Best Methods for Eastern European Cultures to Counter Steppe Nomads Pre-Gunpowder?

Basically as the tin says, what would be ideal pre-gunpowder counter measures for Eastern European civilizations and cultures to use against the Steppe Nomads that raided them for centuries?
 
Hire some nomads of your own and sic them on the nomads who keep raiding your livestock. Let them fight it out and leave you alone.
 
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.
 
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.

To further this point: maintaining these fortifications can be expensive, especially at the edge of a large empire, and in an area far from easily accessible supplies. The Byzantines had success along the Danube, but couldn't always maintain their depots and garrisons due to internal strife or competing needs for resources on other fronts. Same for the Chinese along their northern frontier; and they didn't even have the use of a major river.

Oh, and you need to make sure your commanders in the region don't get bribed or "go native" (adopt the culture and socio-political goals of the locals)...again, happened to the Chinese and Turkish defenses in central Asia at various times and places.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Hire some nomads of your own and sic them on the nomads who keep raiding your livestock. Let them fight it out and leave you alone.
That works until the guys you hire get strong .

Need heavy horse archers and lots of fortifications to make it hard to raid.
 
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.

Not too many mountain passes in the steppes, though.
 

longsword14

Banned
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.
Could it work for sparsely populated areas with most of the population being exposed ? Forts as launch pads for counter attacks is one thing, but unless another cavalry force to mirror the nomads is kept what use are fortifications ?
 

elkarlo

Banned
Could it work for sparsely populated areas with most of the population being exposed ? Forts as launch pads for counter attacks is one thing, but unless another cavalry force to mirror the nomads is kept what use are fortifications ?
That is half the battle. Lots of smaller forts means a lot more distance traveled for an invading force. Allowing heavier horse archers to catch up and attack. The heavy horse archers were armored making them more survivable at long range exchanges. Also in close they were like medium Knights. Take that and limit the way invaders can move and it makes it a deterrent .
 
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.

Well, it did not work too well in the case of China (was there a single nomadic nation worthy of mentioning that did not invade it successfully? ;)) and, as you remarked, most of the steppe-bordering states did not have enough resources and I's add that there were not always critical fords and mountain passes available.

As for the fortifications, with enough trees available the cheapest version was "zaseka": tress cut to fall face to the potential "front". If done properly, this would hold cavalry while not requiring any garrisons.

However, the defensive fortifications were not enough: there was a need of a strong cavalry combining heavy armored troops and the light archers. Worked reasonably effectively against the nomadic archers (Pechenegs, Polovtsy) but did not work against the Mongols who themselves were combining the light and armored troops. OTOH, the Poles eventually developed their hussars as a heavy cavalry primarily targeted to fight the Tatars (by that time predominantly light mounted archers) and the Ottomans. Of course, they were usually supported by the lighter cavalry units.

AFAIK, one of the popular methods was to catch up with the raiders on their way back when they were burdened by the loot and could not move fast or to try to pin them against some reasonably serious natural obstacle and then crush with a heavy cavalry. At Lechfeld the Magyars were fooling enough to attack across the river on their own initiative but almost succeeded with their enveloping maneuver. Still, for the light cavalry to get into the hand-to-hand fight with the armored enemy was a very risky thing to do.
 

Vuu

Banned
Steal their tactics, resulting in a hybrid society - the soldiers are nomadic (probably rotating seasonally) and can give the raiders a taste of their own medicine
 
Could it work for sparsely populated areas with most of the population being exposed ? Forts as launch pads for counter attacks is one thing, but unless another cavalry force to mirror the nomads is kept what use are fortifications ?

You are asking the right question. :)

The workable model was to have the fortified lines (combination of the fallen trees, earthworks and forts) more or less limiting areas of a possible penetration AND the troops ready to face the raiders in the field. These troops would be mostly raised locally prior to the time of a possible attack (at least with the Tatars the raids were "seasonal") and consist of a combination of heavy and light cavalry. The standing armies were predominantly a thing of the future.
 
Look at what Russia did

1) build a fort - it's not controlling a route but placing a marker on that territory
(you could even argue Kokand did this too)

2) Each year push on further

Now, obviously Russia had gunpowder and artillery, but what they had especially was organisation and an understanding of tactics. A decent Russian commander (there were a few duds, especially against the Turcomans) would use these to great advantage.

For example, whilst we might look at there being no muskets or rockets or cannon, this wouldn't mean there were no projectile weapons - so your pre-gunpowder peoples can bring mobile ballistae and big-arrow-firing machines etc into play. A good commander could use as the Russians used cannon - enfilade the enemy and slam this stuff down on them.

A marching Russian column beat off numerous massed attacks by cavalry for a couple of days by constantly halting, regrouping and seeing them off - i.e. organisation and cohesion. Of course they were delayed in their objective and took casualties, but the enemy plan was foiled, and it was basically the only plan they had.
 
Steal their tactics, resulting in a hybrid society - the soldiers are nomadic (probably rotating seasonally) and can give the raiders a taste of their own medicine

The problem was that these "home made" nomads could represent the same danger as the real nomads (as was the case with the Cossacks). ;) In pre-firearms times most of the states simply could not afford to keep too many troops on a regular salary, which means that the these troops would have to live by the looting and whom they would go to loot? OTOH, the system in which soldier is a part-time peasant (also had been tried) means that as a horseman and raider he is not of the same quality as a true nomadic horseman. The Cossacks were, to a great degree, an infantry (all the way to the XVIII century).

What was tried with a certain success is to have the "domesticated" nomads (Lipky Tatars in Lithuania, Kasimov Tatars and Kalmuks in Tsardom of Moscow, etc.).
 
To further this point: maintaining these fortifications can be expensive, especially at the edge of a large empire, and in an area far from easily accessible supplies.

I must point out that mobile armies are way more expensive than fortresses.
 
I must point out that mobile armies are way more expensive than fortresses.

The short answer is "it depends". ;)

In the medieval Eastern Europe where the main contacts with the nomads had been happening the armies had been predominantly mounted and they did not cost too much because we are talking not about the standing regular modern armies but about the troops raised based on the local nobility to repel the specific treats of invasion. Until much modern times these nobles had been serving mostly for the land grants and/or loot, not for money. The same goes for the "domesticated" nomads who had been (by numerous reasons) coming to the service of Lithuania or Moscow.

OTOH, fortifications of that region during the medieval period were not exactly replicas of the Great Wall of China: they were mostly made of wood (easily available on the steppe-forest border) and with plenty of a reasonably qualified labor force (everybody knew how to work with an ax) and cheap material cost of their construction was quite low.
 
Fortifications. Build them as quick and as thickly as you can at every critical ford, mountain pass, or river bend. That's how it worked irl even before powder. It's just that the steppe-bordering states weren't strong enough to do it really efficiently at the time.
Maybe they could circle the wagons like Jan Hus did later. Could corrals be effective against horse arching nomads ?
 
Look at what Russia did

1) build a fort - it's not controlling a route but placing a marker on that territory
(you could even argue Kokand did this too)

The "forts" alone were not solving the problem because they could be easily bypassed. With the most valuable looting item being slaves, it was enough to collect them from a countryside without bothering with the sieges. Well, of course, if a fortified town could be taken by surprise or if its fortifications could be easily destroyed (after all, it was wood), then of course, opportunity could be exploited.

The idea was to built the defensive lines which would combine forts and the lines of various obstacles which could remain unmanned by the virtue of just blocking passage of a cavalry by their existence (fallen trees, earthworks, etc.).

2) Each year push on further

Now, obviously Russia had gunpowder and artillery, but what they had especially was organisation and an understanding of tactics. A decent Russian commander (there were a few duds, especially against the Turcomans) would use these to great advantage.

For example, whilst we might look at there being no muskets or rockets or cannon, this wouldn't mean there were no projectile weapons - so your pre-gunpowder peoples can bring mobile ballistae and big-arrow-firing machines etc into play. A good commander could use as the Russians used cannon - enfilade the enemy and slam this stuff down on them.

Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge the "mobile ballistae and big-arrow-firing machines" were not in the game as the field weapons (if at all) as far as the Muscovite warfare was involved. With the introduction of a gunpowder and organization of the 1st regular infantry, the streltsy, they had been using a mobile field fortification, "guliaj gorod", which was a set of the big wooden shields on the wheels joined together with the chains and providing protection for the infantry and field artillery.


A marching Russian column beat off numerous massed attacks by cavalry for a couple of days by constantly halting, regrouping and seeing them off - i.e. organisation and cohesion. Of course they were delayed in their objective and took casualties, but the enemy plan was foiled, and it was basically the only plan they had.

If we are still talking about the pre-firearms time (and pre-modern times in general), then there were no "marching columns" (all the way to the mid-XVII). The bulk of their field armies consisted of a cavalry (armored and not), all armed with the bows. In the pre-Mongolian times bands of the princes had separate light archers and armored heavy cavalry similar to the Western knights of the same period (no long range weapons).
 
Maybe they could circle the wagons like Jan Hus did later. Could corrals be effective against horse arching nomads ?

Of course, an idea of circling the wagons proved to be of a questionable merit at the battle of Kalka river (all defenders had been killed) but in more modern times this was the favorite method of the Cossack fighting both against Tatars and the Poles (not always successful in both cases).

Actually, the Taborites did not exactly "circled" the wagons: their wagons formations tended to be rectangular and they usually had to deal with a different type of an enemy: heavy cavalrymen with very little (if nothing) in the terms of the long range weapons.
 
Top