War chariots: human relays and car-borne infantry

It is a widespread perception that the so-called battle taxis were war chariots used to transport one heavily armed warrior to the fight and retrieve him again with the same vehicle. The warrior was not necessarily the owner of this device, but selected by the owner. Queen Boudicca's revolt or the Trojan war are memorable stories with such chariots that seem to differ from Egyptian ranged combat use of chariots.

I see no compelling reason in the ancient sources to negate the option of using such a chariot to drive in sequence more than one warrior to a battle scene. A tandem of two warriors would work much better than one due to an optional delivery of a replacement to protect the retrieval of a tired, endangered or wounded warrior. There is neither any convincing support in the primary sources for such a common sense approach.
Switching chariot warriors might have been common in various chariot fighting systems. These men performed demanding physical tasks, including ranged combat. If performing at their utmost, they would tire sooner than the horses, rendering a very expensive technical system much less effective without comparatively cheap human relays.

The difference between riding and chariotry, both known since the early days of horse domestication, is the better capability of pulling a load on wheels than carrying one on the back.Chariots give heavier loads or better endurance per horse with a technology intense solution. Many communities mastered the step from donkey cart to horse chariot with much communality of parts. The position for riding on horseback is different from the one taken above the hindquarters of a donkey, but the donkey seat is still depicted on Assyrian reliefs. The horse was probably seen as a war donkey that had quite extraordinary fodder requirements and was no economic solution for anything except warfare and fast transport.

Heavily armoured combatants with more training and increased mobility by riding/pulling animals were often used to reinforce lighter armoured infantry formations as required. Anglo-Saxon huscarls are such an example. The chariot is one means to cover such distances. Density of heavily armoured men necessary and available per area of combat would influence the degree of benefits provided by a fast transport. The effort spent on the vehicle can be used to increase the number of heavily armoured warriors instead.
Owning a chariot and equipping outstanding warriors seems like a typical approach of highlighting prestige by an aristocracy. A war fighting system can be entrenched not only in cost calculations, but in political system calculations of visible euergetism for a community.
That is certainly not the only option to use such troops, but it offers a heterodox view to reread the maryannu-stories, Iliad and the Irish sagas.

The chariot was dropped from the inventory in favour of heavy cavalry that was more versatile and less expensive. The reports of riders dismounting for combat should not be overemphasized. There is a tradition of recognizing specific military advantages throughout the ages. Mounted men could again and again find themselves in a more perilous position on horseback than on foot.