Chariot operations were thus known to be severely impeded on any but ideal terrain unbroken by woods, furrows, cultivation, irrigation ditches, shrubbery, and other obstacles. Although fewer in number, certain conditions in the enemy and types of terrain “upon which victory can be achieved” were correspondingly envisioned as highly suitable for chariot utilization.
27
However, as those considered conducive to victory reflect deficiencies in the enemy’s condition rather than optimal topographical and environmental conditions, they need not be reprised here.
28
The difficulty of coordinating chariots with each other and any accompanying infantry required advancing at a measured pace, just as mandated by King Wu in his preconquest instructions reputedly preserved in the
Shih Chi
and
Ssu-ma Fa
.
29
Observing these constraints would have severely tempered an assault’s maximum speed and allowed enemy infantry to surround, overturn, or otherwise obstruct the chariots. Slow
rates of movement necessitated by adverse conditions would have also made them vulnerable to spears being inserted into the wheels, stopping them from turning or causing the spokes to break and the wheels to fail.
30
As the battle with the peripheral peoples initiated by Shang suppressive campaigns continued through the early Chou into the Spring and Autumn, highly illuminating asymmetrical clashes arose when Chinese chariot contingents encountered purely infantry-based forces. An incident that unfolded in 714 BCE suggests the chariots normally proceeded so slowly that they became vulnerable to being outflanked by infantry, causing commanders to fear them: “When the Northern Jung mounted an incursion into Cheng, the Duke of Cheng actively resisted them. However, troubled by the Jung army he commented, ‘it is composed of infantry whereas we are on chariots. I am afraid that they will maneuver around behind us and launch a sudden attack.’”
31
The commander’s belief is really astounding, because speed and maneuverability are defining operational characteristics for chariots and cavalry, not infantry. Ultimately he prevailed in this clash through an imaginative, unorthodox combination of feigned retreat and ambushes.
32
Nevertheless, another famous confrontation between unsupported Chinese chariot forces and a large steppe infantry contingent on constricted terrain in 541 BCE reaffirms this concern:
33
Hsün Wu of Chin defeated the Wu-chung and several other Ti tribal peoples at T’ai-yüan by stressing foot soldiers. When they were about to engage in battle Wei Shu advised, “They are composed of infantry forces and we will be encountering them in a narrow pass. If they encircle each of our chariots with ten men, they will certainly overcome us. Moreover, since the narrowness of the pass will put us in difficulty, they will again be victorious. I suggest that we all act as foot soldiers, beginning with me.”
He then discarded their chariots in order to form ranks of infantry with the staff from every five chariots making up three squads of five. One of Hsün Wu’s favorite officers who was unwilling to serve as an infantryman was executed as an example to the others. They then deployed into five dispositions, forming a deer like configuration with
two contingents in the front, five to the rear, one at the right point, three at the left, and a narrow force acting as the vanguard in order to entice the enemy. Laughing, the Ti failed to deploy, allowing Hsün Wu to mount a sudden attack and severely defeat them.
Although the meaning and significance of the terms for the various contingents in the deployment would occasion much debate over the centuries, it appears that Hsün Wu came forth with a fast, roving force similar to the large chariot expeditions mounted against the Hsien-yün by the early Chou. Lacking infantry to protect the chariots from disabling multisided attack, they would have been doomed without Wei Shu’s suggestion. Since their highly unorthodox deployment was essentially a chariot formation best suited for open terrain, the arrangement, limited numbers, and decision to fight dismounted prompted derisive laughter among their opponents, providing a momentary opportunity for the unexpected Chin assault that swiftly vanquished them.
Without an accompanying contingent of protective infantry, the chariot’s occupants were thus seen as susceptible to the piercing and slashing weapons wielded by ground forces. The traditional historical writings preserve a few examples of chariot commanders being slain by spear thrusts
34
and their comrades being struck by arrows, cut down by dagger-axes, or having an arm or leg severed.
35
There are even incidents of foot soldiers grabbing the occupants, wresting them out of the chariot by hand, and throwing them down onto the ground or taking them prisoner.
36
For example, at the Battle of Yen-ling in 575 BCE, one warrior suggested some reconnaissance troops attempt to intercept an enemy fleeing in a chariot so that he could pursue and pull him down from behind, making him a prisoner.
37
To defend against these ground attacks, the warrior on the right, who was entrusted with primary responsibility for wielding the piercing and crushing weapons, seems to have frequently descended to repel attackers. Ancient Western armies sometimes attached skirmishers or runners to the chariots for protection, as well as to dispatch warriors from disabled enemy chariots.
If both sides commit to chariots, they become a weapon of choice rather than just a delivery system, but if one side opts not to become so entangled, the chariot can become a liability. The
Liu-t’ao
notes that
the chariot is useless when not in motion, not even as effective as a single infantryman, presumably because of the difficulty of defending it. Although Warring States military writings attributed surpassing power to the chariot, it was conceded that infantry forces could still prevail by executing appropriately conceived tactics, implementing defensive measures that emphasized solidity, and exploiting constricted terrain:
38
When infantry engage chariots and cavalry in battle they must rely on hills and mounds, ravines and defiles.
39
Long weapons and strong crossbows should occupy the fore, short weapons and weak crossbows should occupy the rear, with them firing and resting in turn. Even if large numbers of enemy chariots and cavalry should arrive, they must maintain a solid formation and fight intensely while skilled soldiers and strong crossbowmen prepare against (attacks from) the rear.
Tactics for employing the chariots, particularly the larger specialized vehicles, in defensive situations developed during the Warring States period. Although a complete examination must necessarily be deferred to the tactical portions of a subsequent book, it should be noted that the more common include intercepting the enemy, blocking and thwarting them, and cobbling together temporary ramparts by deploying them without their horses in either a circular or square formation.
40
When operating in mountains, special measures had to be implemented to avoid being trapped high up and cut off from water supplies, but contingents fighting in confined valleys merely had to rely on the solidity of their chariot formations.
41
The problems posed by natural undulations, pits, and holes prompted the realization that deliberately excavated and well-concealed ditches, holes, and other traps could cause the horses to stumble and break their legs. Although probably neither invented nor deployed before the end of the Spring and Autumn period, several devices designed to impede the passage of chariots and the more mobile cavalry by incapacitating the horses are known to have been employed in the Warring States period. With little effort, pointed devices ranging from the complicated tiger drops described in the
Liu-t’ao
through the easily dispersed
caltrops—metal pieces with four points shaped like jacks—could quickly be scattered about the terrain.
42
Fighting from a moving chariot would have been difficult at best, given the bumping and jarring, not to mention the fleeting moment when a shock weapon could be brought to bear against nearby fighters on the ground or used to strike warriors in an oncoming vehicle. Thus the exceptional accomplishments attributed to racing archers may have been preserved precisely because of their uniqueness. Furthermore, even if the chariots merely served as transport to the point of conflict, fighters manning the compartment would have suffered the discomfort of confinement.
Though seemingly spacious, the approximately 32-by-48-inch compartment turns out to be highly limiting when occupied by three warriors bearing weapons and garbed in rudimentary protective leather armor. Experiments conducted over several years with martial artists well trained in such traditional weapons as long- and short-handled halberds, battle axes, daggers, and swords prove that they would have lacked the freedom of maneuver required to fend off, let alone vanquish, attackers. The driver, who faces no threat from the front where the horses block access, is mainly vulnerable to an oblique attack. However, being pinned in the center with the horses and shaft protruding in front of him, he is unable to contribute much to either the attack or defense, whether in motion or at rest. But the other two combatants are exposed from about 45 degrees right around to 180 degrees dead center at the back, where neither shields nor any other form of protection was ever affixed.
If the archer positions himself somewhat laterally on the right side so that his shooting stance puts his arm toward the outside of the chariot rather than to the inside against the driver, he can fire toward the front or out to the sides with little interference.
43
However, swinging around to shoot to the rear is virtually impossible. Conversely, an archer standing on the left, reputedly the normal Shang position, is badly hampered by the driver (even if the driver is kneeling) as he tries to fit an arrow to his
bow and fire in any direction. Shots to the rear become possible if he stands laterally facing outward and thus draws his bow on the exterior side of the compartment, in mirror image to an archer positioned on the right side aiming forward.
Wielding the era’s preferred shock weapon, a dagger-axe with a three-foot handle, is easily accomplished on the right side, particularly for blows directed to the front or somewhat alongside, but when swinging outward to counterattack perpendicular to the chariot’s forward orientation, care has to be taken to avoid striking the archer standing on the opposite side on the backswing. Blows directed to the rear that require swinging around prove impossible without dramatically modifying the motion, as well as fruitless because potential attackers, already at the limit of effective range, can easily dodge any strike.
Even if solitary attackers might be thwarted, multiple attackers, especially those bearing five-foot-long spears, would have been easily able to slay the chariot’s occupants without being endangered, unless the archer employed his bow at point-blank range. Whether armed with long or short weapons, multiple attackers create chaos because the heavily confined chariot crew, standing back to back and arm to shoulder, are unable to dodge, bend, or deflect oncoming blows and can only rely on any shields they may have carried or the protection offered by early body armor. Vulnerability would therefore have been especially acute to the rear, though presumably somewhat mitigated by the chariot’s forward battlefield motion.
A single occupant wielding a full-length saber or long two-handed weapon fared far better in these admittedly static tests. Two men, though sometimes impinging on each other or even colliding, still had sufficient freedom of maneuver to fight effectively, even if the archer occupied the left side as traditionally portrayed. Three men suffered the difficulties noted; four became an example of “close packing,” all four being totally incapable of wielding any sort of crushing weapon.
These problems apparently prompted the development of very longhandled spears and dagger-axes in the Spring and Autumn that were presumably intended for battling similarly equipped warriors in enemy chariots. However, for the three chariot occupants this additional length simply exacerbated the lack of maneuverability, particularly because
the weapons tended to be held at least a quarter of the way up the shaft rather than at the very butt. (Grasping with two hands increases the power and control, but at the sacrifice of maneuverability.) Even with these longer weapons, two warriors riding fast-moving, converging chariots would only have had a moment to strike each other—making it not impossible but highly unlikely to significantly contribute to the battle’s effort.
44
Rather than as conventionally depicted in contemporary movies, the drivers probably slowed, even halted, to allow the occupants to clash.
Experiments also revealed the height of the compartment to be not just a detrimental factor but also highly puzzling. A horizontal pole or rim that falls somewhere around the middle of the upper thigh provides adequate stabilization for a warrior to maintain a fighting stance and would have prevented falling over in sudden motion, but to provide real functional support the height should rise approximately to a man’s waist. However, though not entirely useless, Shang chariot walls would have risen to just above knee level, a height that tended to cause modern fighters to lose their balance and tumble out because the rail effectively acted as a fulcrum.
The axle’s high placement in a relatively lightweight vehicle would have resulted in a high center of gravity, making stability a crucial issue for any occupants trying to employ their weapons at speed. In addition, there were no springs or any sort of suspension mounting for the chariot box, even though late Shang models apparently began to employ the cantilevered wooden junction called a “crouching rabbit,” which was obviously designed to reduce the effects of the wooden wheels bouncing over the terrain through its tensing and bowing action. The horses loosely coupled to the front shaft and the weight of the three-man crew would have stabilized the vehicle somewhat, but the traditional chariot would certainly have been inherently unstable and rocked jarringly from side to side on the uneven terrain of natural battlefields, just like a modern lightweight SUV.