Chariot fight

[rupol2000]

Chariots were the most formidable weapon of antiquity and apparently dominated the eastern army until the appearance of the phalanx, against which the cataphracts were created.
But little is known about chariot battles. Where can I read about their military organization, tactics and strategy?

As far as I understand, the main advantage was that at high speeds and maneuverability, the rate of fire was maintained, since the hands of the archer or thrower were free.
And the second is that it was impossible to catch them on foot, so they were practically invulnerable to the infantry.

 

[rupol2000]

The stock of arrows was very large. They also used to brought new arrows by chariots

 

[AZrailwhale]

The stock of arrows was very large. They also used to brought new arrows by chariots

You might notice that the chariot is made of WICKER. It's not exactly arrow proof and infantry archers were more accurate than chariot mounted ones. Chariots couldn't operate in the face of either missile armed infantry or cavalry of any sort. That's why the use of chariots died out.

 

[rupol2000]

You might notice that the chariot is made of WICKER. It's not exactly arrow proof and infantry archers were more accurate than chariot mounted ones. Chariots couldn't operate in the face of either missile armed infantry or cavalry of any sort. That's why the use of chariots died out.

Most likely then the archers were only charioteers. The western infantry did not have bows even under Macedonian.

It is not a problem to put protection on the chariot.
I think this is not the only version of the chariot at all.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Most likely then the archers were only charioteers. The western infantry did not have bows even under Macedonian.

It is not a problem to put protection on the chariot.
I think this is not the only version of the chariot at all.

It was a BIG problem armoring chariots. If they were much heavier the horses couldn't pull them fast enough to be useful.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Most likely then the archers were only charioteers. The western infantry did not have bows even under Macedonian.

It is not a problem to put protection on the chariot.
I think this is not the only version of the chariot at all.

Infantry had bows long before charioteers and cavalry had them. I don't know where you get these idiotic ideas. Infantry in those days was divided into Heavy (Phalanxes and Roman Squares) Armored and heavily armed, Light (skirmishers with little to no armor and armed with odds and ends) and Missile troops with bows, slings or javelins.

 

[rupol2000]

in those days was divided into Heavy (Phalanxes and Roman Squares

We talk about times 2,000 years before the rise of Rome.

By the way, the Roman infantry also did not have bows.

 

[AZrailwhale]

We talk about times 2,000 years before the rise of Rome.

By the way, the Roman infantry also did not have bows.

Wrong. Roman infantry auxiliaries were archers.

and no we’re not. But it doesn’t matter, infantry bows were used long before chariots. Self ( or long) bows date back to seven thousand BC.

 

[rupol2000]

Wrong. Roman infantry auxiliaries were archers.

No. They used pilums. The bow is too complex a weapon for agricultural workers

 

[rupol2000]

and no we’re not. But it doesn’t matter, infantry bows were used long before chariots. Self ( or long) bows date back to seven thousand BC.

Infantry bows are generally unknown in antiquity. They were only in the east, and there was no infantry in the east.