What could beat horsearchery?

Users who are viewing this thread

I am dreadfully sorry if this type of topic have already been discussed. If it have then please provide me with a link or a kick in the but, and I'll delete the topic.

My real question is, was there really any medieval "way of war" that could smash the Parthian Tactics (sorry if I'm wrong, what I mean is ride in circles and fire at enemy, hit and run, and other effective uses of horsearchery, like the Huns and Mongols and probably some other people used).

The way I see it its pretty damn good!

The only drawback would be:

Hard to make insane bows (yes, it was hard to make the type of bows the Mongols used)

Lots of training (then again, the Mongols and other steppenomads basically grew up in the saddle)

Lots of horses.



So.. How effective was this type of warfare? Did the Europeans really have a "cure" for it?

As far as I remember, the "horde" campaigns from the east was ended in such ways:

Attila the Hun: (quote from Wikipedia) "Attila was succeeded by his eldest son, Ellak. However, Attila's other sons, Dengizich and Ernakh challenged Ellak for the throne. Taking advantage of the situation, subjugated tribes rose up in rebellion. The year after Attila's death, the Huns were defeated in the Battle of Nedao. In 469, Dengizik, the last Hunnic King and successor of Ellak, died. This date is seen as the end of the Hunnic Empire. It is believed by some historians that descendants of the Huns formed the Bulgarian Empire, which stretched over the Balkans, Pannonia and Scythia."

Gengis Khan: (again, quote from Wikipedia) "With the death of Abu Said Bahatur Khan in 1335, the Mongol rule in Persia fell into political anarchy. A year later his successor was killed by an Oirat governor and the Ilkhanate was divided between the Suldus, the Jalayir, Qasarid Togha Temür (d.1353) and Persian warlords. Using the dissolution, the Georgians had already pushed out the Mongols when Uyghur commander Eretna established an independent state in Anatolia in 1336. Following the downfall of their Mongol masters, all-time loyal vassal Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was threatened by the Mamluks more. Alongside the lost of Mongol colony in Persia, Mongol rulers of the Yuan and Chagatai Khanate were in a turmoil so deep that it threatened continuation of their power. Much fear arose outside the Mongol court. The Black Death began in the densely inhabited Mongol dominions from 1313 to 1331. This disastrous plague devastated all khanates, cutting off commercial ties and killing off millions. By the end of the 14th century, it may have taken 70-100 million lives of Africa, Asia and Europe."

As far as I can see, the "horde" campaigns were not beaten on the battlefield, but by powerstruggle.

So, again I ask, did the Europeans (or Asians) have any way of effectively beating them on the battlefield?
 
You always make me feel stupid : )

Of course, terrain is a major factor.

But, apart from that, did the chaps of the time have any way to beat them on the field? Where there ever any countertactic to this on the open field?
 
Well, if one is given time to prepare, one could have an army dig gofer holes around the place where the battle will take place or place similar traps for the horses.
The trick is to get the horse archers to fight you on that field however. Besieging an important settlement usually does the trick.
 
All armies have to rest, as well, even Mongol ones.  That can always be taken advantage of by holding ground or somesuch.  I'm no military tactician, unless it's Rome Total war, so I wouldn't know.

Well armored Romans in a testudo work really well.
 
Dudro said:
All armies have to rest, as well, even Mongol ones.  That can always be taken advantage of by holding ground or somesuch.  I'm no military tactician, unless it's Rome Total war, so I wouldn't know.

Well armored Romans in a testudo work really well.
At not getting killed, not at killing the horsearchers.
 
Shoot the shield in the right place, and although it can't go through enough, I'm sure it does go through enough to wound a hand. Besides, testudoes were only good for short term situations, unless you can hold it together for a few days marching, the guys with the horses are going to wear the formation down before it can do anything.

The only viable way to kill them directly is from either accurate, or massed counter fire from covered positions. Archers, crossbows, and even arquebuse work well if used right.
 
Yes, they were defeated several times. In fact, Genghis' success owes more to his numbers than his tactics (Atilla really got lucky in being up against Romans who had something of a blind spot for horse archers).
 
stygN said:
Horse archers .. ... did the Europeans (or Asians) have any way of effectively beating them on the battlefield?
A good defence against horse archers was to set mantlets or wagons in a ring around defenders. A wagon-fort made from dedicated war-wagons which are chained together was almost unbeatable until light field-artillery become available.

More information can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort
 
stygN said:
Horse archers .. ... did the Europeans (or Asians) have any way of effectively beating them on the battlefield?
A good defence against horse archers was to set mantlets or wagons in a ring around defenders. A wagon-fort made from dedicated war-wagons which are chained together was almost unbeatable until light field-artillery become available.

More information can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wagon_fort
 
An erectable static defence was a good way to counter them, that is if you had a good way to shoot back at them. An army of archers could just set up a quickly built up fort like structure and wait until the horse archers got close enough.

But then wagon rings and forts surrounded by a mobile enemy that's not willing to put itself into firing range is going to need relief forces.
 
Another tactic is to use [insert correct name, I cannot remmember]. In the most simple form, they are made by bending two long iron nails 90 degrees, then joining them in the kink so that all four spikes head in different directions. Sharpen the tips if nescessary, then use a small field catapult or even handheld slings to throw these into the path of the horses. these evil things will (almost) always land with one tip up, just waiting to pierce the soft flesh of an enemy horse's sole.
 
Heavy cavalry could beat a steppe army (Kulikovo - although admittedly the Russians were heavily influenced by steppe tactics). So could Chinese rebels (the Ming rebellion against the Mongol Yuan, although I'm not terribly familiar with the campaign).

I'm not sure horse archery itself was the really decisive element of the steppe army's success. Many steppe nomad victories -- Carrhae, Kalka river -- were ultimately decided by a shock charge, and both Mongols and Parthians invested in armored shock cavalry. Other successful pastoralist armies -- the Arabs of the early conquests -- were just as successful as the Mongols, but did not really bother with mounted archery much at all. I suspect that mounted archery was most effective at very close range, where it mingled with meless, and that long-distance arrow-pelting was more demoralizing than lethal.

The nomads could put together armies that were disproportionate in size to their population. But I'd say that the biggest advantage of the nomads was not so much their overpowering military might on any given day, but their ability to retreat into terrain where they could logistically support themselves (via grass-eating ponies) and larger, agrarian armies based on grain-fed draft animals could not sustain themselves for very long. Thus, the nomads could always probe against an agrarian kingdom. If it's strong, then they fade back into the steppe. If it's weak, then they may win a spectacular victory.

Agrarian kingdoms in contrast might try to encourage internal discord and disarray among the nomads, but were not logistically capable of taking advantage of it. However, if nomads took control of farmland, they could be beaten and dislodged like anyone else (the breaking of the "Tartar yoke" in Russia, or the Ming rebellion in China).

In other words, nomads win not because they're better fighters, but because they could choose when to fight.
 
So, the way to beat them is mainly traps and battlefield defences, like the wagonfort. Ditch in and try to pick them off with ranged weapons, hope that they steer a bit closer to you to try to hit you behind your defence and then hit them back.

Sounds rather effective, yes. The bows they used was very powerfull, but it would not take too much of a wall or wagon to stop the arrows.

Thanks for the many replies : )
 
nijis said:
Heavy cavalry could beat a steppe army (Kulikovo - although admittedly the Russians were heavily influenced by steppe tactics). So could Chinese rebels (the Ming rebellion against the Mongol Yuan, although I'm not terribly familiar with the campaign).

I'm not sure horse archery itself was the really decisive element of the steppe army's success. Many steppe nomad victories -- Carrhae, Kalka river -- were ultimately decided by a shock charge, and both Mongols and Parthians invested in armored shock cavalry. Other successful pastoralist armies -- the Arabs of the early conquests -- were just as successful as the Mongols, but did not really bother with mounted archery much at all. I suspect that mounted archery was most effective at very close range, where it mingled with meless, and that long-distance arrow-pelting was more demoralizing than lethal.

The nomads could put together armies that were disproportionate in size to their population. But I'd say that the biggest advantage of the nomads was not so much their overpowering military might on any given day, but their ability to retreat into terrain where they could logistically support themselves (via grass-eating ponies) and larger, agrarian armies based on grain-fed draft animals could not sustain themselves for very long. Thus, the nomads could always probe against an agrarian kingdom. If it's strong, then they fade back into the steppe. If it's weak, then they may win a spectacular victory.

Agrarian kingdoms in contrast might try to encourage internal discord and disarray among the nomads, but were not logistically capable of taking advantage of it. However, if nomads took control of farmland, they could be beaten and dislodged like anyone else (the breaking of the "Tartar yoke" in Russia, or the Ming rebellion in China).

In other words, nomads win not because they're better fighters, but because they could choose when to fight.
A very good point. In battlefield terms a force of pure heavy infantry/cavalry versus horse archers is a stalemate waiting to happen; the horse archers can stay out of reach, but at long range they're at most a nuisance to well-protected foes. If they close to inflict more damage at short range they risk being surprised by an enemy rush (and if this succeeds even one time in ten and they end up in melee, the horse archers will be butchered)  or simply taking at least as many losses as their opponents from whatever thrown or shot weapons the other side has. Of course in practice no army was ever entirely made up of horse archers.
 
Back
Top Bottom