I think it is fair to say that Chinese chariots are a bit of a conundrum; something I keep having a bit of a dig about from time to time.

Just came across this 2024 paper.

https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp344_chariot_to_carriage_in_ancient_china.pdf

Couple of paragraphs caught my eye which make comparisons to near eastern chariots:

"It should also be noted that the axle of the chariots from Egypt is located not at the center but at the rear. An axle placed at the very rear of the floor, materially documented on the extant chariots from Egypt and elsewhere, provided the crew with a stable platform as near horizontal as possible. Since the load would be ahead of the axle, a proportion of the weight would be placed on the horses' necks. This would lead to more flexing of the pole, giving a smoother, less jarring ride, avoid any tendency of the chariot to lift in front on uneven ground and also help to keep the yoke in place. A central axle is ideal for a stable cargo on smooth and level going, since it can be properly balanced over the axle, and the draft team is almost entirely relieved of its weight. Thus the load that the draft animals can pull is limited only by their weight and the strength of the axle (Spruytte 1983: 61). On the other hand, an unstable load, such as standing occupants switching their weight rapidly in fighting or hunting, would make a central axle less suitable, as would fast movement over rough terrain or on rapid turns. As the load or the angle of the ground shifted, the vehicle would rock back and forth, suffering stress, particularly in areas where the pole is attached, straining the pole and bruising the draft animals."

and

"In China, as in the Near East and Egypt, chariots were used in warfare.11 Recent trials with a reconstruction of a Chinese chariot (Figures 7a, b), drawn not by four but also two horses, with a threeman crew, all seated or kneeling, confirmed the validity of the military role of such vehicles in China as mobile firing platforms for archers, provided the terrain is open and level (Hurford and Crouwel 2022). However, the low superstructure of most Chinese chariots as compared to actual Egyptian finds, raises the question of how they may have been used in battle. The superstructure of Egyptian chariots rises to 0.65–0.78 m, thereby offering more protection to the crew of two men standing abreast. The rear axle, narrower than that on the Chinese vehicles, would allow greater maneuverability and thus the possibility for a line of chariots to approach the enemy, shoot and quickly turn away, out of range of their weapons. Chinese chariots may have been used to a great extent as mobile command platforms. Despite the evidence of long-handled weapons, it is unlikely that they were used in hand-to-hand fighting (Yates 2013: 11, 13)."

Thanks Nik,

It would be useful to understand why Robin Yates believes the Chinese chariots were unlikely to be used in hand-to-hand fighting.  A long-handled weapon is of course ideal for pursuing a broken enemy.

A significant difference between Chinese and near eastern chariots was that the Chinese used a larger multi-spoke wheel to help smooth out the ride.  Egyptian chariots used much smaller wheels which would be much lighter.  A lighter wheel is possible if the axle is placed at the rear.  The larger, heavier wheel supports a central axle.

Richard

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 24, 2024, 11:52:56 AM
It would be useful to understand why Robin Yates believes the Chinese chariots were unlikely to be used in hand-to-hand fighting.  A long-handled weapon is of course ideal for pursuing a broken enemy.

That bit made me wonder as well.

Mike Loades and helpers try out a Chinese style chariot in this documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS2U7BqAivc&t=2700s - they feel that a long ji would be more useful in defence when the chariot is stopped rather than when at speed (but it doesn't look useless then).

The documentary covers the advantages of the larger wheel for crossing rough ground. It also mentions the axle position which Robin Yates (who is in the documentary) links to carrying the extra load of a 3rd man, however, he only compares this to the 2 man Egyptian chariot and doesn't mention the large 3 and 4 man crew later Assyrian chariots which keep the axle rear mounted.

The Assyrian later chariots have larger wheels.  A rear axle also affects the way that the yoke is designed.

Richard

Complex things chariots 

I'm fairly happy about how MeG has the near-eastern types (although some may be a tad too good in close combat) but am less so about those further east. Source material difficulty (esp in English) is a barrier, of course.

https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/explore/view/article/e/4L6nZZM0AUM/chinese-chariots.html

Quote from: badhabum on October 24, 2024, 03:53:07 PM
https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/explore/view/article/e/4L6nZZM0AUM/chinese-chariots.html

Sadly, this article lacks any sources and repeats information that is not supported by academic reconstructions.  It claims the chariots were bulky and hard to manoeuvre, where reconstructions have proven this not to be the case.

The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).  I have seen suggestions that this is to provide a rallying point for the chariots.  Should the chariot attack be unsuccessful, the horses would be blown leaving the chariots vulnerable.  An infantry force prevents this.  I wonder if this is an argument for having at least 1 TuG of infantry in a command for each TuG of chariots and a special rule to allow the chariots to interpenetrate the infantry.

Here are some fun bits on chariots from T'ai Kung's Six Secret Teachings which you can find in Ralph Sawyer's "The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China" - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Military-Classics-Ancient-History-Warfare/dp/0465003044

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 25, 2024, 06:28:14 AM
The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).

I wonder what period of time that number comes from. I suspect Warring States (which is still a period of hundreds of years ...).

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 25, 2024, 06:28:14 AM

Quote from: badhabum on October 24, 2024, 03:53:07 PM
https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/explore/view/article/e/4L6nZZM0AUM/chinese-chariots.html

The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).  I have seen suggestions that this is to provide a rallying point for the chariots.  Should the chariot attack be unsuccessful, the horses would be blown leaving the chariots vulnerable.  An infantry force prevents this.  I wonder if this is an argument for having at least 1 TuG of infantry in a command for each TuG of chariots and a special rule to allow the chariots to interpenetrate the infantry.

Why not that seems interesting

Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 25, 2024, 08:44:57 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 25, 2024, 06:28:14 AM
The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).

I wonder what period of time that number comes from. I suspect Warring States (which is still a period of hundreds of years ...).

matches the number from your previous link for T'ai Kung's Six Secret Teachings excerpt, 'total of 24 for each flank (and the rear)'

While it is interesting to go for more historical interpretations never loose sight of this : it is a game and a game cannot be perfect .

Also people have painted armies and would like to play what they have painted ( or bought ) so changes should be minimal as to keep your customers as customers and thrive not die   ( my personal opinion as it is well known )

So I will support RJC's proposal for Chinese chariotry as it seems interresting and is a nice solution

Quote from: tarnowski1 on October 25, 2024, 10:33:41 AM

Quote from: nikgaukroger on October 25, 2024, 08:44:57 AM

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 25, 2024, 06:28:14 AM
The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).

I wonder what period of time that number comes from. I suspect Warring States (which is still a period of hundreds of years ...).

matches the number from your previous link for T'ai Kung's Six Secret Teachings excerpt, 'total of 24 for each flank (and the rear)'

Indeed, but it is complicated by the fact that the original work appears to be 11th century BCE but it has clearly been updated along the way as it includes references to cavalry and crossbows - introduction of the former are dated to the mid-4th century BCE, crossbows a bit before.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on October 25, 2024, 06:28:14 AM

Quote from: badhabum on October 24, 2024, 03:53:07 PM
https://www.shenyunperformingarts.org/explore/view/article/e/4L6nZZM0AUM/chinese-chariots.html

Sadly, this article lacks any sources and repeats information that is not supported by academic reconstructions.  It claims the chariots were bulky and hard to manoeuvre, where reconstructions have proven this not to be the case.

The role of the supporting infantry is interesting  (72 for each chariot).  I have seen suggestions that this is to provide a rallying point for the chariots.  Should the chariot attack be unsuccessful, the horses would be blown leaving the chariots vulnerable.  An infantry force prevents this.  I wonder if this is an argument for having at least 1 TuG of infantry in a command for each TuG of chariots and a special rule to allow the chariots to interpenetrate the infantry.

I don't know about this proposal. The interaction of chariots with their supporting infantry doesn't really seem like something that is happening between separate MeG size TuG's.

Martin

We are rather lacking in detail for battles so it is rather hard to make a clear judgement on this IMO.