering more archer fire or as a way to deliver mobile infantry or supplies to the battlefield. But war wagons tend to be better on that front. The Hussite war wagon for example had a crew of 4 to 8 crossbowmen and 2 handgunners. But I would assume that the Easterling version would just be 6-10 archers. They also 6 to 8 infantry equipped with pikes or flails, 2 shield carriers and 2 drivers. But these war wagons naturally were too cumbersome and slow for effective mounted operations. So at a tactical level, they were better at getting into place and defending. If one wants speed and mobility (such as when one is on the offensive) then chariots would be better. Even with their lower firepower.   One thing that chariots and war wagons had clearly over heavy cavalry is the loss of mobility did not cripple the soldier. In fact, the fact these vehicles could carry more traditional infantry weapons than cavalry meant that should the chariot be disabled or otherwise needed to be abandoned, the crew could be converted to infantry. Thus they were a blend of cavalry and mounted infantry. In fact, the chariot and war wagon could become stationary cover from which archers could fire from behind. So these vehicles might not be as offensively powerful, but much more versatile and harder to totally defeat.

So, I would suspect that they would be primarily used as part of the command-and-control system. This is the one area where normal cavalry would suffer relatively. The commander of a unit would use them to relay messages and use the vantage point to see better. The platform would also grant the commander some extra protection. Then, should the opportunity show itself, the chariots in the army could group together and lead their units in a charge. Having the infantry follow closely behind would counter the problem of the enemy ranks instantly reforming behind chariots.

One tactic historians think the Egyptian chariots used was to charge towards enemy at a slight angle, possibly in squads of 10. This would allow for massed archery fire on a section for an entire charge - often no more than 200 yards. Once they got close, they would pull off a sharp turn, then speed back towards their own lines. The archer could then shoot backwards at the enemy. Once they got back, the runner was able to get more arrows.   Now, there were light chariot designs in the ancient world. These could be broken down and carried across ground too difficult for the chariot to drive across. More likely, the tactics described above would be used in some form by the auxilia. The light chariots would probably be preferred due to the need for mobility.   Now, heavy chariots often could not move that fast. In fact, light infantry could keep up with them. So, we can use a less risky version of the light chariot tactics I discuss with heavy chariots. Here, the chariot would be fully loaded with 4 crew, two being light infantry. They would use the heavy infantry to draw the enemy’s attention, then move to the rear or an exposed flank. Ideally this would place them as close as possible without being seen. The skirmishers would get out and walk with the chariots until the last minute. Then skirmishers would throw their pila and the chariots would charge in. This charge would be followed closely by the skirmishers, switching to swords.   In this model, each century would march as an individual block into battle. The main legion would throw their pila at the enemy then begin to march towards them. The officers would then charge as described above for the heavy chariots. As they do this, the gaps between infantry units would be closed as they move in. Once the charioteers make contact, the heavy infantry is to move as fast as possible without breaking ranks. Ideally, they would hit the enemy as shortly as possible after.   Now, there were two basic types of chariots - light and heavy. The above tactics work great for heavy models. How would light ones be used? One common tactic used in real life chariot combat was the shoot and scoot model of artillery. The idea was the chariots would ride close enough to fire at most three volleys. Once they did so, they would depart immediately to another area. This was repeated as much as needed. To maximize the effectiveness of this sort of attack, each of the crew would need a bow and two pila. Probably a small shield and short sword. Armor we can expect to be light for both horses and crew.   Another was to charge directly into the enemy line and scatter them. Once this was accomplished the crew could use spears, axes and javelins to attack the enemy infantry. This tactic would be devastating if combined with the heavy infantry attacks as described above. It would break open the enemy lines into several sections being independently attacked by a chariot engaging at short range. Before the gaps could be plugged, the infantry would close in and exploit the openings.   Also – remember that sometimes chariots would have a third melee crew member? Well, we can combine these and get a powerful basis for mounted infantry I don’t see as a possibility for any other culture in Middle Earth. In this tactic, the chariots would be assembled in an area hopefully hidden from the enemy. Then, all three crew would ride to another area. The infantry person, probably a light skirmisher, would jump out. These units would then move to engage the enemy. The chariots, using their superior speed, would then move into a shoot and scoot maneuver attacking from an entirely different area. Now, there are records of up to four men on each chariot. So dropping one off would not hinder the chariot’s overall effectiveness as a shock weapon.   The combination would be a lot of disorder and confusion in the enemy ranks that hopefully would leave them vulnerable to the main heavy infantry. Now, in order for this to work, one would also need the enemy to know exactly where the heavy infantry is and them be a tempting target. This means the enemy would move to engage the heavy infantry. Also, a decent amount of luck would be needed – if the chariots are discovered and even worse attacked before they assemble the chariots, this whole model falls apart. It might even cost them the battle in the right conditions. Hence the need for the chariot wing to be as secretive and fast as possible in their deployment. Often this would require the terrain be ideal, as to cover the moves or prevent the enemy from reorienting their lines properly. But this is part of the reason the heavy infantry must be as easy to find as possible. If the enemy thinks they have found the bulk of the enemy force, there is less chance that forces would be devoted to the sort of scouting operations needed to discover the chariots.   There is still a need to have secrecy and some early speed for heavy attacks, but not as much. I suspect that the heavy chariot version would be quite powerful and much more likely to work. But the light chariot model could be more effective. It would just need a lot more to go right in order to work to its full potential. As a result, I suspect most battles would use the heavy chariot attack. But, commanders would have the light chariot option as part of training on the rare chance the ideal opportunity arises.   Far more likely is that this tactic would have won the Easterlings some major victories. But people would learn quickly to expect it and how to counter it. Far more likely by the time the War of the Ring breaks out is a more limited role of chariots in battle. In a more limited version of the above tactic, they might simply rush light infantry to an area in need of reinforcements. Sort of like an ancient APC. Or they can be used to sent supplies, messages and so forth.   However, the downsides are often countered by upgrading to war wagons. A Hussite war wagon from around 1420 was used as a firing platform for cannons, archers or crossbowmen. Wood sides would protect the men inside. Offensively, they would serve as sort of early tanks in pincer moves. The Hussite could form the basis for mobile defensive positions, forming impromptu forts on the battlefield. 300 were used in one battle for this effect. They proved effective against a larger force of knights even when manned by peasant infantry. These defensive formations were often rectangles with the wagons connected with chains. This was almost impervious to mounted charges.   This was often used in conjunction with cavalry inside the square formed in this way. Once the archers ran out of arrows or they broke the momentum of the enemy charge, the infantry and cavalry would lead the counterattack. The idea is that the enemy would wear themselves out, just to be killed by the infantry. Such tactics were quite effective when the wagon forts were set up with overlapping fields of fire. Thus attackers would be hit from many sides.   One possibility is to take a defensive version of the light chariot model. Here, they would hide behind the main heavy infantry used as bait. Then, they would move into strategic positions after the enemy is engaged. Ideally, this would be the high ground or important passes needed to secure retreats. Then, the infantry inside could harass the flanks of the enemy, seeking to break apart the enemy ranks or bait them into attacking the wagon forts.   To give you an idea of the utility of such wagon forts and their potential, they were used extensively by the settlers in South Africa. In one engagement, 10,000 Zulus were defeated by 350 settlers. However, there were cases where the wagon forts were defeated. Mainly when rapid attacks stopped them from being set up. The other was in the case of feigned retreats. A wagon fort is naturally mobile, but also obviously mainly defensive. Thus, if the defenders are baited into coming out, they lose their main advantage. In this case, I would imagine that the main advantage of the war wagon would be to get troops to an area and hold it against attack.   Wisniewski, J.; Kevin Nakamura (April 24, 2013). "5 Ridiculous Myths Everyone Believes About the Wild West". Cracked. Retrieved 2014-08-18.   Gregory F. Michno; Susan J. Michno (24 November 2008). Circle the Wagons!: Attacks on Wagon Trains in History and Hollywood Films. McFarland. pp. 196–. ISBN 978-0-7864-3997-3.   The Chinese war wagon was primarily defensive. It had a shed like roof used to protect the troops behind it. This allowed sappers to get closer to a city to undermine the walls. In pitched battles they were used to protect against cavalry and arrow fire.   It would be possible in my mind to combine the light cavalry and war wagons. In this model, replace the cavalry with light chariots in the war wagon tactic. The wagons would be disconnected from their horses once they get into place. This would allow the horses to carry the chariots. After they get into place, the light chariots can then carry the infantry into battle as stated above. Shoot and scoot after dropping their shirmishers. Or the chariots could simply stand in for the cavalry without the extra layer. The second is still risky due to having so many places it could go wrong. But this is less so because of the addition of viable options should discovery occur. But either one of these would be better than the original idea.

Because of the speed of the light chariots and the clouds of dust stirred up during charges, it is likely that chariot archers would be shooting at a lot of close up targets while moving at a high rate of speed. One Egyptian Pharaoh is claimed to have shot 4 arrows at targets 11 yards apart at what I assume was a full gallop. Like a lot of things, this is likely what training would seek to achieve in each archer. But rarely are training and drill standards actually held to in real combat.   This would likely be the standard for slightly off center forward facing shots. Naturally ones to the side would be harder to pull off. Shooting over the heads of the horses would be not just more difficult but more likely to scare the horses. A 45 degree angle according to my sources gets around some of these problems.