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).