Tactics of scythed quadrigae differed from those of their predecessors, which were unarmed chariots. The latter usually fought against each other before a clash of the infantry, they secured the flanks of their troops, and they pursued the enemy after the fighting. The unarmed chariots participated to a lesser degree in the frontal shock on the infantry of an opponent. This usually occurred when the enemy had no chariots.16 The scythe-bearing chariots were a device used only to charge the infantry of an enemy. Therefore these chariots were designed not only for a direct shock at the enemy, but also for a psychological effect to frighten him.
Against what opponent could the scythed quadrigae have been devised? Probably not against Asian foot levies consisting mainly of archers, as the outcome of battle was at that time usually decided by cavalry. First, the cavalry charge overwhelmed hostile horsemen, and then they attacked the latter's infantry (Xen. Cyr. 1.4.23; 2.1.6-8). It was different with the charge of the scythed chariots: the fact is that the light-armed infantrymen of the enemy would have shot such a volume of missiles that these would have frightened both drivers and horses, and therefore the chariots would hardly have reached the foe. It is obvious that scythed quadrigae were not created against Asian cavalry consisting mainly of troops equipped with missiles in the mid-Ist millennium B.C. When the quadrigae were charging, the horsemen both dispersed and shot at the chariots. The scythed chariots were invented just to break a close and numerous battle-array of heavy-armed infantrymen. Against such infantrymen cavalry charges were unsuccessful. The infantry could also be efficiently protected from the missiles of light-armed troops. The scythed chariots broke the order of the enemy infantrymen and facilitated actions of their cavalry and infantry. Against what people could the scythe-bearing quadrigae have been used? The Persians relied on two main forces, mounted and foot archers (Hdt. 7.61, 84; Xen. Cyr. 1.2.9; 2.1.1 1; Xen. An. 3.3.7, 15, 4.17). Later on, the Persian satraps also hired Greek mercenary hoplites. Troops of the Eastern Iranian peoples consisted mainly of horsemen (Hdt. 1.71, 215; 7.86; Xen. Cyr. 5.3.24; Curt. 7.7.32; Arr. An. 3.8.4). Mountain tribes of Iran fielded infantry armed with missiles, chiefly archers, as was natural for mountaineers (Xen. Cyr. 5.3.24; Xen. An. 4.1.10, 2.28; Strab. 11.13.6; Curt. 6.5.17). Anatolian people were armed mainly like peltasts (Hdt. 7.72-74, 76-77; Xen. Mem. 3.5.26; Polyb. 5.79.1 1). For the Neo-Babylonian period, the military organisation of the inhabitants of Southern Mesopotamia is little known. But probably it was based on the Assyrian model in many respects. In this model, the centre of a battle order consisted of bowmen under the protection of shield-bearers, and charging chariots and cavalry were placed on both flanks. The two latter bodies of troops were intended to attack the enemy's flanks and rear.17 The archers formed a large part of an Assyrian army. The so-called Display Inscription of Sargon II tells us that the king selected from "the land of Kummuhu" a force of 150 chariots, 1500 horsemen, 20000 bowmen, and 10000 spearmen and shield-bearers and "put them under his control". 18 The ratio of the types of troops is significant; these soldiers were probably garrison troops and hence were intended mainly to defend fortifications, a task in which archers played an important part. The only infantry battle fought by the Assyrians that is known in detail is the battle of the Ulai river (655 B.C.).19 In that battle the Assyrian infantrymen fought in pairs composed of a shield-bearer and an archer. Therefore it seems that, in Mesopotamia, there was no deep massed formation of heavy armed infantry like the Greek phalanx.20 Later, armoured shield-bearers continued to be used (Hdt. 7.63; Xen. An. 7.8.15) and the archers continued to play an important part (Jerem. 4.29; 6.23; 51.3; Aesch. Pers. 56).
In the 6th-Sth centuries B.C., the Indians employed elephants widely in warfare. Because horses were afraid of elephants, it was necessary to train the former for a long time to fight against Indians (Diod. 2.16.18-19; Mahdbhdrata. 7.8.15ff; cf. Bel. Afric. 72; Polyaen. 4.21). But the basic point is that archers occupied an important place in ancient Indian armies (Hdt. 7.65; Strab. 15.1.52; Aff. Ind. 16.6-7; Suid s.v. inneli; kxvKo0paKe;; Phot. Bibl. 72. 49b; Kautilya. Arthasadstra. 10.5).21 In my opinion, there were only two peoples able to fight the Persians with heavy-armed infantry: the Egyptians and the Greeks. The Egyptian foot soldiers were military settlers of Libyan origin, the Calasiries and the Hermotybies (Hdt. 2.163-166, 168; Diod. 1.73). In fighting, they formed a specially deep phalanx protected with their large shields and holding their spears forward (Xen. Cyr. 7.1.30, 33, 39; cf. Plat. Tim. 24b; Xen. An. 1.8.9; Achil. Tat. 3.13; Heliod. 9.20). Xenophon's "Cyropaedia" describes (7.1.29-32) how the Egyptians fought bravely at Thymbrara and even successfully sustained the charge of scythed chariots. However, as I have said above, the "Cyropaedia" is a work of fiction where the description of the battle is based on the author's ideas of tactics.22 Xenophon described the behaviour of the same Egyptian shield-bearers at the battle of Cunaxa (401 B.C.) in a different way. They did not enter into hand-to-hand combat at all, but merely ran away together with other levies of Artaxerxes from the attacking Greeks (Xen. An. 1.8.19). To the degree that the country of the pyramids was at that time under the power of Amyrtaeus, these Egyptian warriors were probably just military colonists who had been introduced by the Persian rulers (Xen. Cyr. 7.1.45). However, the Egyptians did not rely on their own troops, and widely employed Greek and Carian mercenaries from the 7th century B.C. onwards (Hdt. 1.152; Diod. 1.66.12). Besides that, the Greeks could successfully resist the Egyptian troops who had the advantage in number (Xen. Ages. 2.31; Diod. 15.92). Furthermore, I would like to note that the surviving classical sources do not contain, except for Heliodorus' novel (Aeth. 9.14, 20), any evidence of the use of Persian scythed chariots against Egyptian shield-bearers. During the 5th century B.C. the permanent opponents of the Persians were the Greeks. They had at their disposal the firm heavy-armed infantry that was unsuccessfully charged by the Persian horsemen consisting mainly of mounted archers and javelinmen, who were em- ploying hit and run tactics (Hdt. 9.20-25, 49; Diod. 11.30.3; Polyaen. 7.14.3). At the same time, the Greeks made little use of troops with missiles who would be able to repulse the chariots. Therefore, their hoplites were vulnerable to charging chariots. But the main point is that the Hellenes understood the value of a close formation in a battle against individual warriors (Hdt. 6.112; 7.104; Thuc. 1.126.4-6; Xen. An. 1.7.3, 2.18; Cyr. 7.1.22; Diod. 1 1.6.2; Strab. 7.3.17).23 The scythed chariots were designed to destroy this closeness. Moreover, the sources show that the Achaemenid scythed quadrigae were used against the Greek and, later, the Macedonian phalanx.
