AHC:Light cavalry tactics more favoured than heavy cavalry tactics in Europe by 1000.

[Petike]

Just wondering,what would it take for light cavalry tactics,especially horse archery and Parthian shot,to be the primary military doctrine of most feudal European armies(especially the ones from Western Europe) instead of heavy shock cavalry tactics like couched lance charge?

The trend since late Antiquity had been that mounted armies in Europe were heading towards the effective use of heavy cavalry as a primary offensive force. The development of the Roman cataphract in both the east and the west was a testament to this period trend. Further-developed cavalry spathas became predecessors to later medieval one-handed cavalry swords, including the Frankish/Viking/Slavic/etc. cavalry arming swords of the 8th-11th century. Germanic cavalry that inspired Roman cataphracts evolved over the course of some three or four centuries into Frankish proto-knight cavalrymen. (And, ironically, the Frankish cavalry also borrowed some conventions back from the late Roman cataphract model.)

To reverse the steadily rising prominence of heavy cavalry in late-ancient and early medieval Europe would require some very good reasons, but it's hard to find plausible ones. Unless there is some major societal/ethnic/political upheaval throughout much of the continent, I can't see light cavalry gaining (or regaining) a primary role in mounted combat.

Also, watch this video if you're convinced that horse archers would pwn everyone. They wouldn't. Ancient Magyars learned it the hard way. The Mongols in the 13th century were only as successful as they were because they had extremely good organisation and discipline in their army and amassed a gigantic force by the time they reached Europe.

 

[darthfanta]

The trend since late Antiquity had been that mounted armies in Europe were heading towards the effective use of heavy cavalry as a primary offensive force. The development of the Roman cataphract in both the east and the west was a testament to this period trend. Further-developed cavalry spathas became predecessors to later medieval one-handed cavalry swords, including the Frankish/Viking/Slavic/etc. cavalry arming swords of the 8th-11th century. Germanic cavalry that inspired Roman cataphracts evolved over the course of some three or four centuries into Frankish proto-knight cavalrymen. (And, ironically, the Frankish cavalry also borrowed some conventions back from the late Roman cataphract model.)

To reverse the steadily rising prominence of heavy cavalry in late-ancient and early medieval Europe would require some very good reasons, but it's hard to find plausible ones. Unless there is some major societal/ethnic/political upheaval throughout much of the continent, I can't see light cavalry gaining (or regaining) a primary role in mounted combat.

Also, watch this video if you're convinced that horse archers would pwn everyone. They wouldn't. Ancient Magyars learned it the hard way. The Mongols in the 13th century were only as successful as they were because they had extremely good organisation and discipline in their army and amassed a gigantic force by the time they reached Europe.

I would have agreed if it wasn't for this post.

Whooah, this is extreme "great man theory" in military. Good Leader can't magically solve every problem.

The advantage of cavalry over infantry is its "mobility", it could pick and choose place for battle. Rome - Parthia war is unusual example because nearness of Parthia capital to Rome border. Infantry only army used offensively against cavalry will suffer harassment everywhere, in its flank, in its supply line, and cavalry will offer battle when it have advantage, and retreat when infantry has advantage to return later.

And crossbows wouldn't help much, Infantry crossbows (or infantry archer) would have advantage when its defensive, their bow could be heavier for longer range, and they could use wall and other defensive installation to weaken horse archer. Infantry Crossbowmen moving would have a lot disadvantage, they would use smaller crossbow, they need to take care of string supply, horse archer could attack them when they unprepared then immediately retreat, etc.

I can't comment on how badly or kindly Song treated their military officers, but I always thought Song decision regarding Yue Fei was correct, Yue Fei is military warmonger who push song toward war with great risk of losing.

And other dynasty treatment of military affairs is often worse than Song, hiding map until battle, didn't supply adequate resource, and execute general is practiced by a lot of Chinese Emperor, even those who militarily capable. need for military victory should be balanced with risk of rebellion, there are a lot of case of general replacing monarchs after all.

Basically,who would use horse archers to defend or attack a hill?That's just wrong.You simply wouldn't be defending or attacking a hill with horse archers.You would be the one doing the attacking,and wait till when your enemy isn't on a hill,when they are unready for an attack.Basically,horse archers have the advantage of initiative and mobility .

 

[Tripledot]

Before the High Middle Ages, wasn't light cavalry dominant? Not horse archers, but stuff like light lancers and javelinmen. I think they were called jinetes?

 

[Petike]

Basically,who would use horse archers to defend or attack a hill?That's just wrong.You simply wouldn't be defending or attacking a hill with horse archers.You would be the one doing the attacking,and wait till when your enemy isn't on a hill.Basically,horse archers have the advantage of initiative.

But you ignore the fact that the enemy won't always act in a way that benefits you. And if he can use the terrain to paralyse and inconvenience horse archers and other light cavalry, he'll do it. Don't even think that the enemy will not try to use every advantage it has to defend himself from your hordes of proud and pampered horse archer nobility.

You also overlook a rather fundamental aspect of late ancient and early medieval warfare: Most battles were sieges of fortresses and castles. They were decidedly not some wide-fielded epic clashes like in LOTR and whatnot. Those look cool in modern films, but medieval combatants had to be resourceful, not flashy. You can have the best horse archers in the world, but if you do not have the infantry, siege equipment and know-how to besiege a wooden or stone fort, especially one on a steep hill or mountain, then your horse archers are worthless. The enemy can harass you easily, as he'll hold out in the fort for as long as possible (provided he has the supplies) and keep striking at you from the hill in hit-and-run attacks. (Yes, even if he has just infantry to do that.) Ironic, given that hit-and-run is the basis for horse archer warfare.

Another thing: Once better infantry bows and crossbows appear, the horse archers will become very vulnerable. The more armoured a mounted archer is, the less useful he grows as a very specific type of cavalryman. Horse archers have little armour on themselves or their horses for a very good reason: Speed and mobility. They know they are easily vulnerable, even to infantry archers, so they need to compensate for that in order to even survive in larger numbers. Speed and manueverability is of the essence. Unless you have a country with huge and very flat lowlands, horse archers just aren't a very ideal type of mounted soldier. Even the mounted infantry that others have mentioned - archers and crossbowmen with horses, basically - are better for a "move faster through terrain than on foot, harass the enemy or sabotage his property" type of tactic than a horse archer.

 

[Russian]

The Mongols in the 13th century were only as successful as they were because they had extremely good organisation and discipline in their army and amassed a gigantic force by the time they reached Europe.

All the researchers mostly agree that the Mongols had a very effective heavy shock cavalry. And after their initial successes against sedentary peoples they had descent infantry at their disposal.
So the perception of the Mongols as just horse archers is not too correct.

composite bow construction to allow it to operate well in wet conditions?

The wet climate might be a good explanation but it always seemed under-researched to me, without any particulars on where that line might be drawn, and how much moisture it takes to ruin a bow.

It's funny how the peoples (in our case the Europeans) who didn't have much experience with composite bows have funny myths about their vulnerability to wet conditions.

 

[Petike]

All the researchers mostly agree that the Mongols had a very effective heavy shock cavalry. And after their initial successes against sedentary peoples they had descent infantry at their disposal.
So the perception of the Mongols as just horse archers is not too correct.

But this is actually part of what I mean. The idea that Mongols conquered or damaged as much as they did only thanks to horse archers is a popcultural myth that needs to die already. Even before they came to Europe, the Mongols had to win a lot of their field battles and sieges via combined arms tactics. Horse archer combat is fine and dandy while you are only fighting other Mongolian steppe tribesmen, but once you have to go against increasingly diverging and increasingly sophisticated military challenges, there's no way in hell that horse archers alone will win everything for you. Cavalry in general was important for the Mongols, but as you note, the idea that Mongol cavalry equals horse archers is a daft (if still sadly popular) one. Looking at various illustrations reconstructing Mongol cavalrymen of the period, the heavy cavalry equivalent seem to be made up of a type of medium-armoured lancers.

By extension, even if darthfanta's idea of Europeans suddenly obsessing over horse archers was fulfilled in an ATL, the European cultures would still run into the same problem the Mongols did: Using horse archers almost exclusively is not a good tactic, and is far from a flexible one. In addition, the training arguments don't really add up, I feel. Everyone knows it takes a lot of time to properly train even an infantry archer. Now, imagine you have to train an archer first, then also train him in riding a horse in a fairly athletic and high-speed way. And then you have to teach him to combine these two skills, and then teach him discipline to work with others in a formation to pull of successful barrage shots and whatnot. It's not easy at all. And for a fraction of the time and effort, you can train some mounted infantrymen, or even some lightly armoured squires, early knights, or mercenary riders.

I think the main error people do when thinking horse archers were these sexy über-warrior types from the steppes, is that they think of bows as... well, medieval guns. But learning to use a bow and shooting from a bow while riding on horseback is very different to using the same basic fight method with a firearm. Especially the aforementioned lenghth and complexity of the training is crucial here.

 

[Russian]

to besiege a wooden or stone fort, especially one on a steep hill or mountain, then your horse archers are worthless. The enemy can harass you easily, as he'll hold out in the fort for as long as possible (provided he has the supplies) and keep striking at you from the hill in hit-and-run attacks.

That's another myth - that horse archers cannot shoot an arrow when they are off the horse, when they are dismounted.

And one more thing:
if an untrained infantry man is on the horse he is actually worthless.
But when a cavalry man is dismounted he is not worthless - he can take part in siege warfare the usual way like infantry do.

 

[darthfanta]

In Sassanid Persia,if they wanted to besiege a city,they use the peasants to do the job,and it worked fine,against Roman infantry.

All the researchers mostly agree that the Mongols had a very effective heavy shock cavalry. And after their initial successes against sedentary peoples they had descent infantry at their disposal.
So the perception of the Mongols as just horse archers is not too correct.



It's funny how the peoples (in our case the Europeans) who didn't have much experience with composite bows have funny myths about their vulnerability to wet conditions.

Never said there shouldn't be heavy shock cavalry,just that they shouldn't be as dominant as OTL in Western Europe,with the proportion of heavy shock cavalry to horse archers more similar to the Ottomans than in Western Europe where there's literally no horse archer.

 

[Petike]

if an untrained infantry man is on the horse he is actually worthless. But when a cavalry man is dismounted he is not worthless - he can take part in siege warfare the usual way like infantry do.

Not quite. Mounted infantry are what they are for a reason. The horse is their vehicle, but they don't use the horse to engage in combat. They are infantry soldiers and fight like infantry soldiers.

Furthermore, while a dismounted cavalry archer wouldn't be completely rubbish, you have to keep in mind that he's not trained for precission shooting and not trained to fight as an individual archer. Horse archers work because they have the numbers and the cooperation. Heavy cavalry works on the same principle, but in a different way.

A horse archer also can't carry a massive melee weapon if he gets dismounted. He'll have a sabre, or a knife or something, but he's effectivelly unarmoured and has to rely on his bow to do most of the fighting. And if he doesn't get dismounted with his buddies, he's in trouble.

Last but not least, while a horse archer can indeed partake in taking a fort or a castle, he's not exactly the best possible choice for such a melee-prone job, given the lack of armour and lack of stronger melee weapons. Most castle sieges where horse archers dismounted and helped out seemed to have involved wooden fortifications, which are easily attackable even with just a few torches.

 

[darthfanta]

Not quite. Mounted infantry are what they are for a reason. The horse is their vehicle, but they don't use the horse to engage in combat. They are infantry soldiers and fight like infantry soldiers.

Furthermore, while a dismounted cavalry archer wouldn't be completely rubbish, you have to keep in mind that he's not trained for precission shooting and not trained to fight as an individual archer. Horse archers work because they have the numbers and the cooperation. Heavy cavalry works on the same principle, but in a different way.

A horse archer also can't carry a massive melee weapon if he gets dismounted. He'll have a sabre, or a knife or something, but he's effectivelly unarmoured and has to rely on his bow to do most of the fighting. And if he doesn't get dismounted with his buddies, he's in trouble.

Last but not least, while a horse archer can indeed partake in taking a fort or a castle, he's not exactly the best possible choice for such a melee-prone job, given the lack of armour and lack of stronger melee weapons. Most castle sieges where horse archers dismounted and helped out seemed to have involved wooden fortifications, which are easily attackable even with just a few torches.

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to besieging castles,the Sassanids and the Mongols had peasants do the job for them.

 

[Russian]

Furthermore, while a dismounted cavalry archer wouldn't be completely rubbish, you have to keep in mind that he's not trained for precission shooting

That's not too correct as well.
You probably know Robin Hood from Sherwood forest, don't you?
Precision shooting was important for him to kill a deer (or a rabbit).

The same with nomad horse archers - first they were taught to hunt using their bow. You can look at them like mounted Robin Hoods.

cavalry archer... he's not trained to fight as an individual archer

The perception of the nomad steppe warfare as the warfare of big detachments against big detachments, meaning thousands against thousands of horse archers is ... a little bit wrong.
For the most part it was skirmishes when a few horse archers fought against a few or it was just individual shooting duel.
The epic battles were rare that's why they were remembered.

A horse archer also can't carry a massive melee weapon if he gets dismounted. He'll have a sabre, or a knife or something, but he's effectivelly unarmoured and has to rely on his bow to do most of the fighting.

If we are speaking about Mongol warriors they were actually universal soldiers, meaning they fought as horse archer and as usual cavalry, meaning hand-to-hand combat. Usually there was not kind of "Parthian distinction - heavy cataphracts and horse archers".
All the Mongol horsemen could fight as mounted archers and as shock cavalry.
* Even those famous Mongol elite shock heavy cavalry men we spoke about were excellent archers.

This universality was the strength of the steppe armies (in our case the Mongols).
And this universality included their ability to dismount if necessary and fight as infantry if necessary. They could clime a ladder to the city wall or something, that's not too hard, even for a nomad

given the lack of armour and lack of stronger melee weapons.

That's misperception if we speak about Mongols

 

[LSCatilina]

Germanic cavalry that inspired Roman cataphracts evolved over the course of some three or four centuries into Frankish proto-knight cavalrymen.

I think you're confusing with Iranic cataphract/heavy infantry that existed both on Persian/Sarmatic warfare. That influed on some Germanic peoples as Goths but it wasn't dominant : eventually Ostrogothic heavy cavalry owes more to Roman warfare.

As for Frankish heavy cavalry, it's was near inexistent at first : Merovingians mostly used either Gerrmanic light cavalry (as Alamans) or Alan heavy cavalry that get more or less importantly integrated.

Before the High Middle Ages, wasn't light cavalry dominant? Not horse archers, but stuff like light lancers and javelinmen. I think they were called jinetes?

No, jinetes were especially an Iberian thing, before getting widespread in the Late Middle Ages (genetiers).

Early Middle Ages were rather, for Romano-Barbarians either shock infantry, while you had a Hispano-Roman cavalry in the Visigothic kingdom that continued the late Roman tradition (while not being exactly an heavy cavalry)

I'm pretty sure that when it comes to besieging castles,the Sassanids and the Mongols had peasants do the job for them.

That's what we were telling you : sustain a large mounted archery in a warfare mostly based on siege is a bit contradictory, hence why Mongols adapted their tactics and military structures while keeping being such.

That said, you're wrong for Sassanians : the archeological digs at Doura-Europos point that heavy cavalry was involved in siege warfare, including engieenering features (as in Sassanian soldiers with coat of mail and heavy equipments in tunnels)

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Heavy cavalry uses heavy sabers.

Light cavalry uses light sabers.

Jedi Knights on horseback. QED

 

[Petike]

I think you're confusing with Iranic cataphract/heavy infantry that existed both on Persian/Sarmatic warfare. That influenced on some Germanic peoples as Goths but it wasn't dominant : eventually Ostrogothic heavy cavalry owes more to Roman warfare.

I'm talking about the cataphracts of late Antiquity (as the Romans called them just that), obviously not the earlier ones that go all the way back to the Hellenistic period.

Yes, Germanic cavalry was only slightly influenced back by Roman military developments - after all, Germanic and Celtic people provided most of the inspiration for Roman weaponry and armour innovation in the last few centuries of the empire - but some minor influence did exist. Heavy cavalry of the early Middle Ages mostly followed the established Germanic pattern though, with the Roman calvaryman model obviously offering less, as it was just catching up with the qualities of "barbarian" riders by the time of the late empire. (I mean, let's face it: Non-mercenary Roman cavalry was always kind of... rubbish. Even during later periods of the empire, when it was much improved since the days of weak cavalry, emblematic of the republican era from several centuries ago.)

As for Frankish heavy cavalry, it's was near inexistent at first : Merovingians mostly used either Gerrmanic light cavalry (as Alamans) or Alan heavy cavalry that get more or less importantly integrated.

I know. But the process of the world of late antiquity keeping some of its trends in warfare as it fluidly passed into the early medieval era, was certainly ongoing. Frankish proto-knights of Carolignian times owe the most to influences from existing forms of Germanic medium and heavy cavalry.

 

[Russian]

let's face it: Non-mercenary Roman cavalry was always kind of... rubbish. Even during later periods of the empire, when it was much improved since the days of weak cavalry

Every time you say 'always' and 'rubbish' there's always someone disagreeing; this time it's me.
I am of the opinion that in the late Empire there were periods when non-mercenary Roman cavalry was decent to say the least. What the hell, sometimes it was pretty much good.

I remember how Ammian Marcellian describes Germanic wars of Julian and how effective was Roman heavy cavalry against the Germans.
And Ammianus Marcellianus was always very sensitive when he spoke about 'native" Roman troops and when about 'barbarians' serving the Empire. And he was pretty sure that it was "Roman" cataphractes.
* though I cannot forget a funny episode when a clumsy heavily armed Roman cataphract fell from his horse just before the battle in full view of both armies

 

[Petike]

I was speaking generally. And the fact that late Roman cavalry was much improved at all was due to the gradual adoption of Celtic and Germanic cavalry traditions and innovations, and their further modification and development by Romans.

Whichever way you look at it, to Romans, both heavy cavalry and light cavalry were always just "additions" to their armies. Until relatively late in the empire, a standing cavalry army that was more than just a bunch of auxilliares, was quite underestimated as a concept. That is not to say that Romans did not know how to use cavalry, because obviously they did, and they mostly handled its use in battles as best as they could.

 

[RGB]

Furthermore, while a dismounted cavalry archer wouldn't be completely rubbish, you have to keep in mind that he's not trained for precission shooting and not trained to fight as an individual archer. Horse archers work because they have the numbers and the cooperation.

The standard M.O. for mongol horsemen in the Ilkhanate-Mamluk wars, when faced with strong contingents of infantry archers, was to dismount and spread out, and continue the fight on foot.

This is fairly well documented.

A horse archer also can't carry a massive melee weapon if he gets dismounted. He'll have a sabre, or a knife or something, but he's effectivelly unarmoured and has to rely on his bow to do most of the fighting. And if he doesn't get dismounted with his buddies, he's in trouble.

What exactly is a massive weapon? The only examples I can think of "massive weapons" used by ranged troops are early modern bardiches in Eastern Europe and maybe the mauls the English archers used in the late middle ages (and in the latter case those were issued to them for set battles, not something they commonly carried).

Finally this seems to be ignoring entire military histories of people who fought with bows and in armour: horse archer gentry is a staple in Russia, Persia, Turkey, Japan, Central Asia in general, India, the Arab world (Egypt for example), and Qing China.

You can be sure that all these cultures did send their best-equipped troops to fight in siege battles.

Cavalry's only real disadvantage compared to dedicated infantry is the horse itself, as it needs someone to take care of it while they're engaged elsewhere and is therefore a major logistical burden.

(EDIT: Yes, infantry archers did indeed generally carry weapons with slightly heavier draws compared to their horsemen comrades (see Qing military exams), but not so much that it would make much difference except in really large numbers. There are ordinances that specify gentry horsemen carry weapons suitable for siege archery with them that seem to have been universally disliked by the gentry, too.)

(EDIT2: You can also see the tendency for dragoon units to evolve into regular cavalry units given enough time, to the point where unlike their 18th c. predecessors Napoleonic Dragoons basically fought on horseback brigaded with other horsemen. The thing that finally forced them back on foot to fight was the machine gun. In a very general sense, cavalry can do anything mounted infantry can do, the reverse is not always true).

 

[Russian]

And the fact that late Roman cavalry was much improved at all was due to the gradual adoption of Celtic and Germanic cavalry traditions and innovations, and their further modification and development by Romans.

Well, if we are speaking about the late Roman cavalry (not Germanic cavalry units employed by the Empire) - it developed mostly copying their eastern neighbors - the Parthians/Persians and the Sarmatians.

With all due respect to the Germanic and Celtic horsemanship though...

 

[Petike]

Finally this seems to be ignoring entire military histories of people who fought with bows and in armour: horse archer gentry is a staple in Russia, Persia, Turkey, Japan, Central Asia in general, India, the Arab world (Egypt for example), and Qing China.

Unfortunately, though it's true that armoured Russian medieval boyars on horseback also used bows, that doesn't exactly make them horse archers. Simply carrying and wielding a bow does not automatically make every cavalryman into a horse archer, as others have already noted in this thread. Horse archery is a very specific type of horseback combat, and it requires a fairly specific set of tactics.

What exactly is a massive weapon?

Axes (not hatchets), pollaxes, warhammers, mallets, and so on. They would impede even the toughest guy, given that weight is of the essence to horse archers. They need to be reasonably light to really "work their magic", i.e. no excessive body armour and horse armour, no really heavy weapons. A simple bladed weapon like a sabre or a dagger is light enough and worn comfortably on a belt, but try being a horse archer when you have even something as small as an axe or a mace dangling from said belt. It's just common sense.

 

[RGB]

Unfortunately, though it's true that armoured Russian medieval boyars on horseback also used bows, that doesn't exactly make them horse archers. Simply carrying and wielding a bow does not automatically make every cavalryman into a horse archer, as others have already noted in this thread. Horse archery is a very specific type of horseback combat, and it requires a fairly specific set of tactics.

There is a half-dozen ways to deploy bow-armed horsemen and there were many different approaches to it through history. All of them can be called horse archery - defining it as one specific style to exclusion of others makes no sense to me and cannot be supported by scholarship.

Axes (not hatchets), pollaxes, warhammers, mallets, and so on. They would impede even the toughest guy, given that weight is of the essence to horse archers. They need to be reasonably light to really "work their magic", i.e. no excessive body armour and horse armour, no really heavy weapons. A simple bladed weapon like a sabre or a dagger is light enough and worn comfortably on a belt, but try being a horse archer when you have even something as small as an axe or a mace dangling from said belt. It's just common sense.

Sigh.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Krell_Battle_of_Orsha_01.jpg?uselang=ru

The army on the left of that picture is Russian gentry cavalry of the early 16th c. You will note that they are fully armoured, mostly in metal bekhters and are in fact using bows, and that one of the horse banners is trying to execute a feigned retreat. That is an almost contemporary illustration.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Boevye_kholopi_1556_Gerbersteyn.jpg?uselang=ru

This picture is from Sigismund von Herberstein's book, again perfectly contemporary. Note that these common horse warriors are armoured in teghilays (quilted, stiff coats) and carry besides the bow and bowcase, a sabre and a whip, and one of them has a kisten' in his sash. That's basically the small mace you've mentioned.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/a/a3/SnarRusVoin16.jpg

And this is a gentry horseman's weapons, again conteporary as per Herberstein:

There is a bow, a whip, a saadak knife (basically a ballock dagger), a sabre, a kisten', a tabarzin-style axe, and a variety of maces about 3 feet long. This is pretty standard equipment found everywhere from India to Persia to Turkey to Poland. In the late 16th c. it would be joined by pistols, and in the 17th, carbines and rifled muskets. There is an ongoing debate about the use of sovnyas and boar spears and spears in general, but there is in fact a method to carry a long weapon while being a horse archer that's described as being in use in Poland - it's dragged behind the horse on a rope and can be retrieved relatively quickly when needed. The rope itself can be tied into an arkan (lasso), which was, once again, common on the Black Sea steppes. There is no evidence of a shoulder sling as was used by later lancers being the carrying method for longer weapons.

http://www.memorandum.ru/viskowatov/T01/pic/index.php?page=1

While Viskovatov was a 19th c. antiquarian and may not have gotten everything right, he did document what historical weapons were preserved - keep clicking for his reconstructions starting on page 1 and onward.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Muscovy_cavalryman_XVI_century.PNG

And this engraving shows a warrior in a teghilay and armed with a lance and a Hungarian-style shield in addition to the saadak, sabre and mace.

I'm afraid common sense isn't a good guide as to what people actually did back then.