Ancient Chinese Warfare (57 page)

Military chariots that can be employed at speed represent the fruition of centuries of innovation, experimentation, and improvement, not just in materials and structure, but also in the domestication, breeding, training, harnessing, and controlling of horses with bridles, bits, and cheek pins. Advances in knowledge, technology, metallurgy, and craft skills made it possible, but the chariot’s successful exploitation as a dynamic system equally depended on a continuous interaction between the driver and the horses. Notwithstanding the irresolvable debate about the nature of technological discovery,
⁶¹
mere possession of a physical chariot, however acquired, without the integral manufacturing and equine knowledge would never have constituted a sufficient basis for it to suddenly flourish as a military weapon in China.

Fundamental support for diffusion rather than an indigenous origin for Chinese chariots is also seen in the complete lack of evidence for precursors such as carts or any form of oxen- or horse-pulled wagon despite both oxen and horses already having been domesticated. Vestiges of tracks apparently made by wheeled vehicles repeatedly traveling over the ground have recently been discovered at Erh-li-t’ou, a site where significant roads are visible in the royal quarters. Spaced about 1.0 to 1.2 meters apart and dating to Erh-li-t’ou’s second period, roughly 200 years earlier than Yen-shih, they are about 20 to 32 centimeters in width and 2 to 14 centimeters deep.
⁶²
Wheel ruts have also been found at Yen-shih that average 1.2 meters wide and are thus similar in gauge to those at Erh-li-t’ou, but are only half the width of the earliest chariots recovered at Anyang of 2.2 to 2.4 meters.
⁶³
Rather than being carved
out by sledges, the ruts were probably made by some sort of small twoor four-wheeled cart that was employed to transport dirt, stone, and other building materials.
⁶⁴

Despite traditional claims that sheep and other small animals were hitched to ancient Chinese carts, in the absence of significant horse remains at Erh-li-t’ou and Yen-shih it is more likely that humans, whether pulling or pushing, rather than animals provided the power for these vehicles.
⁶⁵
Assertions that these wheel ruts obviate any need for technological importation, though intriguing, lack substantiation and thus do not significantly undermine transmission theories, particularly as the carts themselves may have originated in the nearby steppe cultures, where vehicles of similar gauge were common.

More important, many features of Chinese chariots lose their formerly distinctive character when compared with Sintashta-Petrova precursors rather than Near Eastern versions from Mesopotamia, Egypt, or Mycenae.
⁶⁶
Without denying the essential similarity of chariot construction worldwide, it had been thought that Shang embodiments had far larger wheels with more numerous spokes and a conical shape; that the chariot box was larger, capable of accommodating three men standing in triangular formation, and rectangular rather than rounded; and that it was mounted directly over the axle, in contrast to Western preference for the wheels to be placed increasingly to the rear.
⁶⁷

However, most of these definitive features are present, whether fully or incipiently, in the models already noted as having been recovered from Sintashta-Petrova sites that date to at least 700 years earlier. In particular, Sintashta-Petrova chariots employed two horses aside a curved shaft and had multiple spokes, larger wheels, a center-mounted chariot compartment, and a complete Shang-style bridle package, including the bit and cheek pieces essential for controlling the horses. Chariots found near Lake Sevan that date to about 1600 BCE and thus presumably represent somewhat more developed versions provide an even closer match to the Shang manifestations with, for example, twenty-six spokes, and may either have been transmitted back from the Shang or reflect a natural progression of developments. Egyptian versions display several other similarities, such as interwoven walls and leather thong floors, but because they represent localized, nontransmitted developments, they are essentially irrelevant.

21.

D
ESPITE HAVING HAD A WIDE distribution across the contiguous steppe region and Inner Mongolia for many centuries, horses seem not to have been raised in China until the late Neolithic. Although, as already noted, there is some disagreement about whether these and later Shang horses were larger than those now populating China’s northwest region, skeletons suggest a compact animal about 130 to 140 centimeters high, one presumably derived from Przewalski’s horse and imported from the steppe rather than native to China. Based on trace archaeological finds at Pan-p’o through Erh-li-t’ou and several early Shang sites, horse breeding gradually moved down into the central Luo River region.
¹
Whether these horses were ever employed as pack animals or as draught animals to power carts rather than just eaten before the Shang adapted them to the chariot is unknown, but it is unlikely despite the discovery of wheel traces at Erh-li-t’ou. However, they still matched steppe horses in size before selective breeding increased their overall dimensions and thus their tractive and transport capability.

Even though late historical writings such as the
Shang Shu
assert that the Shang fielded seventy chariots when vanquishing the Hsia, and horses and chariots were virtually inseparable in early China, no chariots or intact skeletons have ever been found at any site predating Wu Ting’s reign at Anyang. Moreover, despite vociferous assertions by traditional scholars that riding and hunting on horseback commenced in the Shang following a lengthy period of indigenous development, nothing suggests that horses were being ridden until the Spring and Autumn or
even Warring States period, when the cavalry was deliberately created to thwart steppe riders.
²

Horses suddenly assumed an integral role in martial and royal life in King Wu Ting’s reign. They not only powered the small number of chariots employed in hunting and military actions, but also functioned as symbols of prestige and authority. Numerous Shang dynasty inscriptions inquire about the general auspiciousness of horses being sent in as tribute, their suitability for sacrifice, and their prospects for martial employment including hunting. They were designated by the colors white, dark, red, bronze, yellow, and gray and their attributes given special names borrowed from other animals, including deer and wild boar. Whether they would survive or perish (because they might be attacked by tigers or slain on the battlefield) was also a matter of frequent concern.
³
At least one official position within the proto-bureaucracy, the Ma Hsiao-ch’en (Minor Servitor for Horses), was created to oversee equine matters. The raising of horses and improvement of the stock were matters of focal concern,
⁴
and a number of other menial functionaries were tasked with various duties related to stabling and keeping horses.

Some sixty Shang burial pits containing horses or horses and chariots interred together have been discovered. Nevertheless, horses were generally too valuable to sacrifice except to the highest Shang ancestors or to bury in pairs with a single chariot to honor someone of extremely exalted rank or otherwise distinguished by martial achievement, a practice that would not be abandoned until well into imperial times.
⁵
They also numbered among the superlative gifts that might be forwarded on important state occasions, provided as tribute, employed as bribes, given to ensure loyalty,
⁶
or offered as ransom. For example, in the Spring and Autumn period a captured Sung commander was ransomed for 100 chariots and 400 horses;
⁷
the minor state of Lai managed to halt an invasion by bribing the enemy’s chief eunuch with 100 horses and a similar number of oxen;
⁸
and late in the Shang the Chou secured King Wen’s release from prison with a combination of beautiful women, jewels, and horses.

The great value attached to superlative horses is further illustrated by a famous Spring and Autumn incident that provided the basis for the
well-known
ch’eng-yü
(aphorism or formulaic phrase) “Having a nearby objective yet making it appear distant,” also known as “the Marquis of Chin borrowed a passage through Yü.”
⁹
Subsequently included among the
Thirty-six Stratagems
, it consisted of tempting Yü’s ruler with some outstanding horses and a famous jade when requesting permission for Chin’s armies to pass through Yü (or “borrow” an access route) and attack the state of Kuo. Naturally Chin’s ultimate intent, easily accomplished by the victorious army on its return march two years later, had always been conquering both states. This objective became strategically achievable only after their alliance had been thwarted (as Sun-tzu advised) and one of them vanquished, eliminating any possibility of mutual sustainment. The Marquis of Chin subsequently remarked that although the jade was unaffected by its storage in Yü, the horses had aged.
¹⁰

The horse’s importance in the Spring and Autumn and beyond would continue to grow because sedentary China frequently found itself beset by aggressive steppe peoples who raided and plundered the border when not mounting more rapacious invasions. Due to high population ratios and a shortage of agricultural land, the “civilized” heartland would always suffer a severe shortage of horses, placing it at a significant disadvantage when attempting to thwart mounted riders. Moreover, even if arable land were to be devoted to sustaining a herd, the terrain in the interior was viewed as generally unsuitable for their breeding and early training.
¹¹

It is frequently written that horses are fundamentally shy and that apart from two stallions vigorously contesting a group’s leadership, they will flee rather than respond aggressively when threatened. (This tendency is sometimes cited as the reason they normally turn away from solid formations and threatening spears, though their wisdom in not willingly impaling themselves hardly seems a cause for disparagement.) Wild horses are also belittled as useless and stupid in comparison with domesticated variants, which, being free from inbreeding, are reportedly smarter, even though it is more likely that the former are simply untrained and too independent to heed human commands, the reason
“coercive” training has often been the norm rather than the exception. However, their inherent gregariousness facilitates employing them as pack animals, cavalry mounts, and chariot teams of two or four, as well as their mass use in warfare.

Horses have to undergo training to make them conformable to use, not to mention reliable in the chaos of the hunt or on the battlefield. Confucius therefore employed them to analogize the universal need for instruction
¹²
but Chuang-tzu decried the coercively destructive nature of the process:
¹³

Expertise in selecting, training, and employing horses quickly developed, some of it eventually being codified in late Warring States manuals of equine physiognomy. A few men achieved fame for their ability to recognize a horse’s innate characteristics, including Po Le, whom Chuang-tzu selected for condemnation because of his renown.
¹⁴
Even divination was employed in the Shang to determine a horse’s appropriateness for the right side of the chariot,
¹⁵
and a few heroes such as Tsao Fu emerged in the Chou who became legendary for their superlative driving skills.

Experienced cavalry riders in the West have frequently commented that the most disciplined horses will still test skillful, even familiar riders whenever an opportunity arises. Greek horses had a reputation for biting and kicking, perhaps the reason Xenophon advised rejecting troublesome horses in his instructions to cavalry commanders, though some tacticians preferred aggressiveness for battlefield employment. From the human
standpoint the horses are misbehaving, but from Chuang-tzu’s contrarian viewpoint, the fault lies solely with men, who have constrained and contorted their original nature by exploiting them: “Horses dwell on land, eat grass, and drink water. When they are happy they intertwine their necks and nuzzle each other, when angry they turn their backs to each other and kick out. Horses only know this. But when you inflict cross poles and yokes on them and coerce them to conform with bridles, horses then know how to crack the crossbar, twist their heads out from the yoke, resist the harness, thwart the bit, and gnaw the reins.
¹⁶
Thus horses acquire knowledge and act like thieves. This is Po Le’s offense.”

Chariot drivers were confronted by somewhat different problems because they were forced to control two or more horses of less than identical physical capability and personality. In contrast, cavalry riders and their mounts are inescapably bonded by their physical contact to the point that it’s often said that they appear as one. This immediacy reportedly allows an accomplished rider to anticipate the horse’s behavior just as the horse can reputedly sense the rider’s intent even while responding to actual commands. Feedback and anticipation are virtually instantaneous, whereas the chariot driver, who must rely on subtle changes in the reins and any hard-earned rapport with the horses, is invariably, if only slightly, reactive. For the chariot to function effectively, either the horses must be conditioned to absolute obedience, an impossibility, or trust, predictability, and an intuitive synergy in the face of their divergent interests and distinct personalities must be nurtured.