How do you defeat an army based on light cavalry in the middle ages?

I'm currently thinking about writing a TL based on the premise that the Magyars lose the Battle of Pressburg in 907.

Even though the classical horse-archer and light cavalry based armies used by various nomad or semi-nomad peoples in eastern Europe during the Middle Ages (Avars, Magyars, etc.) were without a doubt effective in their time, there are plenty of examples of central European, infantry-based armies with cavalry support successfully beating the aforementioned armies.

Examples include the successes of Charlemagne against the Avars, Margrave Luitpold (the one who lost the Battle of Pressurg) winning several battles against the Magyars in the lead up to Pressburg, his son Arnulf the Evil forcing the Magyars to conclude a negotiated peace, and most prominently, Otto the Great winning the Battle of Lechfeld.

A battle relatively similar to ones mentioned above was the battle of Tours in 732.

All of these Frankish/German armies have in common, that while they had small amounts of cavalry, that fulfilled important roles, they still relied primarily on the traditional germanic infantry.

So, how did they do it? It seems like the solution is a combination of clever use of the terrain and the relatively small amount of cavalry to force the enemy into melee, but I really would like to hear some of you input on this matter.

Terrian was really important to winning an encounter with these types of horse dominated armies. But another was tactics and discipline. If you could hem the horse arches into a place where they can't get away, the shield walls and other formations can do their damage. But, you had to have your probably not well trained miltia levy stand there and take a hit while you maneuver in. Most battles pre-modern were basically just force the other side to flee. One of the reasons the cavalry archers were so devastating was that when they fled, no one could catch them. Pre- modern European armis could not really handle them because their rank and file were poorly trained militia levy after the fall of the Roman Empire. Even the Romans had problems winning against cavalry armies (Sassinids, Attila the Hun, Visigoths, etc. etc.).

*Went on a tangent, sorry.

There are extracts of the Byzantine Strategikon and Taktika on the web, they tell you how to beat everyone from Central Europe to the Persian Gulf.

Riain said:

There are extracts of the Byzantine Strategikon and Taktika on the web, they tell you how to beat everyone from Central Europe to the Persian Gulf.

Click to expand...

Too bad the Greeks didn't read that, I guess.

A lot of it depends on the terrain and the objectives of each side. If the battle is on flat, open ground and that light cavalry doesn't have to achieve anything but survive, you're going to be hard-pressed to stop them from just continually pulling away.

If you're in more restrictive terrain, you might be able to use those small groups of cavalry (backed up by infantry) to block their avenues of disengagement.

If, of course, the situation is such that the light cavalry has to seize some objective to be successful (i.e. they're attacking), then they'll likely suffer heavily attacking shield walls.

Note that many of these victories were defensive. Infantry can hold ground much better than take it, and when you're defending, the choice of terrain is yours more often than not. In the end, most of this is speculation, though, because a lot of battle descriptions in historical sources are highly imaginative at best, often entirely fictitious.

Well-documented instances, including those from later periods, can give you some ideas how to proceed, though. After all, many sedentary armies defeated steppe nomads. More often than not, the process is not pretty. You want to avoid pitched battles except on your own terms and concentrate on undercutting the enemy's supplies, destroying their mobility and penning them into inhospitable terrain. Numbers will usually be on the side of the sedentary army.

As has been addressed, the most likely recourse for the traditional medieval army was to force the enemy army of light cavalry to fight on terms that were disadvantageous: Nothing beats an army of steppe nomads quite like forcing them to attack a well-fortified position. This requires commanders who are well aware of the relative strengths of their forces and those of the enemy, as well as judicious usage of their resources to bring the enemy to battle on their terms, which is no small part of why the armies of Latin Europe had a mixed record against cavalry armies.

The alternative, which was generally not available to Latin Christendom, was what was practiced by the Byzantines: Armies of professional soldiers who themselves are trained as horse archers, so that like could confront like and crush them thanks to the discipline and morale coming from usage of professionals. (Well, when the Byzantines confronted the steppe nomads directly: Most of the time it was easier to get one group to fight the others as their proxy.)

Fortified positions and advantageous terrain is really what you need. Take their mobility away.

carlton_bach said:

Note that many of these victories were defensive. Infantry can hold ground much better than take it, and when you're defending, the choice of terrain is yours more often than not. In the end, most of this is speculation, though, because a lot of battle descriptions in historical sources are highly imaginative at best, often entirely fictitious.

Well-documented instances, including those from later periods, can give you some ideas how to proceed, though. After all, many sedentary armies defeated steppe nomads. More often than not, the process is not pretty. You want to avoid pitched battles except on your own terms and concentrate on undercutting the enemy's supplies, destroying their mobility and penning them into inhospitable terrain. Numbers will usually be on the side of the sedentary army.

Click to expand...

You do that by sowing "minefields" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop)
and fixed defences that are quick to assemble, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval_de_frise. once you have the enemy in the killing zone laydown massed fire from slings. archers, and artillery http://www.romanarmy.net/artillery.shtml. firing from prepared camoflaged defences.

Leave Byzantium alone

Faeelin said:

Too bad the Greeks didn't read that, I guess.

Click to expand...

Hey man, the Strategikon worked really well, it was the Muslim Arabs that the Strategikon did not account for that caused all the damage to the empire and allowed Lombards and Slave to cross Byzantine borders.

Sior said:

You do that by sowing "minefields" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrop)
and fixed defences that are quick to assemble, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheval_de_frise. once you have the enemy in the killing zone laydown massed fire from slings. archers, and artillery http://www.romanarmy.net/artillery.shtml. firing from prepared camoflaged defences.

Click to expand...

Too bad the Romans were unable to even do what the migration-era Goths did, then (which is, set up lasting settlements in Hungary and Ukraine).

Everything is so easy in tactic books, really.

In reality, most frontier nations facing nomadic neighbours used a combination of 1. divide and conquer 2. fort building esp. at river crossings 3. firing the grasslands.

That's basically how it's done. Further, nomadic armies and wagenburgs went hand in hand; in fact all 'nomadic' armies described even halfway well used wagons as mobile fortifications themselves, not to mention dismounting for long-ranged archery duels was pretty standard for most historical horse archer armies.

It's also worth noting that foot archers were generally a lot cheaper, more effective, and more numerous than horse archers.

This is why the infantry base of the Achaemenid Persian army was focused around the use of the spear and bow (both very useful at countering enemy cavalry), and why the e.g. Chinese campaigns against nomads often focused around mounted crossbowmen who could outrange steppe light cavalry. I don't know how strong the Carolingian archery units were (probably not very), but it's worth exploring if that could be improved

An effective strategy for the Bavarians at Pressburg without changing much about their army structure could probably involve a combination of scorched earth (exhausting the Magyar horses by killing their feed), use of long-distance artillery (mangonels were present in the standard Carolingian Army), and luring the Hungarians into melee range, this last one being the most difficult.

As for how that would be accomplished, one specific tactic that has been used successfully against steppe nomads would be to 'sacrifice' a less mobile part of your army as a lure, allowing the enemy to surround it, and suddenly attacking with your more mobile main forces. This strategy is broadly comparable to the one used by Alexander the Great at the Jaxartes (329 BC) and the Crusaders at Dorylaeum (1097 AD), though certainly very risky.

Seleucus said:

It's also worth noting that foot archers were generally a lot cheaper, more effective, and more numerous than horse archers.

Click to expand...

Depends on time period. In the gunpowder era, forces with large archer components drew them from traditional and elite layers of society, to the point where large losses could not be restored at all. See loss of Ottoman marines from Lepanto onwards, as well as the decline of Qing banner armies. Foot archers aren't always cheap; nor are they always very effective. Saheli archer armies have a consistent history of being brushed aside by local and invading chivalry.

Chinese campaigns against nomads often focused around mounted crossbowmen who could outrange steppe light cavalry. But that wouldn't be relevant to 907 AD.

Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? Tang armies of that time and preceding century+ were basically mounted foot archers; they were smallish, mobile, and very good at what they did.

I don't know of any examples of crossbows in wide use in China that could actually outrange bows, but they could certainly put out a much higher volume of shots.

As for how that would be accomplished, one specific tactic that has been used successfully against steppe nomads would be to 'sacrifice' a less mobile part of your army as a lure, allowing the enemy to surround it, and suddenly attacking with your more mobile main forces. This strategy is broadly comparable to the one used by Alexander the Great at the Jaxartes (329 BC) and the Crusaders at Dorylaeum (1097 AD), though certainly very risky.

Click to expand...

The battle of Snipes' Field/Kulikovo Pole basically was the same grand tactic, as were many of the Mamluk battles against the Ilkhanids.

It's doable if you have very good cavalry of your own.

The Romans had their share of defeats against such armies, but they also had quite a few victories, and the key was fighting on terrain favorable to heavy infantry and unfavorable to cavalry, as well as forcing siege combat as much as possible.

The campaigns of Bassus against the Parthians was prime example of this, as was Trajan's.

Do what the Romans did--set up your own horse archers and recruit mercenaries or defeated ones if you don't think yours are enough.

another tactic sometime used by Byzantine or Chinese is ambush them when they attempt to go home after successful raid, nomadic armies burdened with cattle, slaves and loot can lost its mobility advantage.

Faeelin said:

Too bad the Greeks didn't read that, I guess.

Click to expand...

Manzikert was lost by treachery rather than by an inability to counter light horsemen, even so the Komnenos' were able to regain 1/3 of Anatolia from the Turks in the decades after Manzikert. This also doesn't take into consideration tribe after tribe that appeared from the steppes that the Byzantines defeated, outlasted or outsmarted such as the Huns, Avars, Cumans and Penchenegs.

The Crusaders dealt with light horsemen by crossbow infantry keeping them at bay and heavy cavalry charging when the opportunity arose.

PhilippeO said:

another tactic sometime used by Byzantine or Chinese is ambush them when they attempt to go home after successful raid, nomadic armies burdened with cattle, slaves and loot can lost its mobility advantage.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much ineffective when you are fighting a pitch battle.There's also the fact that the enemies would have already done much damage(killing a lot of people and destroying a lot of farms and businesses).

Thank you for all the helpful answers!

I think I already know what i'm going to do.

Can I suggest a TL where the Magyars do better would be far more fun and likelier?

Their advantage was they could fire their bows faster compared to the settled. And Arpad was a genius of the steppe like Genghis Khan.

For the 'losses' beforehand were standard nomad deception tactics; and it speaks badly to Luitpold's "smarts" that he was suckered by a standard neighbor trick.

Remember the Mongolian empire was one of the biggest ever. And it had good freedom of religion, way before Christians. And good protection and encouragement for merchants.