Since the fall of Shang until the rise of cavalry during the Han, chariots have been the prime weapons of the Chinese battlefield. Yet it was only until the warring state era with the rise of mass infantry that chariot's place as the main shock unit was taken away. Before that, chariot tactic have often evolved around having 5-20 people running behind a chariot and the charging chariot would be used as the initial shock while the men behind it acts as both defender to the chariot and exploits the break in enemy lines.

Now here is something I don't understand about this particular tactic. It has been noted that because of the harness of the horses, chariots in China generally faster than those of the west. The problem is, with this speed how on earth are the infantry supposed to keep up ? If chariot is 50m ahead of the poor running lads when it makes the initiual contact with the enemy, it would effectively be isolated from it's protectors are within the ocrean of enemy men, it can be quite vulnerable. Especially true when you take into account that these often heavy infantry and thus their ability to run fast for a long period of time ain't their strengths. If the chariots were to slow down for them, doesn't that neglect the whole 'shock power' idea of the whole tactic ? So how did they solve this problem ?

From what i gather from wikipedia,it might be heavy chariots you are referring to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_tactics
"Heavy chariots for shock-troops
These were, until war elephants came up, the only cavalry shock-troops available. Usually they were employed besides troops on horseback. Up to three men stood on a chariot, wielding polearms and close combat weapons. Javelins and bows were employed for range fighting. The chariot was a heavy construction and moved relatively slow. Light infantry could keep up with them. The momentum of this heavy chariot was sufficient to break through enemy formations, causing an effect similar to heavy cavalry with lances. It was tried to widen the gaps it caused, by attaching sickles or scythes to the axis. These should threaten to cut the calfs when passing. This tactic has been tried several times with different arrangements and weapons, but was never successful on the battlefield."

Note the source was "Polybius on the Celtic Chariot and warfare" So I don't think it actually applies here. Since there is no mentioning of the use of chariot-guards running behind them

I am aware of the source,just to draw some comparison btw them.
Anyway what is the source of your citation?

Combined chariot-infantry tactics are known from as early as 707 BC, in the Battle of Xu'ge between King Huan of Eastern Zhou and Duke Zhuang of Zheng. Duke Zhuang's main force used the formation known as the Fish Scale (Yuli), with infantry on the left, right, and rear of the chariots, and he defeated the Zhou army by first sending in his flanks (which were in a square formation, probably light chariots) to break the Zhou lines, and then moving his main force in.

The question then is whether the infantry were mainly for protecting the sides and rear of the chariot when it was stationary (in case the enemy charged), or for charging in after the chariots.

If the chariots were used as shocking troops, then the infantry would be doing the killing among the collapsed enemy's rank.

I would like to think that it was the chariots that were helping the infantry, not the other way around.
If the infantry at that time were not using polearms, than a chariot charge would be very hard to stop. The greek hopitle would be ideal to stop such a charge.

So my question is what were the equipment of infanteers during the prime time of chariot? and in what formation?

I would like to think that it was the chariots that were helping the infantry, not the other way around.
If the infantry at that time were not using polearms, than a chariot charge would be very hard to stop.

I agree with this statement. After looking at Qin formations I get the impression infantry were used to break up the enemies line then the chariots were used to pursue and/or run through the holes.

Chris

Nono, misunderstanding, I meant chariots were used to break enemy's formation then the infantry charge in for the kill. If infantry were to move in frist then the chariots had no place to go because if they moved they would mess up their own rank.

Once the chariots were engaged, they were on their own and they job was to mess with enemy's rank, which helped the infantry to kill. The French used a similar formation with tanks at the beginning of WWII.

My question isn't about what the infantries were for, the matter is how did they keep up with the chariot as it charged ?

It should be noted though, chariots stopped being shock units since around the late Chunqiu era, likely due to the emergence of the mass infantries of the Zhanguo.

Well in order to answer you question we need to know what infantry were for. If my point is right then infantry did not have to keep up with the chariots once the chariot were engaged.

Well in my opinion, chariots were not shock troops, rather skirmish troops, think they as horse archers. Before the appearance of cavalry, chariot was the only weapon which have high mobility, they would practice hit and run, hit the enemy infantry with arrows from distance, if infantry try to close in on chariots, the later would run while still shooting arrows. When the infantry get weared out, then the chariots would charge in and make the kill. Infantry would be helpeless against such tactic.

So, to counter the threat of chariots, both adversaries would deploy chariots to counter each other. Chariots would battle chariots, the one who losses chariot engagement would get infantry into a vulnerable position thus losing the battle. In my opinion, the 3 men crew of ancient Chinese chariots was intended to battle chariots, infantry only comes in second in list of targets. In during a chariot engagement, chariots from both sides would close in while shooting at each other, when they passed by, the crews with polearms would attempt to hit the opposing chariots' crews.

In my opinion, the chariots ceased to be effective due to following reasons:

1- better ranged weapons, infantry got equiped with crossbows which would be dealy to chariots.

2- better training and moral for infantry, so it would not rout when facing a chariot charge. The rising quanlity of infantry had to do with social changes occured in late Spring-Autum period as old feudal order started to collapse, the old aristocrats started to decline, the rising social position for commoners, the incorporation of privilegeless aristocrats, the Shi, into commoner's rank would boost the quanlity of infantry, all those reasons would make the aristocratic chariots loss its position to commoners infantry.

3- Appeance of Cavalry, more mobile and faster than chariots, and cheaper, started to gradualy take their role in battlefied, though this process was not instantaneas.

4- expansion of fields of operation, chariot engegements were only fought in central plain where terrain was plat, when feudal states started to expand their area of influence, they must wage war on terrains far beyond central plain, specially in south China where rivers and forests dominated, thus chariots would not be effective in those areas.

But the infantry, even as mop up, needs to stay relatively close to the chariots so they can exploit the broken enemy lines. If not, the chariots passing would give the enemy the critical few seconds they need to reform their lines.

would there have been any ritualization of warfare during Chariot use? Things like duels before nobles, etc.

Then your question should be what was the charging distance. The driver could keep control and tight to the infantry right before the charge. Once charge was conducted then chariots were on their own in enemy's rank if the charge was conducted properly.

The harness does not increase speed, thats just a myth. The western harness does not choke the horse, this has already been proven through experiments. The only beneficial aspect of the Harness is that it allows greater endurance, which is more important in agriculture and transportation than in warfare.

Interesting point.
I would however, like to ask if the increase in endurance would also increase the stamina the horses are able to have. If so, then there would definately be military applications to it.

Aren't endurance and stamina the same thing?

Yes, there were rituals, as for duels I don't know. For primary sources, you could read Zuo Zhuan (左传), and there is a book written by Mark Edward Lewis, called Sanctioned Violence in Early China, most of its sources were taken from Zuo Zhuan, there are some references to rituals before battles.

So, just curious. Were the chariot mounted men in general...officers of any sort? I know that charioteers had a high level of prestige, and was associated with nobility. I can't help but wonder if these more glorified troops were the officers and NCOs of their age.

Chariots in Spring-Autum period were aristocratic, they were the weapons of nobility, so only nobles could mount them. This trait I believe prolonged to Warring States period where old feudal order collaped, even in Qin state where aristocrats were reduced to puppets, to be a chariot crew, one must have a noble rank, like the drivers were rank 3 nobility.

The chariot was a rank 3 nobility, the right was rank 4 and the commander usually rank 5.

In the wars of the Spring and Autumn era, the victors usually demand that the losers plough their fields in a given direction so that it eases future invasions via chariots. As a result of chariot warfare, battlegrounds were really limited and chosen, and with it an elaborate process of etiquettes of war, telling when you want to fight, how you want to fight and what your formation would look like, to the enemy.

What does "right" mean?

It depends on how one look at it.

Sport science look at endurance as an performance criteria.

A Chinese chariot had a 3 men crew. The driver who stood on the front-centre positin. Behind the driver there were 2 men stood side by side, the man on the left who was the archer and commander, and another man on the right was the one armed with a polearm (usually a Ge or Ji).

I still think that the charge distance (meaning the distance between enemy archer range) would mean the chariots would have completely lapped the poor running lads when contact is made.