What do you think?
Rate this book
Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600BC
The domestication of the horse revolutionized warfare, granting unprecedented strategic and tactical mobility, allowing armies to strike with terrifying speed. The horse was first used as the motive force for chariots and then, in a second revolution, as mounts for the first true cavalry. The period covered encompasses the development of the first clumsy ass-drawn chariots in Sumer (of which the author built and tested a working replica for the BBC); takes in the golden age of chariot warfare resulting from the arrival of the domesticated horse and the spoked wheel, then continues down through the development of the first regular cavalry force by the Assyrians and on to their eventual overthrow by an alliance of Medes and the Scythians, wild semi-nomadic horsemen from the Eurasian steppe. As well as narrating the rise of the mounted arm through campaigns and battles, Duncan Noble draws on all his vast experience as a horseman and experimental archaeologist to discuss with great authority the development of horsemanship, horse management and training and the significant developments in horse harness and saddles.
- GenresHistory
240 pages, Hardcover
Published October 19, 2015
7 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
November 3, 2018
Noble’s Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare 3000-600 BC discusses the introduction of the chariot and its evolution as an instrument of war in Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean region. While the book strongly suggested the author was very well-versed in the subject, I found that it lacked clarity and its structure tended to obscure rather than illuminate the topics it presented.
I am sure that Noble is extremely knowledgeable regarding the development of the chariot and the domestication of horses. That is certainly clear from the text. If I took away nothing else from this book it would be that Duncan Noble knows about ancient chariots man’s interaction with horses. I would imagine that Noble’s previous works must have been well-received or that he is a known expert within the community that studies ancient Mesopotamia. In my mind, there must be a reason for his authorship of this book and the publisher’s decision to present it. I assume there must be a reason because I can find no such reason in the text.
To be blunt, I found this an extremely poorly written book. This work desperately needed an editor. I don’t want to be too harsh, but the best summation of my experience with the book is that if it were not assigned reading, I would have put it down after the first chapter.
From very early on in my readings, I was concerned with what I perceived as a lack of linear thought. Too often in Noble’s writings, pieces were dropped in – a paragraph on a different region, a sentence or two looking at a different era – that has no relation to the topic being developed. While sometimes these diversions had an impact later in the work, there was no apparent or logical reason to include these digressions at the place in which they are presented.
An example of one such diversion is the first appearance of Sintashta (p10). Noble includes a paragraph on the settlement of Sintashta in his chapter on the domestication of the horse. The paragraph before it discusses changes in the region of European-Eurasian interchange. There is no discussion of such changes in the paragraph on Sintashta. The paragraph following is part of the conclusion of the chapter, in which Sintashta plays no part. Sintashta is not encountered again until the chapter on wheeled transport before the Sumerians (p22), but the settlement is not introduced, perhaps assuming one remembers the previous introduction.
There was no logical reason to provide a one paragraph introduction on the settlement that has no bearing on the topic of the chapter, especially when the subject of the paragraph is not again discussed until 12 pages later. I would have assumed the introductory paragraph would have been better placed leading into the paragraph that discusses the settlements significance. And this is only one example of a trend that greatly annoyed me.
Unfortunately, the rest of Noble’s writing does not help to provide clarity to his thoughts or analysis. In fact, I found that the writing obscured whatever information he might be trying to convey. At one point, Noble writes: “The language of the Assyrians was Assyrian, . . . All eight dialects of this Semetic language are now extinct, although well-known to modern Assyriologist linguists who call them collectively Akkadian.” (p41) It seems, from this section, that it might have been more correct to write ‘the language of the Assyrians was Akkadian,’ but perhaps Assyrian was a dialect of Akkadian. I’m honestly not certain, because it seems to follow logically that the language is called Akkadian, but then I am left to speculate on why Noble did not simply write that. As he didn’t, I am left wondering if my understanding is correct.
And this is reflected in the contradictions that are far less common, but no less a problem. In discussing Nuzi chariots (or possibly all Hurrian chariots, it is not clear), Noble indicates that that “a chariot” was “rather Egyptian in style” (p38) which, on first reading, I took to mean that the average chariot identified at Nuzi was of the Egyptian style. Later, though, Noble writes regarding the information the Nuzi tablets provide on the Hurrians, and of their chariots he states “. . . we do not know whether their design tended towards that of the light Egyptian pattern, . . .”(p39) This led me to re-read the section and then wonder if the Hurrian chariots were different than the Nuzi chariots, or if there was a specific kind of chariot which was the Egyptian pattern. It is unclear and this is incredibly unhelpful when one is attempting to research the introduction and evolution of chariots in warfare.
In the end, I recognized that there was a wealth of information which Noble could offer and it is unfortunate his is not a strong enough writer or did not have a strong enough editor to make his book less of a challenge to decipher. Noble likely brings exceptional value to the discussion of chariots in ancient warfare but unfortunately, I found his writing unclear, and the structure of the prose unsound.
I am sure that Noble is extremely knowledgeable regarding the development of the chariot and the domestication of horses. That is certainly clear from the text. If I took away nothing else from this book it would be that Duncan Noble knows about ancient chariots man’s interaction with horses. I would imagine that Noble’s previous works must have been well-received or that he is a known expert within the community that studies ancient Mesopotamia. In my mind, there must be a reason for his authorship of this book and the publisher’s decision to present it. I assume there must be a reason because I can find no such reason in the text.
To be blunt, I found this an extremely poorly written book. This work desperately needed an editor. I don’t want to be too harsh, but the best summation of my experience with the book is that if it were not assigned reading, I would have put it down after the first chapter.
From very early on in my readings, I was concerned with what I perceived as a lack of linear thought. Too often in Noble’s writings, pieces were dropped in – a paragraph on a different region, a sentence or two looking at a different era – that has no relation to the topic being developed. While sometimes these diversions had an impact later in the work, there was no apparent or logical reason to include these digressions at the place in which they are presented.
An example of one such diversion is the first appearance of Sintashta (p10). Noble includes a paragraph on the settlement of Sintashta in his chapter on the domestication of the horse. The paragraph before it discusses changes in the region of European-Eurasian interchange. There is no discussion of such changes in the paragraph on Sintashta. The paragraph following is part of the conclusion of the chapter, in which Sintashta plays no part. Sintashta is not encountered again until the chapter on wheeled transport before the Sumerians (p22), but the settlement is not introduced, perhaps assuming one remembers the previous introduction.
There was no logical reason to provide a one paragraph introduction on the settlement that has no bearing on the topic of the chapter, especially when the subject of the paragraph is not again discussed until 12 pages later. I would have assumed the introductory paragraph would have been better placed leading into the paragraph that discusses the settlements significance. And this is only one example of a trend that greatly annoyed me.
Unfortunately, the rest of Noble’s writing does not help to provide clarity to his thoughts or analysis. In fact, I found that the writing obscured whatever information he might be trying to convey. At one point, Noble writes: “The language of the Assyrians was Assyrian, . . . All eight dialects of this Semetic language are now extinct, although well-known to modern Assyriologist linguists who call them collectively Akkadian.” (p41) It seems, from this section, that it might have been more correct to write ‘the language of the Assyrians was Akkadian,’ but perhaps Assyrian was a dialect of Akkadian. I’m honestly not certain, because it seems to follow logically that the language is called Akkadian, but then I am left to speculate on why Noble did not simply write that. As he didn’t, I am left wondering if my understanding is correct.
And this is reflected in the contradictions that are far less common, but no less a problem. In discussing Nuzi chariots (or possibly all Hurrian chariots, it is not clear), Noble indicates that that “a chariot” was “rather Egyptian in style” (p38) which, on first reading, I took to mean that the average chariot identified at Nuzi was of the Egyptian style. Later, though, Noble writes regarding the information the Nuzi tablets provide on the Hurrians, and of their chariots he states “. . . we do not know whether their design tended towards that of the light Egyptian pattern, . . .”(p39) This led me to re-read the section and then wonder if the Hurrian chariots were different than the Nuzi chariots, or if there was a specific kind of chariot which was the Egyptian pattern. It is unclear and this is incredibly unhelpful when one is attempting to research the introduction and evolution of chariots in warfare.
In the end, I recognized that there was a wealth of information which Noble could offer and it is unfortunate his is not a strong enough writer or did not have a strong enough editor to make his book less of a challenge to decipher. Noble likely brings exceptional value to the discussion of chariots in ancient warfare but unfortunately, I found his writing unclear, and the structure of the prose unsound.
August 22, 2025
Dawn of the Horse Warriors: Chariot and Cavalry Warfare, 3000-600 BC is Duncan Nobel’s attempt to cover the early emergence and use of horses in ancient warfare. With background in archaeology and horsemanship, Duncan should provide a helpful prospective and insight into this period and development.
First off, I appreciate his definition of war. “Here I am defining war as organized violence by a state against another state for political ends, undertaken by men who are, if only for the time being, involved exclusively in the fighting.” I think this is helpful, as he uses it to differentiate the use of horses and mounted warriors for raiding, thief and general violence. This helped set the parameters and his timeline starting in 3,000 BC makes sense as the rise of organized states is necessary for warfare. I also think Noble’s personal familiarity with horses is beneficial, as one of the strengths of the book is in establishing the difference between domestication and tame animals . I had never heard the difference articulated like that and helped me frame the relationship of humans and animals, especially in light that there were other animals used in some scenarios for pulling war carts/chariots before the horse became universal.
I did not like the organizational structure of the book. I understand that he wanted to break it into regions to allow comparison and analysis. I imagine it was also easier to keep each region and culture siloed in that way. It also makes it easier for the reader because it limits the scope of information in each section to those regional boundaries. The problem I had with it is it breaks up any sort of timeline flow and makes the development arch of mounted warfare hard to follow. Was there a diffusion of technology or spreading of horsemanship practices? Did the different groups influence each other, or was there independent parallel development? While I felt like the answers to some of these questions could be gleaned from the book, the structure made it less clear.
Also, while the structure makes sure every region and subgroup is covered, I think it also lent itself to some irrelevant discussion. Some groups are covered that we have little evidence for or are basically a derivative of the surrounding powers. Noble dwells on some of these groups without advancing the topic, and I feel could have been delt with in less detail if he was not following this regional structure. Like the section on the Indian subcontinent and the fact that there is no evidence for military chariots. While I appreciated that he defined his use of the term Indian subcontinent and why he still used it, I am not sure the section needed to be in the book at all.
I would have liked to see more discussion on the uses of chariots in combat. It is hard not to contrast this book with the previous one, A Storm of Spears, and how much effort in that book was done to make practical experimentation. I think Noble’s was too quick to adopt the idea that chariots were status weapons, like the battleships of South American countries, instead of how they would have given their owners a tactical edge in war. Noble comes to the conclusion that “chariots were prestigious, wildly expensive, and much cherished, although their actual military value was uncertain.” I understand that we are limited in our knowledge of how chariots were used, but for this book to make a meaningful contribution to the subject, there must be more thought into the why and how, even if that is an analysis of mount warfare after the time parameters of this book. A deeper discussion of mounted warfare in general would have at least allowed some projection back into how things might have been done.
In the chapter on the Mycenaeans, Noble makes this statement “This all comes down to in my opinion, based on driving and riding experience, that a chariot is an extremely dangerous vehicle to be in unless the people you are charging are already scattered and running away.” I think this is the strength of this book and one that I wish Noble had leaned into more. He is a horseman, and his practical experience was important to all the parts of the book that were the most relevant. Like any good horseman, he cares about the animals themselves, and that care comes across especially in the chapters on the domestication of the horse. While I think that overall the book is lacking, I do appreciate Noble’s effort.
First off, I appreciate his definition of war. “Here I am defining war as organized violence by a state against another state for political ends, undertaken by men who are, if only for the time being, involved exclusively in the fighting.” I think this is helpful, as he uses it to differentiate the use of horses and mounted warriors for raiding, thief and general violence. This helped set the parameters and his timeline starting in 3,000 BC makes sense as the rise of organized states is necessary for warfare. I also think Noble’s personal familiarity with horses is beneficial, as one of the strengths of the book is in establishing the difference between domestication and tame animals . I had never heard the difference articulated like that and helped me frame the relationship of humans and animals, especially in light that there were other animals used in some scenarios for pulling war carts/chariots before the horse became universal.
I did not like the organizational structure of the book. I understand that he wanted to break it into regions to allow comparison and analysis. I imagine it was also easier to keep each region and culture siloed in that way. It also makes it easier for the reader because it limits the scope of information in each section to those regional boundaries. The problem I had with it is it breaks up any sort of timeline flow and makes the development arch of mounted warfare hard to follow. Was there a diffusion of technology or spreading of horsemanship practices? Did the different groups influence each other, or was there independent parallel development? While I felt like the answers to some of these questions could be gleaned from the book, the structure made it less clear.
Also, while the structure makes sure every region and subgroup is covered, I think it also lent itself to some irrelevant discussion. Some groups are covered that we have little evidence for or are basically a derivative of the surrounding powers. Noble dwells on some of these groups without advancing the topic, and I feel could have been delt with in less detail if he was not following this regional structure. Like the section on the Indian subcontinent and the fact that there is no evidence for military chariots. While I appreciated that he defined his use of the term Indian subcontinent and why he still used it, I am not sure the section needed to be in the book at all.
I would have liked to see more discussion on the uses of chariots in combat. It is hard not to contrast this book with the previous one, A Storm of Spears, and how much effort in that book was done to make practical experimentation. I think Noble’s was too quick to adopt the idea that chariots were status weapons, like the battleships of South American countries, instead of how they would have given their owners a tactical edge in war. Noble comes to the conclusion that “chariots were prestigious, wildly expensive, and much cherished, although their actual military value was uncertain.” I understand that we are limited in our knowledge of how chariots were used, but for this book to make a meaningful contribution to the subject, there must be more thought into the why and how, even if that is an analysis of mount warfare after the time parameters of this book. A deeper discussion of mounted warfare in general would have at least allowed some projection back into how things might have been done.
In the chapter on the Mycenaeans, Noble makes this statement “This all comes down to in my opinion, based on driving and riding experience, that a chariot is an extremely dangerous vehicle to be in unless the people you are charging are already scattered and running away.” I think this is the strength of this book and one that I wish Noble had leaned into more. He is a horseman, and his practical experience was important to all the parts of the book that were the most relevant. Like any good horseman, he cares about the animals themselves, and that care comes across especially in the chapters on the domestication of the horse. While I think that overall the book is lacking, I do appreciate Noble’s effort.
September 14, 2025
There is no doubt that Duncan Noble is both an expert and very passionate about this niche area of ancient history/warfare. The information provided by the book is solidly fascinating and revelatory. Though I personally disagree with the assessment on the need for a saddle for armed calvary to exist and participate in combat.
I recommend that the reader has at minimum an intermediary knowledge of horse anatomy and riding experience before trying to read this. I have to assume some knowledge with driving is helpful but I didn't have any going into the book and assumed Noble would explain the particulars (spoiler: he did not)
Where the book falls severely short is in the editing. Oftentimes chapters will wander off onto tangents or repeat word for word sentences that were said in previous chapters. It at best feels like padding to reach a certain word count and at worst makes the reader wonder just what the hell this train of thought has to do with chariots, calvary, and horse domestication/taming.
Likewise, I found the descriptions/explanations of the different rigs/chariot types to be both under and over explained. Noble will happily tell you (in detail and in rapid-fire style) where the axel is/how large everything was/how many spokes a wheel has but will neglect to explain why that's important or how it affects the functionality for both domestic and military purposes. Which is surprising considering he admitted his own limited experience with driving and how he just assumed the average non-equestrian reader would understand. Photos and diagrams were sorely missed in this area as well as it might have helped keeping all the different chariot types straight.
Overall, a genuinely good attempt at explaining a very specific topic. A few pitfalls here and there that may be frustrating to some readers but nothing that prevents one from finishing it(it is a short read). I loved the appendix chapter on the adventure with the donkeys and recreating the Sumerian battle wagon (Go Alfie Go!)
I recommend that the reader has at minimum an intermediary knowledge of horse anatomy and riding experience before trying to read this. I have to assume some knowledge with driving is helpful but I didn't have any going into the book and assumed Noble would explain the particulars (spoiler: he did not)
Where the book falls severely short is in the editing. Oftentimes chapters will wander off onto tangents or repeat word for word sentences that were said in previous chapters. It at best feels like padding to reach a certain word count and at worst makes the reader wonder just what the hell this train of thought has to do with chariots, calvary, and horse domestication/taming.
Likewise, I found the descriptions/explanations of the different rigs/chariot types to be both under and over explained. Noble will happily tell you (in detail and in rapid-fire style) where the axel is/how large everything was/how many spokes a wheel has but will neglect to explain why that's important or how it affects the functionality for both domestic and military purposes. Which is surprising considering he admitted his own limited experience with driving and how he just assumed the average non-equestrian reader would understand. Photos and diagrams were sorely missed in this area as well as it might have helped keeping all the different chariot types straight.
Overall, a genuinely good attempt at explaining a very specific topic. A few pitfalls here and there that may be frustrating to some readers but nothing that prevents one from finishing it(it is a short read). I loved the appendix chapter on the adventure with the donkeys and recreating the Sumerian battle wagon (Go Alfie Go!)
April 11, 2019
This is a tremendously interesting book but unfortunately it also has problems. Firstly the good - Duncan Noble is obviously an expert in this field (PhD in Development of Transport in Ancient Mesopotamia) which he shares well and he isn't afraid to raise questions and give negative answers. For example I was particularly interested in the tactical use of chariots, but basically Noble could tell us - 'look we just don't know... and furthermore they may not have had all that much use other than status'. So I didn't get what I wanted but I feel I got as good as it gets.
The appendix covering his 1972 experimental archaeology project in recreating a Sumerian 'battle wagon' was fascinating and illuminating and a really good read. However that is where the problems come. Frankly the rest of the book isn't a great read. It comes across like a verbatim record of the sort of chat you might get from an expert at a museum giving a public talk. Thus it throws in a lot of very basic historical background as well as broad overviews of strategic environments (which actually is quite refreshing in its own right, even though it seems somewhat incongruent for a specialist topic). Then there are pet theories repeated randomly all over the place, there are jumps backward as if an afterthought came that needed to be inserted, or leaps into other themes breaking with the chapter topic. All this cried out for a really solid editing prior to publication.
Also there are lot of places where a diagram is really needed instead of e.g. an incomprehensible description of harness arrangements. There is a good spread of photos, but the necessary technical modern line illustrations could surely have been obtained somewhere! Also I am somewhat mystified why more attention isn't given to how the chariot is attached to the horses as surely a critical matter?
Nevertheless despite considerable issues the book has a lot going for it and I remain pleased I spent the money to buy it.
The appendix covering his 1972 experimental archaeology project in recreating a Sumerian 'battle wagon' was fascinating and illuminating and a really good read. However that is where the problems come. Frankly the rest of the book isn't a great read. It comes across like a verbatim record of the sort of chat you might get from an expert at a museum giving a public talk. Thus it throws in a lot of very basic historical background as well as broad overviews of strategic environments (which actually is quite refreshing in its own right, even though it seems somewhat incongruent for a specialist topic). Then there are pet theories repeated randomly all over the place, there are jumps backward as if an afterthought came that needed to be inserted, or leaps into other themes breaking with the chapter topic. All this cried out for a really solid editing prior to publication.
Also there are lot of places where a diagram is really needed instead of e.g. an incomprehensible description of harness arrangements. There is a good spread of photos, but the necessary technical modern line illustrations could surely have been obtained somewhere! Also I am somewhat mystified why more attention isn't given to how the chariot is attached to the horses as surely a critical matter?
Nevertheless despite considerable issues the book has a lot going for it and I remain pleased I spent the money to buy it.
February 21, 2025
A good topic, but one that Noble clearly only had enough material to write a journal article for. This book is mostly a rambling history of various ancient civilizations, with some mentions of how the horse affected their style of warfare throughout. The writing is poor, and I don’t even understand how this book went through an editor (if it did at all).
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews