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

[LSCatilina]

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.

Actually, they are the same, at least in the same continuity : the hellenistic cataphracts were directly borrowed to the Iranic peoples usages and tied to the presence of an "Iranic front" as with Seleucids.

The Iranic presence on Roman borders, with Sarmatians present since the Ist century, allowed heavy-cavalry "standard" presence with Antonines (you can see them on the Trajan Coloumn, and the clientelisation of peoples as Roxolani points this evolution) but the presence of an auxiliary heavy cavalry in the eastern part is well attested, generally (but not systematically) associated with Near-East kingdoms : Armenia mostly, but as well the other all along the border.

Being sort of heavy alae cavalry "pool", it may not been unrelated to the harsh wars that Romans and Persians fought over it (it's interesting to read that some Parthian kings preferred to propose sending Parthian cavalry in support of Romans, as Vespasian, pointing an use of NE cavalry before Antonines).

Eventually, the big difference is more the "decentralisation" of Roman army before the mid Ist century, with more distinct armies due to a very large use of auxilars (especially on cavalry, that was more Celto-German looking in the West, more Helleno-Persian in the East), than a real distinction between cataphractarians and clibinarii (both words being used interchangeably by Romans, with the latter being maybe a bit more informal).

Yes, Germanic cavalry was only slightly influenced back by Roman military developments

It's not what I said. At the contrary, and I gave the Ostrogothic heavy cavalry as a counter-exemple (I could have used Vandalic cavalry as well), but the point is that most of Germanic cavalry were a Roman/Sarmatic-influenced cavalry with an influence coming back right from the Ist century for Goths (whom ethnogenesis happened at the corner of Romania and Sarmatia).

As in many, many other features, Barbarians were extremely porous to romanisation, including on military matters (and should I say, precisely on military matters as it was how they were most often integrated on Romania)

One could be tempted to point the use of swords by the Germano-Roman cavalries as a sign of Germanic warfare (and frankly, it would rather be issued from Celto-German warfare as with Gaul heavy cavalry using long swords rather than IInd century's Germanic innovation), but we know that Roman cavalry used it as well than lances...Even if it was a mark of Barbarisation of the army, it eventually lasted as a Romano-Barbarian feature.

If there's an evolution, it might be more on Roman (Byzantine) side than Romano-Barbarian, with a 'reduction" of cavalry equipment in favour of a light polyvalent cavalry approach, and auxiliaries to fill more specialized needs (as Ostrogothic cavalry within Byzantine army).

Conversly, the regionalisation of Frankish armies allows to point the existence of less romanized/sarmatised cavalries (being, litteraly, on the other side of the continent, and in regions where cavalry warfare never played the decisive role it had on Danubian and Mediterranean context).

Not that Alans, Romano-Sarmatian cavalry (influenced or "ethnic") wasn't used by Franks and didn't influenced them : but after the Vth, their use significantly and quickly decline, up to resort to light Alemanic cavalry was some sort of "auxiliary/vassalic".
There the lack of a true cavalry threat, and the quick integration of Gallo-Roman populations within a Frankish identity probably played dialectically.

It's worth noting that Late Roman armies in Gaul, had relatively few cavalry, compared to Britain or Africa, and had to resort on foederati more than in the ERE.
Generally, the WRE had a really fewer cavalry force, while it's clearly obvious on Limitanei (less so on Comitatenses, but these were somehow second-rate; and Scholae).

Not that Frankish horsemanship disappeared : would it be at least for allowing the Carolingian horsemanship to appear, Merovingian cavalry must have been maintained. But it didn't really played that of a significant role (and certainly not a shock cavalry), and may have been more tied to a social status while it survived more importantly in Hispania, and having more Romano-Byzantine influence, which may be the case for Southern Gaul?.

While there's not much indication on this, it's likely that Aquitain/Provencal "Romans" may have kept the heavy cavalry tradition alive, while mixed with Basque (light cavalry, mounted javelineers), Gothic and Italian influence; and eventually the regionalisation must have played a transmission role elsewhere as well.

But, if we go for Western Germanic cavalry per se, as with Alemanic cavalry, it doesn't really looks as either an heavy cavalry, or either a high-status cavalry.

Eventually, the "pattern" develloped there is (and that's valid for a lot of Western European features) a Romano-Barbarian development, a creolisation/mix of both civilisation with an heavy Roman base (and a not-that-traditional Germanic stance).

(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.)

I think you're confusing (and you're not the only one) auxiliary and mercenary. Long story short, the former is about military and cultural integration of tactics and equipment. What we call the "Barbarisation" of the Roman Army is actually a Romanisation of Barbarians feature.

Considering, eventually, auxiliaries (or laeti, for that matter) as non-Roman is a bit nonsensical to me. (As in arguing, because Romans had borrowed a lot of Celtic features including for infantry, that Roman infantry sucked while they had to resort to Celts)

Ammianus Marcellinus's fetish for cavalry being a good exemple (even if it does mix heavy cavalry and heavy mounted infantry) on how Romans perfectly integrated for themselves outer features during their campaigns which could be fairly victorious especially when the decisive-battle model, that had an indue publicity and influence on modern tought, didn't really appeared.

Defeats as Adrianople, more due to Roman incoherence than lower quality of its troops, never challenged the importance of Roman cavalry and its fair use (for exemple, among others, Constantine or Julian campaigns)

Frankish proto-knights of Carolignian times owe the most to influences from existing forms of Germanic medium and heavy cavalry.

There was no fluid transmission (the infanterisation of Frankish warfare is obvious and widely accepted) and there's no account I could remember of about a strong medium/heavy middle or late Merovingian Cavalry.

Again, not that it disappeared, but it didn't played a decisive or dominant role.
Eventually, it's directly tied to Carolingian, landed aristocracy rise and annexation of peripherical duchies (both last being tied to Carolingian strive for legitimacy and political support base).

The quick transmission of scara as a probable mounted infantry, as an heavy cavalry in Carolingian times hints a more complex pattern.

And giving that the only clearly Germanic cavalry we know from this period, as in either Scandinavian or western Germanic outside Romania mostly used light cavalry if not mounted infantry (it's telling that Saxons were renewed for horse-breeding while not maintaining a huge cavalry, light or heavy); while every exemple of Germanic heavy cavalry is simply too close to Late Roman cavalry for being handwaved...

EDIT : To be honest, RGB seems to make a lot of sense in his last post. I'd tend to think that a mounted archery is less about equipment at hand (late medieval english archery had a lot of non-archery equipment, with two-handed swords, spears, shielf, etc.) than discipline, political/military coherence, and enough training to undergo relatively complex tactical moves and positions, as a predominant use of mounted archery.

 

[takerma]

On the other hand it did adopt crossbow in several occasion, especially auxiliary.

But, basically, as long heavy cavalry is the marker of social distinction, using a weapon as poorly considered socially as the bow isn't really going to be a thing.


Mongol horse archery (which quite perfected it) was more about saturation than searching individual targets.

For an horse archery to be that efficient on battle, you need not only huge discipline (would it be to pull tactic such as feigned flight without the whole thing going to an actual flight) but huge numbers to saturate the battle.

Even there, Mongols suffered important losses at Legniz, even in face of tactical and numerical superiority, so the "quite easily" may have to be really nuanced.


Horses tented to be armoured themselves, at least since the XIth century and the rise of siege/raid warfare (first leather parts, with more important armours and protection being adopted in the XIIth century, after the Crusades' experience of light cavalry harassing).


Training a massive horse archery is quite hard actually, critically without such military tradition.
First you'd have to make it the main military force (would it be only to allow saturation tactics) against the aformentionen cultural/social bias (to say nothing of the absence of a real motivation in a warfare essentially based on sieges)

Then training the main part of your army to fight on horse : even in medieval armies, it never represented more than half and in pretty exceptional conditions. And that while training to use a bow skillfully in the same time. (There's a reason why horse cranequiniers were a thing, while mounted bowmen were essentially mounted infantry)

Of course, it requires enough discipline to allow basic tactics (as "feign flight" not actually turning in a full-fledged retreat) and to keep the cohesion of your army.

So, I really think it would require much focus (without actual motivation doing so) to properly train a useful western horse archery that would replace heavy cavalry and that without social, tactical, traditional support (at the contrary : pulling it out of nowhere have really few chances to ever works)

I was referring to use of bow to kill and wound horses in skirmishes not in set piece battles. Horses were armored but not nearly to the degree that human on them was.

So what I referred to is that in a small scale battles where patrols, foragers etc fought each other have bows or as you pointed out crossbows seem very beneficial. You can harass enemy from range using light long range arrows. If they decide to get away you have a chance to wound some and catch up with them.

 

[darthfanta]

So based on what RGB said,we can confidently say that depending on the type of horse archer and their training, they can fight reasonably well on foot and in sieges,as well as fight as shock cavalry?That there's no contradiction in fighting sieges and fielding armies with horse archers as their military elite?

By the way,I must clarify that what I meant 'light' cavalry doesn't necessarily mean they have no armor,it's just that both the cavalrymen and their horses don't wear heavy armour and that the cavalrymen don't ride big warhorses like destriers.

 

[RGB]

So based on what RGB said,we can confidently say that depending on the type of horse archer and their training, they can fight reasonably well on foot and in sieges?That there's no contradiction in fighting sieges and fielding armies with horse archers as their military elite?

Well, my 16th c. Russian example would have seen the gentry militia complemented by a professional musketeer corps, but really I don't think there is any inherent problem with horse archers or in fact any other horsemen being "useless" in sieges. Life isn't Europa Universalis in that respect.

Mamluk soldiers for example practiced a kind of horse archery, mostly stationary and saturation-based, but they also provided both the shock troops and bodyguards of the Egyptian state because they were the elites of their warfare culture.

I'd still expect the horsemen to be held in reserve if cheaper options are available (it's a rare situation when you have too many horsemen and not enough more expendable troops, really), but there's enough examples where people dismounted horse archers. The Tatars dismounted to (unsuccessfully) break a Russian gulay-gorod in support of the Janissaries, for example, while Russian gentry (successfully) participated in the siege and storm of Narva and Kazan together with the musketeers.

And while the Mongols during the expansion period used a lot of auxiliary troops to storm fortified locations, there are instances where they couldn't really have had infantry support due to how quickly the campaign went, and succeeded in the attack anyway.

So I guess if you feel you must have a general verdict about it, I'd say it's a bit wasteful but there's no reason why couldn't be done in principle.

 

[darthfanta]

Well, my 16th c. Russian example would have seen the gentry militia complemented by a professional musketeer corps, but really I don't think there is any inherent problem with horse archers or in fact any other horsemen being "useless" in sieges. Life isn't Europa Universalis in that respect.

Mamluk soldiers for example practiced a kind of horse archery, mostly stationary and saturation-based, but they also provided both the shock troops and bodyguards of the Egyptian state because they were the elites of their warfare culture.

I'd still expect the horsemen to be held in reserve if cheaper options are available (it's a rare situation when you have too many horsemen and not enough more expendable troops, really), but there's enough examples where people dismounted horse archers. The Tatars dismounted to (unsuccessfully) break a Russian gulay-gorod in support of the Janissaries, for example, while Russian gentry (successfully) participated in the siege and storm of Narva and Kazan together with the musketeers.

And while the Mongols during the expansion period used a lot of auxiliary troops to storm fortified locations, there are instances where they couldn't really have had infantry support due to how quickly the campaign went, and succeeded in the attack anyway.

So I guess if you feel you must have a general verdict about it, I'd say it's a bit wasteful but there's no reason why couldn't be done in principle.

I think concur,I think storming fortifications will probably be left to the peasants.

 

[TinyTartar]

I think that the Viking raids might have had an impact on this. I understand that Frankish Cavalry got heavier as time went on, yes, but it also had to have an effect because of the fact that light cavalry seemed inferior at times at dealing with raiders (they could not break the Viking Shieldwall, while heavy cavalry with couched lances and armor could). There also of course was a social impact of heavier cavalry, as the nobility and growing military class could afford the gear for it while their social lessers could not.

As for why the Franks went heavier, it might have had to do with the Moorish raids. Remember that at Tours, Martell did not have much cavalry at all, and the battle was purely won by his hardened infantrymen. After the battle, the Moors continued to raid Frankia and would for a couple hundred years in various forms, and having a shock force on hand that could break the Moorish light cavalry in a direct charge was useful when gathering hardened infantrymen from across the realm in response was impossible.

The fact of the matter however is that as time went on, the role of heavy cavalry became socially and militarily ingrained in Feudal Europe to the point where light cavalry only would arise when professional armies would. Light cavalry was fine enough for raiding, which was why the HYW saw so much of it being used by both sides, but in terms of the movement of assembled armies, its use was minimal. The Crusades demonstrated that the advantage in heavy cavalry came in forcing decisive close quarters action, and Crusader victories often came about when they were able to close the distance quickly or use geographic features to their advantage to crush the Arab Light Cavalry, and defeats came when the element of surprise was not on the side of heavy cavalry, or when the Arabs used heavy units of their own.

I don't see why light cavalry would find much place on the battlefield when you consider the social aspects of cavalry based armies. Change feudalism, and you might change this pattern.

 

[darthfanta]

I think that the Viking raids might have had an impact on this. I understand that Frankish Cavalry got heavier as time went on, yes, but it also had to have an effect because of the fact that light cavalry seemed inferior at times at dealing with raiders (they could not break the Viking Shieldwall, while heavy cavalry with couched lances and armor could). There also of course was a social impact of heavier cavalry, as the nobility and growing military class could afford the gear for it while their social lessers could not.

As for why the Franks went heavier, it might have had to do with the Moorish raids. Remember that at Tours, Martell did not have much cavalry at all, and the battle was purely won by his hardened infantrymen. After the battle, the Moors continued to raid Frankia and would for a couple hundred years in various forms, and having a shock force on hand that could break the Moorish light cavalry in a direct charge was useful when gathering hardened infantrymen from across the realm in response was impossible.

The fact of the matter however is that as time went on, the role of heavy cavalry became socially and militarily ingrained in Feudal Europe to the point where light cavalry only would arise when professional armies would. Light cavalry was fine enough for raiding, which was why the HYW saw so much of it being used by both sides, but in terms of the movement of assembled armies, its use was minimal. The Crusades demonstrated that the advantage in heavy cavalry came in forcing decisive close quarters action, and Crusader victories often came about when they were able to close the distance quickly or use geographic features to their advantage to crush the Arab Light Cavalry, and defeats came when the element of surprise was not on the side of heavy cavalry, or when the Arabs used heavy units of their own.

I don't see why light cavalry would find much place on the battlefield when you consider the social aspects of cavalry based armies. Change feudalism, and you might change this pattern.

IIRC,Moorish light cavalry don't use bows,right?

As for the crusaders,they could beat Arab light cavalry,but when it came down to fighting the Turks,who had a lot of horse archers in their ranks,they result to my understanding was less than impressive.Even Dorylaeum,which they won,was a damned close thing.

As for feudalism,I'm not sure the lack of horse archer based armies is due to feudalism.Like I mentioned,a lot of other places like the Ottoman Empire had similar classes to knights based around horse archers rather than heavy cavalry.I think I have to agree with LSCatilina with the point that it was probably because the warrior aristocracy started as melee armed infantry that graduated to become cavalry instead of horse archers being the dominant form of aristocracy to begin with for societies like the Turks.

Just out of interest,so why did the Hungarian aristocracy abandon horse archery altogether and adopt a role as pure heavy shock cavalry?

 

[TinyTartar]

IIRC,Moorish light cavalry don't use bows,right?

As for the crusaders,they could beat Arab light cavalry,but when it came down to fighting the Turks,who had a lot of horse archers in their ranks,they result to my understanding was less than impressive.Even Dorylaeum,which they won,was a damned close thing.

As for feudalism,I'm not sure the lack of horse archer based armies is due to feudalism.Like I mentioned,a lot of other places like the Ottoman Empire had similar classes to knights based around horse archers rather than heavy cavalry.I think I have to agree with LSCatilina with the point that the warrior aristocracy started as melee armed infantry that graduated to become cavalry instead of horse archers being the dominant form of aristocracy to begin with for societies like the Turks.

The Moors mostly used javelins in their cavalry force. They really were not all that different from the jinetes that they constantly skirmished with in terms of armament and tactics, albeit with some small differences. Interestingly enough, Moorish infantry actually adopted the crossbow, as it was the natural tool of any infantry force on the defensive that wanted to outrange a harassing light cavalry force. Their cavalry did not seem to value archery as much as their Eastern Arabized counterparts.

As for the Crusaders, on a tactical level, their heavy cavalry force quite frequently excelled against both horse archers and light cavalry. Much of the early period of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, dealing with incursions and skirmishes, demonstrated this. Dorylaeum was a case of an army getting ambushed, which I mentioned, and yet they still were able to win once they closed the distance. Most of the time, however, battles are not decided by superior tactical level action, but rather based on grand strategic matters, and the fact that the Crusaders were operating a multinational, dissimilar, often outnumbered, ill supplied, and poorly led effort, the fact that they lost to armies operating close to home without half of those disadvantages should not be a surprise. The Crusades never should have even had a chance, let alone lasted as long as they did; power projection for medieval states was a laughable concept. Light cavalry is not superior or inferior to heavy cavalry; both have their uses and pitfalls, and the Crusades proved very little in this regard.

I would agree with you on the point about the warrior aristocracy graduating from infantry to cavalry in heavy armor throughout. But I would say that the reason they took up the lance and mace rather than the bow does have a social root that had to do with cost of equipment. The Ottoman aristocracy was not landed initially in the same way that much of the European aristocracy was; the Ottomans were a migratory Central Asian group that took the land that they developed on from the Byzantines and had a history of using the bow to fight while in the West, the landed aristocracy may have come from either Roman roots, Germanic tribes that quickly settled down on the land they took, or most likely on the continent, a mixture of both, but nonetheless, it was a much less transient existence despite the migratory similarities, and almost none of the European groups came from societies that had a high regard for ranged warfare; the Germanic groups certainly did not, the ones with Roman roots inherited the preference for heavy infantry, and the Nordic ones settled things with the axe and shield.

 

[elkarlo]

Is there something special about Japanese composite bow construction to allow it to operate well in wet conditions? Japan did have a warrior class that was mounted warriors primarily and for whom bow was primary weapon originally. Terrain in the area seems even worse for cavalry the most of the Western Europe.

Good question as Japan is wetter than England for the most part.

 

[Derek Pullem]

IIRC,Moorish light cavalry don't use bows,right?

As for the crusaders,they could beat Arab light cavalry,but when it came down to fighting the Turks,who had a lot of horse archers in their ranks,they result to my understanding was less than impressive.Even Dorylaeum,which they won,was a damned close thing.

As for feudalism,I'm not sure the lack of horse archer based armies is due to feudalism.Like I mentioned,a lot of other places like the Ottoman Empire had similar classes to knights based around horse archers rather than heavy cavalry.I think I have to agree with LSCatilina with the point that it was probably because the warrior aristocracy started as melee armed infantry that graduated to become cavalry instead of horse archers being the dominant form of aristocracy to begin with for societies like the Turks.

Just out of interest,so why did the Hungarian aristocracy abandon horse archery altogether and adopt a role as pure heavy shock cavalry?

I don't think Feudalism per se rules out horse archers but the difference between nomad based states (Turks, Magyars) or nomad influenced states (Arabs, Byzantines, Persians / Sassanids) was that the horse became ubiquitous. It was not a rarity, it was a basic tool of life. So the transition from archer to horse archer was not a leap.

In Western Europe, the armies (both Roman and "barbarian") tended to be dominated by foot soldiers. Even the Lombards were mostly foot soldiers. The horse tended to be a symbol of status and reserved for the elite. So the masses stayed on foot.

Now Western Europe is the centre of Feudalism but Feudalism doesn't rule out horse archers. Poland and Muscovy both operated large contingents of bow armed cavalry.

Hungary certainly never gave up the idea of light horse although they tended to use the bow less and less as time went on. The Stradiots were the Eastern European equivalent of the Jinetes but tended to use missile weapons more frequently (esp. crossbow)

 

[RodentRevolution]

An arrow stab at the problem

If you look at the bow armed class that emerged in England later in the middle ages you will see it did come from the same free-holding yeomanry that provided the hobilar. You also observe an increasing tendency of longbow archers to be mounted. However as the class developed its armoury was constrained by its environment.

So it might be theoretically possible to have introduced the composite bow to England via that route and have it taken up. What you would be far less likely to see though is the development of manoeuvres like the Parthian shot as the terrain rather less frequently lends itself to that kind of skirmishing and further the yeomanry included the civic middle class of artisans, their sons and apprentices and shopkeepers, small traders etc...basically people who did not have enough time on horse back to develop the kind of familiarity required.

Besides they are too late.

Though...if you go back earlier to the select fyrd of the Anglo-Saxon regime(s) you may have been able to see those freemen acquire the composite bow and more pro-mounted action approach to warfare. However I think they would still have likely remained close order cavalry rather than open order style horse-archers. They would likely also have retained a tendency to dismount all or most of their troops in a given action as this is a recurring theme in British warfare.

A hard part of introducing the bow is that the social change requires both a sufficient 'freeman' class, that is a group wealthy enough to pay their bills with coin and military service and not having to erk it out with any kind of labour service and sufficient motivation to make the extra effort that maintaining a composite requires in the British climate worth the effort.

I don't know enough about the social systems of other European countries at the time to point out where the entry point and it would most likely be a given class, would be for the successful uptake of the composite bow.

 

[LSCatilina]

I was referring to use of bow to kill and wound horses in skirmishes not in set piece battles. Horses were armored but not nearly to the degree that human on them was.

Actually, yes, comparable to the degree horsemen there. Cavalerymen weren't armoured with a shitload of metal on them for most of medieval history : it was usually mail coat for them, and mix of leather protection for the horse.

The heavyly armoured horseman was, while not a rarity, not the norm and that only appeared with the XIIth century, with technological support (that beneficied their horses as well, see bards)

So what I referred to is that in a small scale battles where patrols, foragers etc fought each other have bows or as you pointed out crossbows seem very beneficial.

This kind of small scale battle was essentially part of siege warfare, right since the Xth century. Meaning that for this small scale battle being possible, you'd need to have a different strategical take, where the defence army get separated (and not wholly protected for the second one).

Eventually the smale scale battle prevents such specialization : it's why heavy cavalry did a lot of jobs normally associated with light cavalry, IOTL : harassing, patrol, etc. The castellisation of war didn't really favoured other approachs.

I think concur,I think storming fortifications will probably be left to the peasants.

It was rarely the case to begin with. Peasant levies were raised essentially for defense, less to go on attack fortifications.

I answered about your claims on Sassanid "peasant did all the job on sieges" already, and I should point that "storming the castle" was fairly rare in Middle-Ages : it was more current to simply prevent communications and exchanges with its countryside and allies and to wait for surrender (starvation, seeing that the countryside was particularly damaged, political concerns) that "have fun stormin' the castle" or to suddenly attack at weak points (first surprise attack, or wait for someone to "open the door" but both of these were rare)

And giving that the armies protected there weren't exactly novices, when siege engines were involved (up to the XIIth, rather basic ones, as siege towers), you didn't throw up cannon feed (when again, storming was relatively rare safe in large expeditions that often included many pedites) to only loose expensive structures and weakening your army)

Use of skilled infantry is documentated for Germany, Italy, Spain and even in France where the social predominance of milites was higher (with milites being charged of the defence of fortifications, and they most probably didn't made so on horse)

I think that the Viking raids might have had an impact on this.

That said, many battles with Vikings raiders didn't involved heavy cavalry : you have as much exemple Viking defeats involving infantry (especially in Britain), sieges, etc.

The whole principle of heavy cavalry was already a thing and pulled against Vikings, less as a tactical answer than that it already existed for Carolingian warfare. It didn't proved being the ultimate weapon (mostly because it took time to gather, and that raids were more hit-and-run), and since Charlemagne, you had the use of "domesticated Vikings" to guard strategic points rather than seeing heavy cavalry being systematically used.

There also of course was a social impact of heavier cavalry, as the nobility and growing military class could afford the gear for it while their social lessers could not.

Actually, they could. That's all the point of the appearance of milites as a social class : peasants and landowers could form milites structure on their own (peasant-knights of Paladruc being the most known exemple), and they were either integrated on nobiliar structures or disappearing.

As for why the Franks went heavier, it might have had to do with the Moorish raids.

It probably didn't played any role, there (Perroy qualified it as "poor narrative". As you said, the comfrontation between Franks and Moors were essentially about heavy infantry against light cavalry (Franks being supported by Aquitain/Vascon cavalry, arguably), while Visigothic/Aquitain cavalry did poorly (Guadalete/Bordeaux) on open field.

The changes doesn't begin with someone that had a first-hand experience of Moors, but with his son that was far more focused on Northern and Eastern expension (Frisians, Lombards). The needs of a larger regnumn, and the growing need to fight infantry-based armies (as Germans) or more cavalry driven armies (Lombards) most probably played more.

I don't see why light cavalry would find much place on the battlefield when you consider the social aspects of cavalry based armies. Change feudalism, and you might change this pattern.

Thing is, heavy cavalry dominance preceded feudality, neither making it possible or depended of it. While not wholly unrelated, it depended more on vassalic ties (and there, you had to remove the whole Late Antiquity history) and political/ritual gathering of troops in March, then May.

While feudal entities and warfare, by their nature itself, preferred to use a polyvalent heavy cavalry,

IIRC,Moorish light cavalry don't use bows,right?

No, but as someone pointed out, they used javelins and short distance weapons, that would influence the appearance of something similar in Christian Spain.

As for the crusaders,they could beat Arab light cavalry,but when it came down to fighting the Turks,who had a lot of horse archers in their ranks,they result to my understanding was less than impressive.

I'm not sure to fully understand your point : Crusaders almost entierly encounted Turks, rather than Arabs, during the First Crusade. Mostly because the former dominated the region, when the latter were more prone to make agreements with Crusaders.

As for battles, the point is less about efficiency of horse archery (it seems that, when used to harass the Crusader columns, it had relatively little effect on heavy cavalry/infantry, at the contrary of pedites), than ignorance of Turkic warfare for most of its leaders.

That said, calling Dorylee battle a "close-one" is more or less ignoring its result (or involving into a narrative where Crusaders managed to reach their objective, only trough sheer luck, denying them any strategic/military value, which is more about bias than anything else): as in, total dispertion of Arlsan's armies, while Crusaders suffered limited losses.

The term crushing victory (if not decisive on middle term, as 1101 Crusade point out) may be more fitting. Eventually, mostly agreeing to what TinyTatar said on this.

I think I have to agree with LSCatilina with the point that it was probably because the warrior aristocracy started as melee armed infantry that graduated to become cavalry instead of horse archers being the dominant form of aristocracy to begin with for societies like the Turks.

It's not exactly what I said : you probably had a warrior mounted aristocracy during Merovingian times (especially in peripherical regions, in the South). But it played only a limited and secondary role, at the contrary of a growingly heavy infantry (that was less about noble or not).
The appearance of an heavy cavalry in the VIIIth and its nobilisation by the IXth/Xth is more about logistical needs and limits, with the need for a more mobile army.

Just out of interest,so why did the Hungarian aristocracy abandon horse archery altogether and adopt a role as pure heavy shock cavalry?

It didn't

While in the West, the landed aristocracy may have come from either Roman roots

You don't have landed aristocracy in Western Europe before the Carolingian times, strictly speaking. Before that, you have more landed families, whom lands are still directly tied to royal attribution and property far less stable than in later centuries.

the Germanic groups certainly did not, the ones with Roman roots inherited the preference for heavy infantry, and the Nordic ones settled things with the axe and shield.

I'd disagree on several levels : the use of francisca as a (more or less flawed) ranged attack before charge, the existance of a gothic javelineer horsemanship (probably Alemannic as well) could point the contrary.

The distinction is more to be searched in the social use of ranged weapons, bow having a low reputation that only grew on with the social domination of a military-based class; and in the "Barbarizing" identity where were favoured features that were associated with some "ethnicism" (as fransisca, whom efficiency didn't looked overwelming, but was "Frankish" enough to be widely adopted)

As for Scandinavian axe and shield, it's likely the result of the Scandinavian political entities collapse by the Vth century, where weapons more close to Romano-Barbarians peoples ceased to be really represented (up to the IXth century).

 

[Petike]

Long story short, the former is about military and cultural integration of tactics and equipment. What we call the "Barbarisation" of the Roman Army is actually a Romanisation of Barbarians feature.

I don't call it barbarisation. The "barbarians" were not forcing this on the Romans. The Romans borrowed or stole the ideas, as they always did. So it's definitely a Romanisation in my book as well.

Cavalry variations depending on the exact geographic corner of the empire were, of course, a thing. It stands to reason that a Roman cavalryman from the British Isles and from Asia Minor would have quite a bit of differences.

Considering, eventually, auxiliaries (or laeti, for that matter) as non-Roman is a bit nonsensical to me. (As in arguing, because Romans had borrowed a lot of Celtic features including for infantry, that Roman infantry sucked while they had to resort to Celts)

But auxilliares weren't mercenaries. Where am I saying that ? I'm just saying that both the auxilliares and hired cavalry serving for the Roman armies was... not very good overall.

Ammianus Marcellinus's fetish for cavalry being a good exemple (even if it does mix heavy cavalry and heavy mounted infantry) on how Romans perfectly integrated for themselves outer features during their campaigns which could be fairly victorious especially when the decisive-battle model, that had an indue publicity and influence on modern tought, didn't really appeared.

I don't doubt the Romans putting up an effort to use combined arms effectivelly. That still doesn't make their overall cavalry any less rubbish. They had serviceable cavalry, especially in the right hands. But nothing particularly exceptional.

 

[takerma]

Actually, yes, comparable to the degree horsemen there. Cavalerymen weren't armoured with a shitload of metal on them for most of medieval history : it was usually mail coat for them, and mix of leather protection for the horse.

The heavyly armoured horseman was, while not a rarity, not the norm and that only appeared with the XIIth century, with technological support (that beneficied their horses as well, see bards)


This kind of small scale battle was essentially part of siege warfare, right since the Xth century. Meaning that for this small scale battle being possible, you'd need to have a different strategical take, where the defence army get separated (and not wholly protected for the second one).

Eventually the smale scale battle prevents such specialization : it's why heavy cavalry did a lot of jobs normally associated with light cavalry, IOTL : harassing, patrol, etc. The castellisation of war didn't really favoured other approachs.

Difference between leather mix for the horse and rider wearing a mail is pretty massive. To break mail armour you need to shoot from short range, need a heavy draw bow and use arrows that are heavy. While leather might stop flight arrows that can be shot from huge range it will not do anything against a closer range shots. Lets say a Norman cavalryman wearing mail and using a not coached lance, same sort of cavalryman armed with a composite bow would do quite well shooting a the horses of the opponent.

My point was that for the cavalry of any kind that are used in a siege having a bow as a part of toolbox in addition to lance, sword, mace etc seems really useful.

It was rarely the case to begin with. Peasant levies were raised essentially for defense, less to go on attack fortifications.

This is very true. Using levy for assault would result in pile of corpses followed by mass desertion. If for whatever reason you are attempting an assault you need to have dedicated, armoured men to do the job. Even then chances are not great but way better then peasants.

 

[LSCatilina]

I don't call it barbarisation.

Everyone else does, tough. For all that matter, Roman army adopted widely Germano-Sarmatian features as a whole, including relying more and more on Barbarian fighters.

The "barbarians" were not forcing this on the Romans.

Actually, it kinda was about forcing Romans : while previous adaptations were more or less regional, the general threat since the IIIrd century onwards, forced Romans to not simply adapt their equipment and weaponry, but to rethink the essential bases of their military organisation.

The Romans borrowed or stole the ideas, as they always did.

It's not only about adapting equipment at this point (as it was with Gallic helmet, for exemple), but to adapt to whole tactic changes and integrating Barbarians as a full part of the army instead of just copying them.

Cavalry variations depending on the exact geographic corner of the empire were, of course, a thing. It stands to reason that a Roman cavalryman from the British Isles and from Asia Minor would have quite a bit of differences.

Which difference cease to be by the time Sarmatians came up on large numbers at the Empire's borders. Your point was that Roman cavalry sucked and had to integrate Barbarians for doing the job (as even Roman heavy cavalry was bad), but it simply doesn't fit what we know : there was an auxiliary (meaning Roman, not mercenary) heavy cavalry that became standard by the IInd.

But auxilliares weren't mercenaries. Where am I saying that ?

Non-mercenary Roman cavalry You made a distinction there, between Roman cavalry (that was contextualised as non-Barbarian) and non-Romans cavalry qualified as mercenaries. You didn't have such distinction, and basically, only armies fighting as nations (foederati) can be really called non-Roman.

I'm just saying that both the auxilliares and hired cavalry serving for the Roman armies was... not very good overall.

Which is contradicted by their general use and victorious campaign against Persians or Barbarians.

They had serviceable cavalry, especially in the right hands. But nothing particularly exceptional.

I'm not sure about my linguistic skills, but "not-exceptionnal" shouldn't be the same than "rubbish", IMO.

 

[LSCatilina]

Difference between leather mix for the horse and rider wearing a mail is pretty massive.

Not that much actually, once you consider that mail was largely held out by leather protections, and when it comes to ranged tactics.

To break mail armour you need to shoot from short range, need a heavy draw bow and use arrows that are heavy.

The thing is, ranged attacks were more based on saturation, at this point, than targeting one or the other person. They were made less an as an anti-heavy cavalry perfect attack, than disorganize a charge. If the arrow killed someone, that was great, if it killed an horse good enough (but giving armies went with more horses than horsemen, not that of a victory asset. I'll point that even without massive protection, an horses is "naturally" more protected than human skin).

My point was that for the cavalry of any kind that are used in a siege having a bow as a part of toolbox in addition to lance, sword, mace etc seems really useful.

I don't think you consider enough that tactical use of heavy cavalry in open battles is limited to rare open field battles, it simply wasn't current enough to motivate a bow horsemanship (as it happened later with cranequiniers), and giving the staticity of X/XI/XIIth battles (armies rarely entierly moved, and were content with doing several assaults, sometimes picknicking before resuming the battle), a mounted archery wouldn't have been much more efficient than regular archery.

No great tactical moves or battlefield mobility is kind of problematic when it comes to the specific role of a mounted archery.

Even in siege warfare, bow weren't that present : it's worth mentioning that before the XIIth century, the passive defense was the norm, meaning not widely use of bow in siege warfare but fighting-back against (relatively uncommon) tentatives to break off the siege by attackers.

Even then chances are not great but way better then peasants.

Not forgetting the social problem it would represent : if milites whole existence is justified as a military class, giving too much military role may backfire. (And eventually, a rustic military presence would have been either crushed or integrated to nobility as milites were)

 

[RGB]

Not that much actually, once you consider that mail was largely held out by leather protections, and when it comes to ranged tactics.

Please clarify?

There are almost no examples of leather "armour" as such. There is plenty of mail from all periods (from the Tang era and into the 19th c.), as well as metal laminars, lamellars, brigandines, and composite metal defenses. Sometimes other materials might take the place of the metal in a composite armour, but leather alone is pretty rare.

That's not to say that you always need metal to stop arrows.

There are thick riding coats that become quilted armour in textile-rich societies, but never specialize from generic clothing in societies that were not at the same level of proto-industry. A lot of Saheli cavalry was basically wrapped in layers and layers of clothing to counteract the local infantry who were predominantly archers.

Leather "armour" is actually pretty rare if it existed at all without something else to back it up (say, metal plates, like in the Mongol kuyak/huyeg armour), or to cushion the arrow's energy (quilted armour like teghilay with leather "mirrors").

The thing is, ranged attacks were more based on saturation, at this point, than targeting one or the other person. They were made less an as an anti-heavy cavalry perfect attack, than disorganize a charge. If the arrow killed someone, that was great, if it killed an horse good enough (but giving armies went with more horses than horsemen, not that of a victory asset. I'll point that even without massive protection, an horses is "naturally" more protected than human skin).

If anything, heavy horse when it timed the charge well had notable successes against horse archers, matched of course by notable failures when they did not, so they were always a great threat and a high-priority target. Any horse archer army would know to target enemy horsemen if they could.

But what you're saying generally applies to all archery, foot archery too. Long range engagements were saturation-based by necessity. There isn't anything special regarding horse archers in that respect.

This is not to say that aimed shots were not a tactic people practiced at closer ranges, they certainly were. There are huge arguments in Byzantine strategika about the superiority of heavier draws and better-aimed shooting, for example, and the Mongols definitely favoured very precise shooting on occasion and practiced for it in their grand hunts/military excercises.

 

[LSCatilina]

Please clarify?

As in mail armours being generally completed by non-metallic protections (you'd notice I never used "leather armour" in my sentence).

Haubert was often used with gambisons (protections sometimes padded, made of wool, line, cotton or leather), and repaired with different things (iron, cooper, horn or leather). Some armour parts (as camail) may be doubled by leather, line, etc. parts.

As there's almost no exemple of leather armour as such, there's as well few exemple of metal armour as such, would it be only for articulations.

My point, if you prefer, is that while horsemen were "armoured" (and not always in mail : that was more for the heavy cavalry we're talking about there, and not all of it), the protections used for horses were related to protections worn by men.

If anything, heavy horse when it timed the charge well had notable successes against horse archers, matched of course by notable failures when they did not, so they were always a great threat and a high-priority target. Any horse archer army would know to target enemy horsemen if they could.

But what you're saying generally applies to all archery, foot archery too. Long range engagements were saturation-based by necessity. There isn't anything special regarding horse archers in that respect.

Never said anything else, I think we agree both on it : my point was that medieval open field battles were static, in spite of tactical and sub-tactical moves, meaning not that of a use of a mounted archery when the foot archery was enough.

This is not to say that aimed shots were not a tactic people practiced at closer ranges, they certainly were. There are huge arguments in Byzantine strategika about the superiority of heavier draws and better-aimed shooting, for example, and the Mongols definitely favoured very precise shooting on occasion and practiced for it in their grand hunts/military excercises.

I don't think we disagree there either : saturation tactics aren't contradictory with aim, but this wasn't wholly necessary to the former, critically when the purpose wasn't to shoot for kill specifically (even if it was always a good thing) but to "harass" sub-tactical and tactical moves.

 

[RGB]

As in mail armours being generally completed by non-metallic protections (you'd notice I never used "leather armour" in my sentence).

Yeah, most armour systems are composite in nature. It's possible that mail was worn directly over everyday clothes, and of course gambesons were worn without metal too, but generally padding and a strong resistant surface are a standard combination.

I was just for a moment imagining some kind of all-leather armour that you see in fantasy or even historical-themed movies especially when it comes to the Steppes, which sort of alarmed me. Some kind of metal protection was always the method of choice even on the steppes if the warrior could afford it.

Never said anything else, I think we agree both on it : my point was that medieval open field battles were static, in spite of tactical and sub-tactical moves, meaning not that of a use of a mounted archery when the foot archery was enough.

I don't think we disagree there either : saturation tactics aren't contradictory with aim, but this wasn't wholly necessary to the former, critically when the purpose wasn't to shoot for kill specifically (even if it was always a good thing) but to "harass" sub-tactical and tactical moves.

Fully agreed on both points. A horse archer is best when you need to cover a lot of ground quickly and be ready for combat quickly too, or engage in combat several times in a short timeframe.

They're also better at getting away from pursuit, I imagine. Other than that, a foot archer can do a similar job.

 

[Russian]

Fully agreed on both points. A horse archer is best when you need to cover a lot of ground quickly and be ready for combat quickly too, or engage in combat several times in a short timeframe.

They're also better at getting away from pursuit, I imagine. Other than that, a foot archer can do a similar job.

There's one thing which foot archers cannot do in comparison with the horse archers:

Warfare is not that static even in the Medieval Europe, meaning you somehow have to move your armies/detachments 1) strategically (from your castle to the castle of your enemy) or 2) tactically (on the battle field or just foraging)

What the (good) horse archers are able to do - catching an army/detachment in the open unprepared when it is moving - after that encircling and further total annihilation.
There's one condition though - for such a trick you must have superiority in cavalry and missile troops, meaning that is a combined arms tactics; but the horse archers are essential here, the foot archers cannot do such thing for obvious reasons.