Among the many military innovations in the Bronze Age Near East, two would have an impact on warfare for thousands of years: the enlistment of animals into military service, and the creation of machines to facilitate war-making. The crucial role played by animals in warfare has declined only in the twentieth century CE. Machines, on the other hand, are playing an increasingly dramatic role in warfare; some would argue that we may be on the verge of seeing machines become more important than men in determining the outcome of war. All of this began in Sumeria with the donkey and the wheel.
Animals and warfare (MK 156–65)
One of the most important and long-lasting Neolithic military innovations was the use of animals in warfare (CAM 36–7). There were five ways in which animals eventually became employed in the ancient Near East to supplement human war efforts: for guarding humans, and supplementing their sense of smell and hearing (dogs); as a mobile source of food (goats, sheep, cattle); transporting food and equipment as pack animals (donkeys, mules, horses, camels); pulling wheeled vehicles (donkeys, onager-donkey hybrids, mules, horses, oxen), and for riding (donkeys, mules, horses, camels).
The oldest military animal partner of humans was the dog, which has been domesticated in the Near East since at least the tenth millennium. Dogs were originally used for hunting and protection, a function they continued in the military context. Watchdogs appeared with paramilitary functions protecting cities, fortresses and camps (EA 2:166–7; EAE 1:229–31; AEMK 82–4). They occasionally accompanied soldiers into combat: “the frenzied dogs were wagging tails before the enemy, [as if asking] ‘have you killed a victim?’ and were drooling slaver on their forepaws” (HTO 245; FI §723; AM §64). Although there are some examples of tamed lions or cheetahs, these were probably rare, and were used more for court spectacle than for day-to-day protection (EAE 1:513–16).
The next use of animals in warfare was as a source of food. With the beginnings of the domestication of animals in the Neolithic period, humans were able to shift from hunting to herding, creating a more reliable and controllable food source.
Animals had a significant advantage over other possible military food sources such as grain or fruit, in that animals could move themselves along with the army, rather than requiring a man, pack animal or vehicle to carry them. On the other hand, in arid regions animals competed with humans for water, required supervision and protection, and, depending on the gait and speed of an animal, could slow an army down. In the ancient Near East goats, sheep, and cattle were the main mobile food sources which accompanied armies on campaign; on the other hand, donkeys, mules, horses, and camels, though primarily draft and pack animals, were also eaten when necessary.
The most significant military use of animals in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age was the pack animal. The donkey, in particular, was domesticated and used to carry burdens in all aspects of Near Eastern life: domestic, agricultural, mercantile, and military. Throughout the Early and Middle Bronze ages, the donkey (or donkey-onager hybrid) was the primary means of land transportation (EA 2:255–6; EAE 1:478–9; AW 1:166–7). The military use of the donkey permitted armies to stay in the field longer, to campaign over greater distances, and to have extended marches in desert terrain (AEL 1:25–6). On the other hand, although we know donkeys were ridden, there is no evidence of donkeys being extensively ridden in combat situations.
The fourth possible use of animals in ancient Near Eastern warfare was as draft animals to pull wheeled vehicles. In the late fourth millennium {c. 3300–2800} kings in Mesopotamia were conveyed in palanquins (FI §711) or on thrones dragged on wheel-less sledges by bovines (FI §10; WV §2); while the sledge was the ceremonial precursor to the chariot, it obviously had little military potential. The wheel seems to have developed from modifications made to log rollers for sledges. It is possible that wheeled vehicles appear in Mesopotamia as early as the thirty-second century, though the ambiguous depiction in our evidence may show a sledge on rollers rather than true wheels (WV 13, §1). In addition to carrying loads, the earliest archaic vehicles were used for the ritual transport of images of the gods. Indeed, in Mesopotamian mythology the gods are frequently described as riding in wheeled vehicles.1 Kings were also conveyed on vehicles in ceremonial processions. There is evidence that wheeled vehicles were extensively used for the transportation of goods, supplementing pack animals and boats (EA 1:433–4); Hammurabi's law code {c. 1760} includes laws concerning renting wagons, drivers, and oxen (ANET 177). During the Bronze Age the use of equids to pull wheeled vehicles in battle was their most important military role.
By about 2700, wheeled vehicles begin to be used in warfare in the form of war-carts which will be discussed in detail below.2 Militarily, wheeled vehicles were probably used to carry supplies on campaign, and, along with boats and pack animals, remained the primary means of transporting supplies and military equipment throughout the Near East. Despite the fact that the Egyptians had ample trade relations with Syria, where war-carts and wheeled vehicles were known during the Early Bronze Age, there is no evidence of the extensive use of wheeled vehicles in Egypt before the New Kingdom {after 1570}, well over a thousand years after the first appearance of the wheel in Mesopotamia.3 Presumably the fact that nearly all of inhabited Egypt is within a few miles of the Nile rendered the use of wheeled vehicles irrelevant for any type of long-distance travel, which could be accomplished more efficiently and quickly by boat. Furthermore, the existence of numerous irrigation canals and ditches in the fertile river valleys of Egypt and Mesopotamia complicated travel by wheeled vehicles. In this context it must be emphasized that early wheeled vehicles were not necessarily superior in either speed or carrying capacity to simple pack animals or boats, and the mere knowledge of the existence of wheeled vehicles did not necessarily constitute a compelling reason for their widespread use or adaptation for transportation.4 The Egyptians adopted the widespread use of wheeled vehicles only at the very end of the Middle Bronze Age in the seventeenth century, probably in response to the introduction of the war-chariot by the Hyksos.5
The final military use of animals was combat riding. The precise date and place for the origin of equid6 riding is still somewhat controversial, due to the limitations of evidence and ambiguities of interpretation. It seems to have first occurred on the Eurasian steppe in the third millennium, although some scholars argue that it may have begun as early as the early fourth millennium.7 Given human nature, it seems likely that informal riding was spontaneous and simultaneous with the first domestication of equids; but this is something quite different from developing an entire culture of horse-riding. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that domestication of equids does not necessarily imply riding, nor does riding necessarily imply military equestrianism. Nor does military equestrianism necessarily imply fighting from horseback, since horses can be ridden by mounted infantry, scouts, and messengers, and riders can dismount to fight.
In the Near East, the donkey was probably domesticated no later than the late fourth millennium, and is widely used as a pack and draft animal until the present day. Onagers were probably not domesticated, as they tend to be intractable (EEH 117a). Onager-donkey hybrids, however, were widely used and highly prized in the late Early Bronze Age; the kunga onager-donkey hybrid could cost forty times as much as an ordinary donkey (EEH 117a). The first evidence for the domesticated horse appears in Mesopotamia by the late third millennium (EEH 117b). Equid riding is first documented from the royal tombs of Ur {2550–2400}, where a cylinder seal shows a man riding an animal, possibly with a weapon in his hand (RTU 65). More clear evidence comes from the twenty-third (FI §685) and twenty-first centuries.8
For our purpose, however, the crucial question is not the appearance of equid riding, but of equid riding in combat. There is some evidence of early horse riding in combat. An Akkadian seal {23C} shows a man riding an equid holding what could be a javelin (EEH 118). Another scene shows an equid rider in a combat context trampling a fallen man (EEH 118). A Canaanite ruler is shown riding an equid while holding an axe during the reign of Amenemhet III {1843–1797} (IS pl. 39). However, these scenes may depict riding an animal to battle rather than in battle. The tightest interpretations of the evidence point to the beginning of the widespread use of mounted warriors in the Near East probably occurring in the early Iron Age, perhaps around the tenth or ninth centuries.9 Although horses or donkeys may have been ridden on campaign, or used by scouts or messengers, we have no evidence for widespread combat equestrianism in the Early or Middle Bronze ages in the Near East. Either as draft animals for vehicles, or mounts, the intimate union of man and equids in war has been one of the most momentous in military history, continuing for at least 4500 years, and fading only within living memory.10
Two other animals with potential use in military contexts were also known in the ancient Near East, the camel and the elephant. Dromedary (one-humped) camels were indigenous to Arabia, while the Bactrian (two-humped) camel inhabited Iran and Central Asia; camels were introduced into Egypt and North Africa only during Classical times. Camels were probably domesticated by the late third millennium; an eighteenth-century Syrian cylinder seal depicts men riding a Bactrian camel (FI §738). However, the camel did not have an appreciable military impact until the Late Bronze Age.11 Elephants were also widespread in North Africa and Syria, where they were famously hunted by Thutmose III {1504–1452}, who is said to have hunted 120 elephants in the Orontes valley in Syria (ANET 241a); there is no evidence of the use of elephants in combat in the Near East, however, until Classical times (EAE 1:467).
Sumerian war-carts {2700–2000}12
The evidence for the use of the Sumerian war-cart, though striking, is rather sparse. We have three types of evidence: archaeological, artistic, and textual. The remains of war-carts were discovered from burials at Kish, Ur, and Susa (WV 16; RTU 21–5, 32–8); these were found in a highly decayed state, but enough was preserved both to confirm and to elucidate the war-cart depicted in artistic sources.13
Early Dynastic four-wheeled war-carts {2700–2300}
The military use of wheeled vehicles first occurred in southern Mesopotamia in the twenty-seventh century, or perhaps somewhat earlier. Although there was undoubtedly a period of experimentation and development of both wheeled vehicles and their military potential, in our surviving sources the war-cart appears fully developed by no later than the middle of the Early Bronze Age in Sumer. I will here only review the artistic sources, leaving a discussion of the military use of the war-cart for later. The following are the major artistic sources for Early Dynastic four-wheeled war-carts.14
1. Cylinder seal on a pot from Uruk, Sumer {ED, 2900–2300} (FI 24i, p. 159, FI x499). A four-wheeled war-cart led by one man, carrying a seated man with axe; the cart's wheels are grooved for better traction.
· Sumerian four-wheeled war-carts from the “Standard of Ur”, tomb of king Ur-Pabilsag {c. 2550} (British Museum 121201); see AFC 98–9.
· Akkadian war-cart trampling enemies; cylinder seal from Nagar (Tell Brak, Syria) {c 2250}; see EEH 116 §2.
· Neo-Sumerian two-wheeled war-cart, relief from Ur {26C} (University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 17086); see AFC 72 §31.
· Warrior in two-wheeled chariot trampling enemy; cylinder seal from Babylon {1779} (British Musuem 16815a); see WV §31.
· Warrior (in scale armor?) shooting a bow from a two-wheeled chariot; cylinder seal from Syria {18–17C}; see WV §36.
· Vase painting from Khafajah {ED II, 2650–2550} (AW 1:128). A four-wheeled war-cart with studded wheel rims, carrying two men and perhaps four javelins in a side quiver-box.
· “Standard of Ur” {ED IIIA, 2550–2400} (cover art; Figure 4a, p. 133; pp. 4950; AFC 98–9; FA 84; AW 1:132–3; SDA 146–7; WV §3; AM §72, §x-xi). Along with the Stele of Vultures, the Standard of Ur is our most important war-cart scene. Five war-carts are depicted being drawn by long-eared equids (donkeys or donkey-onager hybrids) with barding for the animals. All the war-carts have javelin quiver-boxes; half the men hold axes in their hands, half are throwing or thrusting javelins. Judging from the gait of the equids, the war-cart on the top panel is being walked in a procession, as is one war-cart on the bottom panel; the other three, with long strides for the animals, seem to be running, while trampling the dead bodies of enemies.
Figure 4 Early and Middle Bronze Age war-carts and chariots (drawings by Michael Lyon)
· “Stele of Vultures” of Eannatum of Lagash (from Telloh) {ED IIIA, c. 2440} (FA 82; AFC 190–1; AW 1:135; SDA 134–7; AM §66–9). The wheels are missing; this could be a four or two-wheeled vehicle. Most of the war-cart is missing, but the remaining fragment shows a war-cart with a large javelin-quiver and the king holding a javelin (or thrusting spear?) and what appears to be a proto-sickle-sword. This image is discussed in detail on pp. 55–9, Figure 1, p. 55.
· Inlaid shell panel from Mari {ED III, 2550–2300} (AFC 159). A standard Sumerian four-wheeled war-cart with javelins in a front quiver-box, accompanied by a spear-armed foot soldier; the war-cart is trampling a corpse. Overall, the composition is similar to the that depicted on the Standard of Ur.
· Inlaid shell panel from Mari {ED III, 2550–2300} (AW 1:139). Fragmentary; probably four-wheeled, but possible only two-wheeled war-cart.
· Cylinder seal from Syria (Mari?) {ED III?, 2550–2300} (FI §722). A standard Sumerian four-wheeled vehicle with one rider, drawn by four equids and followed by a soldier with a javelin.
· Cylinder seal from Kish {ED III, 2500–2350} (FI §724; ELH pl. 1). Seated figure on four-wheeled war-cart being led by another man; the war-cart has javelins in a front quiver-box and is trampling a fallen enemy.
Early Dynastic {2700–2300} two-wheeled war-carts15
As far as we can tell, four-wheeled and two-wheeled war-carts appear roughly simultaneously in Sumer. Both utilize essentially the same technology, and are both shown in similar military situations. The four-wheeled war-cart, discussed above, appears more frequently and in more intense military contexts than are shown in any of the representations of the two-wheeled version. The relative military merits of both will be discussed on pp. 137–41. The major artistic sources for Sumerian two-wheeled war-carts include:
· Cylinder seal from Sumer {ED, 2900–2300} (FI §723; AM §64). Royal figure armed with axe entering a two-wheeled war-cart, accompanied by a dog and three men, two armed with axes and one with a spear.
· Copper model from Tell Agrab {ED II, 2650–2550} (AW 1:39, 129; SDA 152–3; WV §7; AM §49). Drawn by four horses, studded block wheels; there is no apparent military context.
· Votive plaque from Ur {ED II; 2650–2550} (Figure 4c, p. 133; AFC 72; AW 1:130; AAM §43; WV §8). The driver is standing on the ground behind the war-cart, holding the reins, and carrying a javelin; there are other javelins in the box-quiver on the war-cart. The war-cart seems to be draped with a leopard skin. It is pulled by two (possibly four) equids which are not protected by barding. It is probably part of a ceremonial scene similar to that depicted in the votive plaque from Khafajah described below.
· Votive plaque from Khafajah {ED II?, 2650–2550} (AAM §42; AM §45; SDA 132). The overall layout of this scene closely parallels the votive plaque from Ur described above; indeed each complements the gaps in the other. A festival is in process in which the third and lowest panel shows a war-cart drawn by four equids, preceded by a man with a javelin or short thrusting spear. Although the parallel scenes depicted in the Ur and Khafajah plaques are ceremonial rather than military, these two-wheeled war-carts clearly have a martial purpose, with a javelin quiver-box, and both the driver and accompanying foot soldier armed with javelins.
The Sumerian war-cart16
From the archaeological and artistic evidence outlined above, we can obtain a basic understanding of the Sumerian war-cart. The classic Sumerian war-cart [GIS.gigir] {2600–2300} was essentially a wagon adapted for military use. The four-wheeled version seems to have preceded the two-wheeled version, but by the time of its widespread military use both the two-and four-wheeled versions were used in battle. The major limitation of the four-wheeler was weight; the Sumerian war-cart had a heavy wooden frame with four solid disk wheels. The cart itself was long and narrow, allowing only one person abreast, the driver generally in front and the warrior behind. The cart was surrounded by a high front and lower side panels for protection and for the driver and rider to hold to stabilize themselves. A second major limitation on the four-wheeler was that the front wheels could not pivot independent of the vehicle as a whole, giving it a very wide turning radius. Although the royal-cart was originally pulled by oxen, which continued in use for agricultural and commercial carts, in military settings the war-cart was always pulled by equids – since bovines could move at only a few miles an hour, a war-cart pulled by oxen would be slower than a man on foot (CG 77).
Since our sources are generally vague in both naming and depicting equids, it is often not possible to determine with certainty what specific species of equid was used (WV 22–8, 41–3). Donkeys were the most common equid in Mesopotamia. Onagers (wild asses) were probably not used because they are difficult to domesticate and control; the donkey-onager hybrid was common with war-carts, being larger and stronger than the donkey, but more docile and manageable than the onager. The horse was introduced into Mesopotamia in the late third millennium; the horse or mule (horse–donkey hybrid) was probably adopted for pulling war-carts by the late Early Bronze Age (ELH 197–8). It must be emphasized that, although the Bronze Age horse was larger, stronger and faster than the donkey, it was still substantially smaller than modern horses; based on evidence from bones we can estimate that ancient horses ranged from 12–14 hands high at the shoulder (130–150 cm; one hand = eleven centimeters), while the modern Western riding horse is 15–17 hands (160–185 cm). Due to the weight of the war-cart and the limited size and strength of the draft animals, the speed of the Sumerian war-cart was rather slow. Experimentation with modern reconstructions have demonstrated that its speed ranged from 10 to 12 miles per hour, or five to six minutes per mile (WV 33), slower than the top speed of an unarmed fast man, but probably somewhat faster than the average man in a combat situation.
Development of the Sumerian war-cart
The evidence, though inadequate, allows the following hypothetical reconstruction of the development of the Sumerian war-cart. The first war-carts seem to have developed directly from ritual vehicles used for conveying divine images or kings in ceremonial processions, initially drawn by oxen rather than equids. At some point, probably in the twenty-seventh century, kings began to ride their ceremonial war-carts to the battlefield rather than simply in ceremonial processions for civic and religious purposes. Carts were also made to carry statues of the gods in ritual processions, and were dedicated to the temples (PI 100). Initially the king probably had the only war-cart on the battlefield. Presumably he rode his war-cart to the battlefield, dismounted and fought, and then rode again after the battle. For example, in the Stele of Vultures {c. 2440}, Eannatum of Lagash {c. 2455–2425} is shown in the lower panel in the only war-cart depicted in the entire battle scene (although others might have existed in the large damaged portion of the stele). In the upper register, on the other hand, Eanatum is shown fighting on foot (item 4, pp. 131–3). Military leaders were undoubtedly quickly able to recognize the military potential in the royal war-cart. The king could move among his own troops more quickly, giving orders and receiving reports. A fleeing enemy could also be pursued more quickly by war-cart. At some point the king began to ride the war-cart during the battle, and fight from it. In due course, the number of war-carts on a battlefield increased, either because members of the royal family and other nobles wanted to share in the high status of riding war-carts, or because military leaders recognized that, by increasing the number of war-carts, an army could potentially gain a tactical advantage over an enemy. Some specific changes in the design of the cart may have had military impetus. Increasing the height of the side and front panel would afford greater protection and stability to the rider. Sheep skins, strips of leather, or other types of barding, were hung on the chests of the equids for their protection (item 3, p. 134; MM 32), while a javelin quiver-box and probably other weapon containers were added to increase the ammunition supply and make it more readily accessible (item 3 above). The period roughly from 2600 to 2300 was the classic age of the Sumerian war-cart, as spectacularly represented in the military art of the Standard of Ur (item 3) and the Stele of Vultures (item 4), described above. By at least the twenty-fifth century this technology had spread up the Euphrates to Mari and south-eastern Syria (items 5 to 7).
The Sumerian war-cart in battle
The archaeological and artistic evidence can be supplemented by a few texts giving us a basic understanding of the military use of the Sumerian war-cart. The weapons of the warrior of the Sumerian war-cart were the javelin and the axe – the standard weapons of the ordinary Sumerian warrior. Javelin quiver-boxes are almost always found on the war-carts; warriors are shown wielding both javelins and axes from within the war-cart (item 1). There is no indication that the bow was used. The war-carts are almost always accompanied by foot soldiers, undoubtedly to protect the war-cart from attacks by enemy infantry. The equids are sometimes shown being led by a man (item 1), generally in a procession. The war-carts are often preceded by an armed man (items 3, 8, 11–12), or followed by a man (items 1 and 7) or a group of men (items 4 and 9) armed with javelins and/or axes.
An important question posed by the artistic evidence is, why did the Sumerians use both four-wheeled and two-wheeled war-carts? The four-wheeler has advantages in stability and having room for a driver allowing the warrior to give his full attention to combat. Psychologically, the larger war-cart was probably more terrifying to the enemy. The two-wheeler, on the other hand, would have the advantage of speed, since it was lighter, and maneuverability, since the four-wheeler war-cart lacked a pivoting front axle and therefore had a wide turning radius. Since the Sumerians used the javelin rather than the bow – which requires two hands to shoot – as the major missile weapon from war-carts, a single warrior could drive a two-wheeler holding the reins in his left hand and a javelin or axe in his right hand, as several drivers are depicted. Overall, it seems that the two-wheeled war-cart proved to be the most effective in battle, for, as we will see on p. 145, the four-wheeled war-cart disappeared entirely from the battlefield by the early Middle Bronze Age.
Most of the war-cart scenes in Sumerian martial art are rather static. There are only two depictions of the Sumerian war-cart in which we get a sense of the actual use in battle: the Standard of Ur (item 3; cover art, Figure 5a, p. 133) and Stele of the Vultures (item 4), both dating to the twenty-fifth century. The Standard of Ur shows five war-carts. Structurally they are all almost exactly the same: four disk-wheels, a front panel between chest and neck height, and side panels about knee or thigh height. In a sense, the war-cart can be seen as a mobile shield whose high front panels provided protection to the driver and warrior from enemy missiles. All are pulled by four long-eared, long-tailed equids which have strips of sheep-skin or leather barding covering their necks and chests to protect them from enemy missiles. The war-carts are shown in two panels. The first shows a victory procession, with a single war-cart to the rear. It does not have a visible javelin-quiver, but the upper part of the top register is partly missing, so this may simply be lost. The driver, axe in hand, stands on the ground holding the reins; the equids are depicted with walking gait (all four legs visible at angles). The king – the presumed rider of the war-cart – stands at the head of three soldiers armed with spear and axe, and receives prisoners of war from other soldiers in an after-battle triumph ritual. The other four war-carts are shown in the bottom register in the midst of battle, all with javelin quivers. The equids on three of the war-carts are shown in full gallop gait, trampling the corpses of fallen enemies. The fourth war-cart, at the rear, is shown with equids walking and not trampling enemies. Each war-cart has two riders, a driver in the front and a warrior standing on the very edge at the rear. They all have sheep-skin kilts and sheep-skins flung over their left shoulders for protection to their upper torso; they also have either leather or metal helmets with a strap under the chin. Of the drivers, one holds an axe on his right shoulder (though the head of the axe is missing), holding the reins in his left hand, just like the driver in the upper panel; the image of one of the drivers is damaged and it can't be seen for certain what he is doing with his right hand. The other two drivers hold something in their right hands, it but it is uncertain what – possibly axes or a javelins.
Several things seem clear from the Standard of Ur. Both driver and warrior were expected to fight, since the drivers are also shown armed with axes. The javelins were thrown, since the javelin quiver-box attached to the war-cart contains multiple weapons. Axes were considered useful weapons for war-carts, whether to fight off infantry that might attack the war-cart, or to use when dismounted. Sumerians recognized that the greatest vulnerability of the war-cart was the equids. Since the easiest way to stop a war-cart was to kill or disable a single equid, they were given some type of protection on their chests. War-carts could move across the battlefield at a gallop and pursue fleeing enemies.
Unfortunately, there are number of ambiguities in the Standard of Ur which make a complete interpretation impossible. First, is the scene meant to depict four war-carts simultaneously, or one cart at different moments in a cartoon-like sequence? It probably shows four different war-carts, since each warrior has a different weapon. Second, does it represent a line of war-carts following one another, or a group of war-carts side-by-side? Third, are they charging formed-up enemy ranks, or chasing and overwhelming already defeated and fleeing enemies? In other words, were the war-carts used to break formed-up enemy ranks, or simply to chase down a fleeing enemy whose ranks were already broken? The Standard of Ur seems to indicate the latter, since all the enemies have their backs to the advancing war-carts; no one is making any serious resistance. Are they trampling the enemies, or riding around and beside them? In later depictions of war-carts, riding over a prostrate enemy becomes a stylized depiction of victory in battle. Unfortunately, the evidence is insufficient to answer most of these questions for certain, but it must be remembered that, whatever the artist of the Standard of Ur was trying to depict in this particular instance, it does not demonstrate that this was therefore the only way the war-cart could have been used by the Sumerians. It is quite possible that the Sumerians both fought from the war-cart and dismounted to fight. The war-carts could have been marshaled in line or rank depending on the tactical circumstances. They may have on some occasions attacked formed-up ranks of enemy, and on other occasions chased down fleeing enemies. There is no reason to assume the Sumerians were incapable of tactical flexibility in their use of war-carts. It is also important to emphasize that Sumerian art almost invariably depicts not actual battle, but victory after battle. The Standard of Ur may thus not be trying to tell us how war-carts were used to win a battle, but how they were used after the battle was already won.
The Stele of Vultures {c. 2440} (item 4; Figure 1, p. 55) shows king Eanatum of Lagash charging into battle on his war-cart, followed by a large body of infantry armed with spears and axes. The depiction may be intended as symbolic rather than tactical – the king is always said to lead his army into battle even if, in reality, he stands at the rear of the army. But it may also represent a real tactic of the war-carts preceding the infantry into battle. The king stands at the front of the war-cart, holding a long spear overhead in his left hand and what appears to be a proto-sickle-sword (or perhaps a club or a scepter, see pp. 66–71) in his right hand. The war-cart is also equipped with a quiver-box with half a dozen javelins, as well as a spare axe. The depiction of a spear in Eanatum's hand is unique in Sumerian warfare – all other war-cart warriors hold javelins. The spear is held overhand in the left hand, so far to the rear of the shaft that it would seem to be unbalanced. Although the head of the weapon is lost and we cannot tell the length of the spear, it is clearly not a javelin. A fragment of a parallel scene from the same stele shows the top of the largely lost fourth panel of the Stele of the Vultures.17 There, the barest fragment at the far left of the fourth panel shows the hand of a man grasping the end of the long lance in the very same unbalanced way Eanatum holds the lance in the second panel. In the fourth panel the length of the entire lance is show, with the lance head about to be thrust into the face of the enemy king. This scene thus shows the use of a long thrusting lance from the war-cart rather than the javelin. In the upper register of the stele, Eanatum stands on the ground in front of his army, indicating that Sumerian chariot warriors could dismount and fight on the ground with axe and spear, along with the infantry. Each of the soldiers following Eanatum is similarly double-armed, with thrusting spear in one hand and an axe in the other.
Another odd characteristic of Eanatum's war-cart is that the driver appears to be standing behind Eanatum. The torso and head of the second figure is missing in a damaged portion of the stele, and his legs are largely hidden behind the side panel of the war-cart. The only indication of a second occupant of the war-cart is the forearm and right hand which extends to the side of Eanatum's hip, and appears to be holding an axe. The reins of the cart rest on the top of the front panel, but then disappear; Eanatum clearly is not holding them, since he has a weapon in each hand. Unless this scene is composed with unrealistic artistic license, I suspect that the reins go behind Eanatum to his left side (and hence are invisible in the scene) and are held in the left hand of the nearly obscured man to the rear of Eanatum. The Standard of Ur shows the king standing in front of the war-cart while his driver stands on the ground holding the reins in his left hand and an axe in his right, just like the largely defaced driver of Eanatum's war-cart seems to be doing. I suspect that if each man stood on opposite sides of the war-cart it would not be impossible for the man at the rear to drive, though it does seem quite awkward. On the other hand, since the equids and everything to the front of Eanatum are missing because of damage to the stele, it may be that there was originally a man leading the war-cart in front of the equids.
Another important characteristic of Sumerian war-carts depicted in art is the development of the theme of the war-cart trampling the enemy as a symbol of victory in battle. It appears most strikingly in the Standard of Ur (item 3). A precisely analogous scene, though fragmentary, occurs at Mari (item 5), and in a cylinder seal from Kish (item 8). It may also possibly have been shown in the Stele of Vultures prior to damage; the area under the war-cart is now missing, but the infantry in the register above the war-cart are trampling enemy corpses under their feet (item 4). This issue will be discussed more fully on p. 150.
These artistic representations of war-cart battle can be supplemented by occasional references to war-carts in Sumerian royal inscriptions. The most important comes from an inscription describing a battle in the agricultural Ugiga-field between king Enmetena of Lagash {c. 2400} and Urluma of Umma, in which Enmetena “confronted the retreating Urluma, ruler of Umma, at the base of the Lumagirnunta-canal, and [Urluma] abandoned his sixty teams of asses there, and left the bones of their personnel [of the war-carts] strewn over the plain” (PI 55, 77). This text describes a battle occurring on a flat open agricultural field, ideal for war-carts; unfortunately, the details of the actual battle were not recorded. The result, however, is clear: Enmetena defeated the army of Umma, which fled before him until they reached a canal which their war-carts could not cross. The warriors abandoned their war-carts and tried to flee on foot, but many were run down, either by pursuing war-carts or by infantry. The text also provides another important detail – that king Urluma had “sixty teams of asses”, or, in other words, 60 war-carts. We cannot be sure that some of the war-carts did not escape, so 60 should be considered the minimum number in Urluma's army. None the less, it shows that an average Sumerian city-state could probably muster 50–80 war-carts for battle. At this point they were no longer merely ceremonial vehicles or royal conveyances, but were an important combat component in the Sumerian army. When Enmetena wished to emphasize the magnitude of his victory, he underlined the capture of 60 war-carts, rather than the total number of enemy dead or captured.
Enmetena of Lagash {c. 2400} also built a war-cart named “Ningrsu's chariot that heaps up [burial mounds of dead enemies in] defeated foreign lands” (PI 58, cf. 100); it is obviously a divine war-cart for temple ritual, but its name shows its parallel military function. The war-cart brings victory in battle, resulting in “heaping up” burial mounds of the corpses of the defeated enemies – a standard Sumerian metaphor for military victory depicted in the Stele of Vultures (item 4; Figure 1, p. 55).18 Although to the modern mind the ceremonial aspects of the war-cart is sometimes seen to imply a lack of serious application to real combat, to the ancient mind the quasi-sacred qualities of a war-cart enhanced rather then detracted from its military value. The fact that a war-cart was dedicated to a god, carried a statue or image of a god in religious rituals, was kept in a temple treasury, and was made in imitation of the celestial vehicles used by the gods, gave the war-cart a numinous quality, making it more effective by psychologically increasing the fear of those who faced it in battle. To the mind of the Sumerian warrior, the war-cart was not the slow-moving wooden box on heavy wheels pulled by asses as often described by modern scholars; rather, it was a chariot of the gods, representing and conveying divine power to the battlefield. It was perhaps viewed by the Sumerians more like the biblical Ark of the Covenant. Indeed, against an ancient enemy, the psychological impact of the Sumerian war-cart – its size, weight, speed, heroic warrior, and divine aura – was probably as significant as its actual military impact.
The ceremonial aspect of the war-cart and chariot as the proper vehicle for royal dignity is emphasized in one of the much later Mari texts {1760s}. Here Zimri-Lim is advised about proper riding decorum:
My lord should preserve his royal dignity. Even though you are the king of the [nomad] Haneans, you are also the king of the Akkadians. Thus my lord should not ride horses, but a chariot with mules (kudanu), and maintain the prestige of his sovereignty.
(ARM 6.76; EEH 120b; MK 165)
The chariot as a symbol of kingship was as significant as its practical military applications in war.
The war-carts and their equid teams seem to have been housed in special stables. Uru'inimgina of Lagash describes building “a chariot-house for [the war-god] Ningirsu, a building whose awesome splendor overwhelms all the lands” (PI 80, 79). Ur-Bau, ruler of Lagash, built the “house of the donkey-stallions” (E3/1:20). These were probably building complexes for constructing, repairing, and storing war-carts and their equipment, and for the care and breeding of their equid teams.
War-carts in the Akkadian and Neo-Sumerian periods {2300–2000}
Until recently it has generally been thought that the Akkadians essentially abandoned the use of the four-wheeled war-cart in battle. Crouwel and Littauer summarized this position: the “evidence for [the] use [of war-carts] in warfare, for which they were clearly unsuitable, fades rapidly after the middle of the [third] millennium” (EA 5:344; WV 44–5). Recently published cylinder seals from ancient Nagar (Tell Brak; Figure 4b, p. 133; EA 1:355–6) in the Khabur Triangle in north-eastern Syria, however, provide some new, fairly conclusive evidence that the use of the war-cart continued unabated during the Akkadian period. Naram-Sin {2254–2218} built a large palace at Nagar, which became the major Akkadian administrative center in northern Mesopotamia. The discovery of three military scenes of four-wheeled war-carts on Akkadian-period cylinder seals from Nagar indicates the ongoing Akkadian use of the four-wheeled war-cart in battle (EEH 116, §1–4). On the other hand, none of the better-known monumental Akkadian martial art depicts the use of the war-cart. For the Akkadian four-wheeled war-cart in battle we have:
· Akkadian cylinder seal {c. 2250} (EEH 116 §1). A four-wheeled war-cart drawn by equids with protective barding on their chests. One seated man drives the cart, with a man stepping into the war-cart behind, and another standing on the ground. The war-cart is trampling a corpse, while another wounded man on the ground is being dispatched by a warrior armed with a dagger or axe, while a vulture eagerly hovers nearby.
· Akkadian cylinder seal {c. 2250} (EEH 116 §2; Figure 4b, p. 133). A four-wheeled war-cart drawn by equids. The seated driver is followed by one man stepping into the war-cart from the rear and another standing brandishing a dagger over his head. The war-cart is trampling a fallen corpse. Underneath this scene may be four prisoners sitting on the ground with their arms pinioned behind their backs.
· Akkadian cylinder seal {c. 2250} (EEH 116 §4). A four-wheeled war-cart tramples an enemy and is followed by a foot soldier.
Additionally, there are two non-military Akkadian scenes with similar four-wheeled carts:
· Cylinder seal {Akkadian, 2220–2159} (AFC §143; WV §13; SDA 189; FI §725). This mythological scene depicts a god riding in a standard four-wheeled war-cart being drawn by a griffin. The god holds a whip, but no weapons are apparent, though there may be a javelin in a quiver-box.
· Cylinder seal {Akkadian, 2220–2159} (AM §113). God riding in a four-wheeled war-cart drawn by a griffin, similar to item 16 above.
For two-wheeled Akkadian war-carts we have:
· Akkadian cylinder seal {2334–2193} (WV §17; FI §726). God riding in a two-wheeled celestial war-cart drawn by a griffin, similar to items 16 and 17 above.
During the Ur III period (2112–2004} there is additional evidence for two-wheeled war-carts:
· Fragmentary scene from Ur III (AAM §192–3; WV §18). Man riding a two-wheeled war-cart with grooved disk-wheels; the upper portion is missing, so there is no indication of military use.
· Fragments from the stele of Urnammu {2112–2095} (AFC 445). These are too damaged to determine if any military accoutrements are present.
· Depiction of two-wheeled war-cart from Tepe Hisar, northern Iran, southeast of Caspian Sea {2350–2000} (WV §21; ELH 199). This is a badly composed scene of a man riding a two wheeled war-cart; there is no clear military context. Some have argued that the partially damaged wheel is spoked; others argue that it is a cross-bar wheel (WV 40). This may represent the spread of war-cart technology into Iran, or perhaps reflects a transitional form between the steppe war-carts of Central Asia and those of the Near East.
Thus, for the period from 2300–2000, there is an apparent shift in the depiction of war-cart warfare, with fewer and less dramatic military scenes. None the less, it is clear that carts continued to be used during this period (items 13–15 above). Does this apparent change in our source material reflect a change in actual combat practices, a change in the way warfare was depicted, or merely the random chance of what martial art happens to survive and to have been discovered and published? Until the recent publication of Akkadian-period cylinder seals from Nagar (EEH 116) there was no clear example of the depiction of a war-cart in a military context during that period (WV 44–5). Now there are three examples, which should serve as a reminder that, in ancient archaeology and history, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Much of what we claim to know about ancient history is often based on the rather random preservation and discovery of a fragmentary, obscure, and limited range of sources. None the less, despite their fixation on war, no Akkadian king is shown riding in a war-cart in battle in surviving monumental Akkadian art.
There is additional literary evidence that is generally overlooked in the discussion of war-carts in the Neo-Sumerian period. We are fortunate to have detailed textual descriptions of the Sumerian war-cart from Gudea of Lagash {21412122}, from precisely the period in which it is sometimes claimed that the war-cart went out of military use.19 Gudea built a ceremonial war-cart for the god Ningirsu, taking special care in the selection and preparation of the materials:
The good shepherd Gudea [king of Lagash] … broke the seal on his storehouse [in the city of Girsu], pulled aside the wooden [bolt of the door]. Gudea checked the wood [for the war-cart] piece by piece, taking great care of it. The mes wood he smoothed and he split the khalub wood, and fitted them together to make his blue chariot.… He decorated the chariot with silver and lapis lazuli, with arrows protruding from the quiver like the [shafts] of daylight [from the sun]; he was especially careful with the ankar [mace], the “warrior's arm”.… He harnessed to it [donkey] stallions, the “lions-summoned-for-running”. Gudea fashioned for Ningirsu his beloved standard and wrote his [Ningirsu's] own name on it.20
The use of a mace from a war-cart is also mentioned in the epic of Ninurta (HTO 117).
A description of the completed war-cart and weapons donated by Gudea to the temple of Ningirsu provides a poetical description of the Sumerian war-cart in battle:
The chariot named “It subdued the mountain” [lands],
Bearing terror and dread [to the enemy],
Drawn by the donkey “Merrily-Neighing-Wind”
Harnessed with the other donkeys.
The seven-spiked mace, fierce battle mace,
Weapon unbearable from the North to the South …
The mittu-mace, a lion-headed weapon of hulalu stone,
Which does not flee from enemy lands …
Nine banners
The “warrior's arm” [mace]
A bow [C‘S-ban] that roars like a forest of mes-trees,
Its terrible arrows [ti] flashing like lightening in battle
On its quiver [mar] a leopard and lion [were depicted]
With a serpent flicking its tongue
The weapons of battle
The power of kingship …
Gudea, ruler of Lagash, presented to the Temple.21
There is one ambiguity in interpreting the meaning of this text; Gudea is clearly describing the building of a ceremonial war-cart for use in rituals in the temple of the god Ningirsu. Does this mean that this war-cart was purely ceremonial, or was it taken into battle as well? However that may be, this is clearly a ceremonial war-cart, and represents our best contemporary description of the building, purpose, and conceptualization of the role of war-cart of this period. The war-cart was the “power of kingship”, which brought “terror and dread” upon the enemy. If the military function of the war-cart had all but disappeared during the two centuries previous to Gudea, as is sometimes claimed, it is unlikely he would have so dramatically emphasized precisely those obsolete military functions in his dedicatory inscription. We should also avoid imposing modern preconceptions on ancient peoples: if a vehicle is “ceremonial” for a procession to a temple, it cannot simultaneously have a “practical” function in battle. In actuality, to some extent, all ancient battle was ceremonial; indeed, in some ways, the world of ritual was more “real” for ancient peoples than what we consider today as the world of real events.
The other striking feature of Gudea's war-cart is the emphasis on the use of the bow and arrow in war-carts, our earliest example of the bow and chariot combination which would become standard in the Late Bronze Age. The use of the bow from the chariot in Neo-Sumerian times is also implied in the Epic of Ninurta's victory over Azag. There Ninurta is said to have mounted a chariot to fight, and to have shot his bow in battle (HTO 244); although not explicit, this may imply the use of a bow from the chariot. This represents a major transition from the Early Dynastic javelin to Neo-Sumerian bow as the war-cart missile weapon, and is a key transformation in the development of the “true” war-chariot which occurs in the later Middle Bronze Age, as will be discussed on pp. 145–7.22
In summary, by the end of the Early Bronze Age the Sumerian war-cart was a weapon in transition. That the Sumerians retained the two-wheeled war-cart, and even experimented with using the bow from it, demonstrates that the war-cart was still considered useful in battle, even if it was not decisive. In the right terrain against the right enemy and used at the proper moment in battle, the war-cart could create a military advantage and perhaps win a battle. Thus experimentation continued in the coming centuries to discover the ideal formula for the building and use of the war-cart, leading to the innovation of the true war-chariot, and the great chariot revolution of the seventeenth century.
Middle Bronze Age and the origins of the war-chariot {2000–1600}23
The Middle Bronze Age saw the rise of what is often called the true war-chariot, as opposed to the early Sumerian war-cart. The transformation from war-cart to chariot required a transformation of biological, technological, social, and military factors to create the ideal vehicle for Late Bronze Age warfare. Once that proper combination of factors had developed, the war-chariot spread rapidly throughout much of the Old World, encompassing Central Asia, the Near East, Europe, India, China, and North Africa.
Scholars tend to define the “true” chariot, which would revolutionize warfare in the Late Bronze Age, by the following characteristics (CG 74–120; ELH; WV 50–5, §24–36). The chariot was drawn by horses rather than by other equids, allowing faster speed. Lighter construction techniques, two wheels instead of four, and spoked wheels rather than disk wheels, also contributed to decreasing the weight and increasing the speed of the chariot. The change from four to two wheels allowed greater maneuverability. A shift from the nose ring for controlling the horse to bit and reins, along with improved yoke and harness, created a more efficient means both for controlling the horse and for the horse to pull the chariot, again boosting maneuverability and speed. The overall impact of new lightweight construction, improved harness and horse-power, resulted by the seventeenth century in vehicles which could attain a maximum speed of thirty miles per hour for short distances, two-and-a-half times the speed of the Early Bronze Sumerian four-wheeled war-cart (CG 84). To the improved speed of the chariot was added the use of the composite bow, allowing rapid fire at a distance. The greater penetrating power of the composite bow with bronze arrowheads made the chariot a rapidly moving platform shooting the most powerful missile in the ancient arsenal.24 It also led to the adoption of bronze scale armor for chariot warriors, and often for their horses. The fact that the bow required two hands to be shot meant that chariots were most efficient when they had a battle-team of driver and archer. This complex and expensive combination of chariot craftsmanship, composite bow-making, horse grooming and training, and metal-working for armor, created the need for large and expensive royal workshops and stables to maintain the chariots. It probably required half a dozen men – carpenter, bowyer, groom, metal-worker, and a servant or two – to maintain a single chariot in combat readiness. The building and repairing of chariot wheels is mentioned (L 377), along with reference to a courtier named Yashub-Ashar who seems to have been in charge of chariot production at Mari (MM 31).
Chariots were obviously valuable and somewhat rare, since they were given as gifts to vassals and nobles (ARM 5.66, 5.58, 10.113). The relative scarcity of both chariots and the skilled craftsmen necessary to build and repair them is emphasized in one of the Mari texts, where a nobleman, Ila-salim, requests a new chariot from the king Zimri-Lim:
The king gave me a chariot, but when I went away between the country and the mountains, that chariot broke in the middle, and now as I travel to and fro there is not chariot for me to ride. If it please my lord, may my lord give me another chariot, so that I can organize the country until my lord comes. I am my lord's servant; may my lord not refuse me another chariot.
(ARM 5.66; MK 164)
This text is interesting at a number of levels. The fact that the chariot broke in the mountains shows the problem of the use of the chariot in the rough terrain outside the flat plains. It also appears that this nobleman had the only chariot in his city; he had no other vehicle, and didn't seem to be able to borrow one. Furthermore, he had no craftsmen in his employ able to repair the chariot or build him a new one. He had to ask for one from the king. The chariot is also not used in a military context, but as a vehicle to assist the nobleman in administering his province.
Texts mention “harnessed teams” of chariot horses, grooms, and trainers (MK 161–2; ARM 18.55), indicating an organized stable system for chariot horses. For every pair of horses pulling a chariot, another half a dozen horses would be needed in reserve for breeding, training, and replacement for horses that were injured, captured or killed. All of this required a state that was wealthy and powerful enough to maintain armies with hundreds of chariots. More importantly, it required the creation of a new military mind-set focused on the tactical advantages and limitations of the chariot. As the experiences of soldiers with new technologies in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries CE amply demonstrate, it probably required several generations to fully develop such tactical expertise, and several more generations for soldiers and other elites to fully accept all the social and military changes required by the new chariot warfare. It was not until the seventeenth century that all of these complex elements were finally in place in the proper balance to maximize the military potential of chariot warfare. From the military perspective, the transition from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age – usually dated to around 1600 BCE – can be defined as the transition from non-chariot-centered warfare to the new chariot warfare.
Artistic evidence on the development of the chariot25
There are a few examples of the continued use of the four-wheeled chariot in the early Middle Bronze Age {2000–1600} in Anatolia, but depictions of four-wheeled war-carts in a military context have disappeared by the nineteenth century.26 Throughout the rest of the Middle Bronze Age the majority of the depictions of war vehicles – nearly all from cylinder seals – are two-wheeled vehicles drawn by two horses (ELH). A rough outline of the development and use of the war-chariot can be culled from these examples. The data can be broadly divided into roughly two periods, the early Middle Bronze {2000–1800} and the late Middle Bronze {1800–1600}. It must be emphasized that our evidence is quite limited and we are essentially reduced to generalizing from inadequate data. The following is a list of our major evidence with a military context.
Early Middle Bronze evidence {2000–1800}
· Cylinder seal, Kultepe (Karum), Anatolia {2000–1850} (WV §29; ELH §4). A single rider, a royal figure with an axe, in a chariot with two four-spoked wheels, drawn by two horses with nose rings rather than reins (cf. WV §28).
· Cylinder seal, Uruk, Iraq {20–19C} (WV §30, p. 69). Single rider in chariot with two spoked wheels.
· Clay tablet with cylinder seal impression, Babylon {1779} (Figure 4d, p. 133; FI §730; WV §31). The single rider is a king on a chariot with two four-spoked wheels, trampling a prostrate enemy, and followed by four soldiers in a procession before the gods.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {19–17C} (FI §728). A single rider in a chariot with two four-spoked wheels, trampling a prostrate enemy.
Based on this – admittedly limited – evidence, we find the following characteristics of chariot warfare in the early Middle Bronze period {2000–1800}. Only the two-wheeled chariot was used for military purposes, a practice which had probably begun in the Neo-Sumerian period {2200–2000} as discussed on pp. 141–5. The Early Bronze technique of having a single rider on the two-wheeled Sumerian war-cart continued throughout the early Middle Bronze Age; all of the depictions from this period show a single rider. This obviously had its limitations, especially when facing archery to which the charioteer could not respond at a distance. The earlier Sumerian trampling-the-prostate-enemy motif, whether symbolic or tactical, continued throughout the Middle Bronze Age (items 24 and 25 above). Chariots are sometimes accompanied by infantry, who generally follow the chariot (item 24). This characteristic is also found in Neo-Sumerian chariot warfare. From hints in the depiction of equids, we find the increasing and eventually exclusive use of horses (characterized by short ears and manes) to pull chariots. Horses are first attested pulling war-carts in the Neo-Sumerian period, becoming universal during the early Middle Bronze period. The axe continued to be used by chariot warriors (item 22), but there are no early Middle Bronze artistic examples of the use of the javelin or the bow from the chariot, although the use of the bow is attested in the Neo-Sumerian texts discussed on pp. 143–5. Finally, we see a shift from disk wheels to spoked wheels (items 22–25). In other words, other than the adoption of the spoked wheel, which is the major innovation of the early Middle Bronze Age, all of the characteristics of early Middle Bronze chariot warfare were also found in the early Neo-Sumerian period. What happened during the early Middle Bronze Age seems to have been the universal adoption throughout the Near East of late Neo-Sumerian practices.
Late Middle Bronze evidence {1800–1600}
In contrast, during the later Middle Bronze period we find a number of innovations in chariot warfare depicted in our artistic sources.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {19–17C} (FI §729). Chariot with two six-spoked wheels; single rider has quiver on his back and is followed by four soldiers on foot.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1850–1650} (WV §33; ELH §5). Chariot with two four-spoked wheels drawn by two horses with two riders, trampling a prostrate enemy who raises his arms to protect his face.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1850–1650} (WV §4; ELH §6). Chariot with two four-spoked wheels drawn by two horses; driver has a quiver on his back, while a man behind him with an axe and a dagger is either attacking him, or, more likely, stepping into the chariot to ride with him.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1750–1600} (ELH pl. 2). Chariot with two four-spoked wheels drawn by two horses trampling a prostrate enemy who raises an arm to protect himself; the single rider is followed by three infantrymen
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1750–1600} (ELH pl. 3; MK 160; WV §35). Chariot with two four-spoked wheels (with metal rims?) drawn by two horses; single driver with bow and quiver on his shoulder is followed by three men on foot wearing helmets. A partially damaged lower portion seems to show a man being trampled.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1750–1600} (ELH pl. 4; MK 160). A single rider in a chariot with two four-spoked wheels, drawn by two horses; a prostrate body and severed head indicates a military context.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1750–1600} (ELH pl. 5). A single rider in a chariot with two seven-spoked wheels, drawn by two horses; the rider has a quiver on his back and is followed by four soldiers on foot. The driver seems to have a helmet, and the hatched markings on his long skirt may indicate bronze scale armor.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1750–1600?} (Figure 4e, p. 133; WV 63, §36). A single rider in chariot with two eight-spoked wheels, drawn by two horses; the rider has a quiver on his back and is shooting a bow while driving. He apparently has the reins wrapped around his waist (or tied to the front panel of the chariot?); this is the first representation of this practice (WV 63), which is widely depicted in later New Kingdom Egyptian chariot warfare (e.g. EWP 198, 240). The hatched markings on his long robe may indicate bronze scale armor.
· Cylinder seal, Anatolia {17C} (FI 57, §841). A hunting scene depicts four two-wheeled chariots each drawn by two horses on the hunt; three carry one man, one has two men. The scene is small and the details somewhat obscure, but one man seems to have a quiver on his back. Another, in a chariot with a driver, is shooting a bow; several animals seem to have arrows in them.
· Cylinder seal, Syria {1800–1600?} (MK 162). A single rider in a two-wheeled chariot pull by two horses, followed by one man with a spear and another with a dagger.
This evidence from the late Middle Bronze period {1800–1600} attests to a number of fundamental innovations in chariot warfare. The shift from the use of the nose ring to bit and reins, allowing for more efficient driving, is first attested in Babylon in the early eighteenth century (items 24, 26–28). Although the use of a single rider remains the norm, we begin to see the driver and warrior combination that becomes predominant in Late Bronze chariot warfare (items 27, 28 and 34). The use of a lighter frame and spoked wheels decreased the weight of the chariot sufficiently to allow the cart eventually to be widened enough to allow two riders, yet remain light enough to be faster than an enemy on foot.
Evidence of a close association of archery with chariotry appears with increasing frequency, generally as a quiver and/or bow on the back of the chariot warrior (items 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34). This raises an important issue. The association of archery equipment with a charioteer does not necessarily mean the bow was shot from a moving chariot during warfare. It may simply be that the chariot warrior carried the full panoply of Middle Bronze weapons with him in his chariot, including the bow. He may have dismounted to fight and shoot his bow. Thus, in addition to the mere presence of a bow, it is important to note the appearance, for the first time, of scenes of actually shooting the bow from chariot, both by a driver alone, and by a warrior accompanied by a driver (items 33 and 34).
Chariots continue to be accompanied by infantry, as they were in the Sumerian and early Middle Bronze periods (items 26, 29, 30, and 32). This emphasizes the important potential vulnerability of the chariot to light infantry. The chariot was most effective when used with combined-arms tactics in conjunction with infantry. Thus chariot warriors continue to be armed with axe and dagger as melee weapons for dismounted combat (item 28). Finally, although the interpretation of the artistic evidence is uncertain, two charioteers have hatch-marked clothing that may be intended to represent bronze scale armor (items 32 and 33). In summary, the late Middle Bronze period {1800–1600} was one of significant innovation in chariot warfare, including the bit and rein, driver-warrior teams, archery from chariots, and the introduction of bronze armor. Thus, all of the elements of the revolutionary chariot warfare of the Late Bronze were in place by the seventeenth century.
The symbolic or tactical trampling-the-prostrate-enemy motif retains its importance in the late Middle Bronze period (items 27, 29, and 31). As noted above, the war-cart trampling scene became a standard symbol of victory in Early Bronze Sumer, appearing frequently in Middle Bronze depictions of chariots, indicating a continuity of symbolic ideology from Early Bronze war-cart to Middle Bronze chariot, as well as the probable tactical continuity in the actual use of the chariot in battle. Although the precise means of ideological and artistic transmission are unclear, by the eighteenth century the trampling scene is found in Anatolia (item 27), Syria (items 29–31) and Babylon (item 24); in other words, it has become a universal war motif throughout the Near East outside of Egypt.
In this regard, an important question for the military historian is whether the trampling scene was intended to represent an actual military tactic, or was merely a striking means to symbolize victory in battle. However this may be, it is certainly possible that war-carts could have trampled corpses, wounded or fleeing enemies, and, under the right circumstances, could in theory have broken standing enemy infantry formations as well. Two of the later Middle Bronze trampling scenes show that the victims on the ground are animate and clearly alive, raising their arms to protect themselves from the oncoming chariot (items 27 and 29; ELH §5–6).
Chariot warfare in Middle Bronze texts27
Compared with artistic representations of chariots, the Middle Bronze texts about chariot warfare are rather elusive. None the less, enough evidence survives to give us a broad picture of the chariot in battle. Ishme-Dagan, king of Isin {1953–1935} has left us a detailed literary description of a chariot from the early Middle Bronze, which complements Gudea's description given on pp. 143–4.28 The hymn praises both the god Enlil, for whom the chariot was made, and Išme-Dagan, the king who ordered its construction. It provides both a detailed description of the parts of the chariot, a mythic account of the cosmic meaning of the chariot, and some hints as to its military significance (see also ARM 7.161). The chariot was built – and possibly specific elements of its design were specified – by order of Enlil in an oracle given in his temple.
O lofty chariot; Enlil, the lord of intelligence, the father of the gods, Spoke about your construction, in the Ekur [temple], his sublime shrine.…
A number of specific parts of the chariot are mentioned, with a complex technical terminology for the various parts of the chariot: pole, yoke, ropes, axle, pole pin, front guard, platform, beams, side boards, and foot board. These types of items are also mentioned in several of the texts from the Mari archive, though the technical terminology is somewhat opaque (MK 162–3; ARM 18.45, 7.161). It is adorned with “silver, gold and precious stones”. Since the chariot was to carry the statue of the god in ceremonial processions, it was apparently a portable temple, and is described as a microcosm of the universe.
Although the text is fundamentally mythic in function, some military details of the chariot are also mentioned. A bow may be mentioned in an uncertain passage (line 12), supplementing the mention of a bow in Gudea's chariot. Both driver and warrior are described as fighting: “[On] your [the chariot's platform], warriors [are] fighting together” side-by-side. The poem describes the god Enlil entering the chariot to go off to war, undoubtedly paralleling the practice of earthly kings.
[Enlil] completed his great harnessing, he stepped in [the chariot]
He embraced Ninlil, the Mother [goddess], his wife.
[The wargod] Ninurta [son of Enlil], the hero, [went in front (as driver?)]
The Anunnas [a class of gods] … [marched] after him
The chariot shines like lightning, its bellowing [noise] a pleasure.
[ … ] the donkeys harnessed to the yoke.
Enlil [is in] his mighty chariot, his shining [glory] is bright.
This appears to be a textual reference to Ninurta, the war-god and son of Enlil, either driving the chariot for his father, or perhaps preceding the chariot on foot. Enlil is accompanied by the Anunnas, a class of gods, who follow or surround the chariot on foot, just as infantrymen are frequently shown accompanying chariots in the artistic sources.
The use of chariots (narkabtum) in battle is not mentioned extensively in the Mari archive (WM 144). It appears that, by 1750, the chariot had not yet become a major element of Mesopotamian warfare. There are, however, a number of hints that might point to the limited use of chariots in combat. One problem in interpreting the use of combat chariots is that the distinction between the terms for freight wagon and for chariot is unclear; both are probably best translated as cart.29 For example, one passage mentions the itinerary of an army on the march, describing the “elite troops, chariots and gear”; it is not clear from the text if the “chariots” were war-chariots or carts carrying the gear (L 222). There are numerous references to carts for transportation purposes (L 184, 223). Chariots were clearly used for messengers and for transportation of small valuable goods. One text mentions the delivery by chariot of silver cups (MK 161). Chariots were also used in religious ceremonies (MK 161); the “golden chariot” mentioned in the Mari archive was probably intended to carry statues of the gods, or perhaps for the king in ceremonial processions (L 324; MM 32).
An additional problem in interpreting the textual evidence for chariots is the use of the term rākib ANŠE.HI.A, “rider of equids” (L 593 index). A double ambiguity exists in this phrase: is the “rider” riding the equid itself, or riding a chariot drawn by equids? Second, what specific species of equid is intended? I agree with Heimpel's interpretation that this phrase is a technical term for charioteer (L 593). Several lines of evidence point in this direction. First, the artistic evidence discussed above clearly points to the prominence of the chariot, and the rarity of actually riding equids. Second, the texts strongly imply that these “riders” are persons of importance; culturally speaking, this would associate them with chariots, the vehicles of kings and gods, as indicated by concepts of proper royal riding decorum discussed on p. 141 (ARM 6.76; EEH 120b). Third, even when discussing a single “rider”, the texts use the plural for the equids (L 296, 402) – thus a single rider rides multiple animals, an impossibility if the man was riding the back of an animal, but the norm if the equids are pulling chariots.
The texts mention “riders” as royal messengers, or perhaps better ambassadors, men not just carrying a clay tablet but on special missions from the king, accompanying “high ranking servants” (L 322, 385, 402, 517). In a sense “rider of equids” almost seems like an aristocratic title in the texts rather than a description of a means of transportation. It is perhaps closer to the idea of an English “knight” in the Hundred Years War period, who did not necessarily actually fight from horseback, just as the Roman equites was a member of an aristocratic order and not necessarily a combat cavalryman.
There are two texts which give some indication of the actual combat use of chariots. One text implies that chariots were vehicles used by officers in battle. One army is described as having “four thousand good troops; the generals Hammu-Rabi and Dada and the diviner Kakka-Ruqqum, riders of equids, are those in the lead of those troops” (L 225). Clearly the chariot is mentioned here as a vehicle for a high official to ride to or during battle. But three chariots among 4000 men would not be sufficient to have a significant tactical effect on the outcome of a battle. On the other hand, the text does not explicitly state that there were not other combat charioteers as well, only that the three highest officers in the army were “riders of equids”. The limited scale of the employment of chariots on Middle Bronze battlefields was probably related to the enormous cost of horses. One horse could cost five minas (300 shekels: MM 13), fifteen times the combat wages of a captain (see pp. 196–7). At such a cost a king would be hard pressed to field a large number of chariots, and would be wary of risking such valuable horses in combat.
There is another text, however, which points to substantial numbers of combat charioteers in battle. A general defeated an army of 500 men operating on the plains area of the middle Khabur River, and claimed to have captured “twelve riders of equids” (L 417). These were apparently important men, because they were being held for prisoner exchange for two officers. Assuming each of these is a charioteer, we have a ratio of at least one charioteer per forty infantrymen; the actual ratio was probably lower since presumably some of the charioteers escaped or were killed rather than captured. This compares nicely with the one charioteer per thirty-five infantrymen in contemporary Anatolia (MHT 27; see p. 303), and may imply there was a substantial chariot component in some northern Syrian armies in the mid-eighteenth century. It may be significant that this is a northern Syrian army, rather than an army from the Mesopotamian river valley, perhaps again pointing to northern Syria and Anatolia as the zone of greatest use of chariots in warfare.
Conclusion
In the Near East the final synthesis of all of these factors relating to chariot warfare seems to have occurred in Syria and central Anatolia in the seventeenth century among the Hittites, Hurrians, and Syrians. King Hammurabi of Babylon made an interesting observation about the relative importance of wagon vs. boat transportation in Syria and Mesopotamia: “The means [of transportation] of your [king Zimri-Lim's] land [the city of Mari in Syria] is donkeys and carts; the means [of transportation] of this land [Babylon] is boats” (L 379). Although the chariot was certainly known in Babylon, the rivers and numerous canals and irrigation ditches provided ideal avenues for transport by boat, which was faster and easier than cart transport. Furthermore, the same canals that facilitated boat transport hindered chariot transport. The situation was much the same in the Nile Valley. Thus the crucial transformation from war-cart to the true chariot occurred in the Syrian and Anatolian highlands, where carts, rather than rivers and irrigation systems, were the standard means of transport. By the end of the Late Bronze Age we begin to find texts describing the actual use of chariots in battle, especially from the Hittite archive (WV 63–5). Given the explosive and unprecedented victories of the Hittites in Anatolia, Syria, and Mesopotamia around 1600 (see Chapter Eleven), one is tempted to suspect that the Hittite Old Kingdom was the first state that fully and successfully synthesized all of these elements of chariot warfare into a single system, which would bring about the beginning of the new “chariot age” of warfare for the next half-millennium.