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?
1) Forts and other obstacles. Anything to slow, redirect, or hinder raiders is something that makes your land less appealing of a target. A village with a few wooden block houses manned by villagers may not stand up to a determined assault, but it would actually require one, which means more raiders and by extension a need to divide up the loot a lot more and by extension far less profit.

2) A laregly mounted force is also preferable if only for the ability to quickly deploy and pursue the invaders. Tactically they're less important, as foot archers can body horse archers in a prolonged engagement, but you need to at least keep up with the enemy in order to have a pitched battle in the first place.

3) Diplomacy. If at all possible ally with weaker tribes against larger ones. Fostering "infighting" will prevent consolidation and direct hostility away from you. Having some horse nomads as allies or even subjects can be very useful.
 
Walls don't need to eat, don't need to be regularly paid, don't need to be trained, don't need to be drilled. Yes, walls can be expensive to build, but after they are built, it is cheaper to maintain. If they are stone walls you can even expect to see them lasting for centuries with little to no repair, or decades if they are made of wood. They give a multiplier factor to the garrison, as a garrison of a couple tens can hold against hundreds or thousands depending on the type and location of the defenses. But mobile armies needed horses, training, drilling, logistics, and replenishment as the men became old, infirm or died, or maybe they just needed to go home to tend to their affairs if they were the feudal type of army. Obviously, if you are the chief or king of a nomad people from the steppe you already have a mobile army just by virtue of existing, that is not true to a settled people, on the contrary, it is a heavy burden to maintain such a force.

Obviously, there are regions that aren't worth the cost of building a fortress to protect it in the first place, but if that is the case those same regions probably aren't worth maintaining a regular army to defend.

Good mobile armies can pay for themselves via loot. Something a fort and its garrison can't do.

No, they can't, they aren't going to extract much loot from nomads, and even if they were next to some rich land it would become depleted after many raids. The way that sedentary peoples paid their armies was the "Roman Legionary"/Mercenary way, paying regularly to professional soldiers and contracting mercenaries, or the "feudal knight"/"bronze age charioteer" way, giving the warrior rights over some plot of land and its people. Raiding was profitable only to bandits, pirates, and nomads, as they could strike quickly, avoid regular forces and then move to "greener pastures", on the other hand, regular armies raided in large scale only when they were campaigning.
 
3) Diplomacy. If at all possible ally with weaker tribes against larger ones. Fostering "infighting" will prevent consolidation and direct hostility away from you. Having some horse nomads as allies or even subjects can be very useful.
Came here to say this. Balance of power 101. Sure, there might be some spillover, but fighting each other is practically the ground state of nomads, and with some gifts to sweeten the deal, they'll usually be happy to carry on.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Wonder if the Ostrogoths could have adapted horse archery to counter Hunnic invasion.
No idea if this is possible. Wonder why others just didn't try to out Hundreds the Huns ? I mean they'd lag tactically and all but it'd be better than being annihilated
 
Make the nomadic confederations centralized and developed enough that they're the ones concerned with guarding their territory and maintaining trading posts, fighting off raiders from the sedentary realms.

During the Khazar Khaganate, war-parties and armies from agriculturalist lands (Abbasid, Byzantine, Viking, Rus') probably invaded the Khazar empire more than the other way around.
 
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.

The Pechenegs circled their wagons against the Byzantine/Cuman army, didn't work that great either. The Cumans used wagons and even mercenary field artillery against the Rus' (who would have fought predominantly as either heavy or archer cavalry), but also mostly without success. Still, it's a very very very old anti-cavalry technique and was valid in smaller actions into the 19th c.

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.

Going by later experience, some of them could have to some degree pre-fabricated: either the lumber prepared, at minimum, or both prepared and hewn by carpenters to size, and either shipped of floated (infantry of course mostly travelled by boat in the Princely period anyway). Of the later examples, Sviazhsk is the most famous but there are lots of ostrogs in Siberia and along the Belgorod line that were built just like that. Not sure if Kiev or Vladimir-era Rus had the same capability, but I wouldn't be surprised. They were definitely able to both clear roads through forests and build local abatis lines fairly quickly according to the chronicles.

Diplomacy. If at all possible ally with weaker tribes against larger ones. Fostering "infighting" will prevent consolidation and direct hostility away from you. Having some horse nomads as allies or even subjects can be very useful.

Or even just settle defeated horse peoples on your lands like Kiev, Georgia, Hungary and Bulgaria did (Lithuania and Moscow later). You might get assassinated by the occasional Cuman, of course, but at the same time you do get a large amount of quality cavalry in return.
 
Last edited:
Going by later experience, some of them could have to some degree pre-fabricated: either the lumber prepared, at minimum, or both prepared and hewn by carpenters to size, and either shipped of floated (infantry of course mostly travelled by boat in the Princely period anyway). Of the later examples, Sviazhsk is the most famous but there are lots of ostrogs in Siberia and along the Belgorod line that were built just like that. Not sure if Kiev or Vladimir-era Rus had the same capability, but I wouldn't be surprised. They were definitely able to both clear roads through forests and build local abatis lines fairly quickly according to the chronicles.

I'm not sure that in pre-Mongolian times the defensive lines had been popular to any noticeable degree but building a wooden fortification in a heavily forested area where practically any man had some carpentry skills was not a big deal. After all, the wooden cities had been regularly suffering from the fires and rebuilt at practically no time. BTW, speaking of the pre-fabrication, this applied not only to the fortifications but to the private houses as well (as I understand, this was a rather extensive business).

Anyway, there was seemingly noting in the terms of the fortified lines to impede the Mongolian conquest.


Or even just settle defeated horse peoples on your lands like Kiev, Georgia, Hungary and Bulgaria did (Lithuania and Moscow later). You might get assassinated by the occasional Cuman, of course, but at the same time you do get a large amount of quality cavalry in return.

Not necessarily defeated. In the case of the Muscovite state there were numerous "service Tatars" who came to the service voluntarily by one reason or another. For example, when the GH became politically unstable it was easy to get on a wrong side of a current winner or it could be just a matter of sticking to what started looking as a stronger player or some financial gain, etc. Or, as was the case with the Kalmuks, for quite a while they remained semi-independent nation closely aligned to Russia (especially when it was coming to acting against the Nogais).

When count Rastopchin (of Moscow "fame") had been asked why he is not a prince ("kniaz") he answered that when a Tatar noble was coming to the Moscow service in a summer time he was getting a princely title and when in summer - a warm overcoat. As often was the case with Rastopchin, this was a BS: title of a prince meant practically nothing in Muscovite state/Russia unless something else had been attached to it (combination of a very impressive pedigree AND a high position at court; in the imperial Russia - court position would suffice) but getting Tsar's coat was a very high and rather rare honor.
 
I'm so confused. I thought we were talking alternate history

I was using examples from the Russians to discuss potential ways a quasi-Roman state could defeat the nomads

I thought that was what the OP was asking
 
Make the nomadic confederations centralized and developed enough that they're the ones concerned with guarding their territory and maintaining trading posts, fighting off raiders from the sedentary realms.

During the Khazar Khaganate, war-parties and armies from agriculturalist lands (Abbasid, Byzantine, Viking, Rus') probably invaded the Khazar empire more than the other way around.

What you wrote is well supported by the history of the post-Golden Horde Tatar states on Volga and in the Crimea even if in the case of at least Crimean Khanate they kept raiding almost until the very end. But the case of the Crimea was somewhat different on 2 main accounts:

1st, their settled area was within a peninsula well defended by the combination of the fortifications (Perekop) and environment (an open steppe with a little water, very hot and dry summers and very cold winters) and big enough to accommodate most of the nomadic population with their herds.

2nd, they had a powerful protector, the Ottoman Empire, which may or may not object against specific anti-Tatar expedition (there was certain understanding of self-defense rights) but definitely would object against conquest of the Khanate (hence 2nd Russian-Ottoman War of the reign of Catherine II) both as a matter of principle and by the purely economic reasons like slave trade and salt extraction in Siwash.

As for the Khazars, by the time you are taking about the Khazars became semi-nomadic (had numerous cities) and at least some of their sedentary opponents had either cavalry-based armies or at least armies that was moving on a horseback and fought on foot (early Rus armies) while it seems that a military power of the Khaganate was on a serious decline even if just in the terms of an armored cavalry . Vulnerability of the Khazar state also was in the fact that at least some of their important cities had been on the rivers which made them easily reachable for the opponents skillful in a "river warfare" like Rus and Vikings. But then, again, by the time most these opponents became aggressive, the Khazar state already was much weaker that at its peak when it managed to subdue a vast area which included a lot of sedentary people so the whole thing may also be attributed to a growth of the new powers, especially the Muslims. Still, they won the 1st Arab-Khazar War and launched a number of raids into Transcaucasian principalities under Muslim dominion. Even in 722 they invaded Arab-held Armenia and defeated the Muslim troops there and (after some defeats) went on a new offensive in 726 "launching a major invasion of Albania and Azerbaijan; by 729, the Arabs had lost control of northeastern Transcaucasia and were thrust again into the defensive. In 730, Barjik invaded Iranian Azerbaijan and defeated Arab forces at Ardabil in before series of their defeats started." Only after 737 the Arabs started getting an upper hand but even then "Khazar general Ras Tarkhan invaded south of the Caucasus in 762–764, devastating Albania, Armenia, and Iberia, and capturing Tiflis. Thereafter relations became increasingly cordial between the Khazars and the Abbasids, whose foreign policies were generally less expansionist than the Umayyads, broken only by a series of raids in 799 over another failed marriage alliance." By the Xth century the Khazars had been squeezed between the nomadic Pechenegs in the steppe and emerging Kievan Rus on the North and the Alans encouraged by the Byzantines. In the case of Rus the main conflict was over the attempt to prevent the Russian looting raids by Volga and then Caspian Sea into the Muslim-held territories. Rather typically, by plotting defeating of the Khazar state Byzantines shot themselves in a foot: after destruction of the Kaghanate the same Russian prince Svyatoslav became a major pain in the Byzantine posteriors by (after being paid for fighting the Bulgarians) trying to create his own state in Northern Bulgaria with a capital on the Danube.


Strictly speaking, even if the nomads are not even united, they are still vulnerable to a reasonably mobile enemy familiar with the area. Each tribe has a limited area in which it moves and it has herds of a cattle which could not gallop away. And it usually has winter camps where at least some of the tribe stays even during the summer preparing the hay for the horses. Anyway, the yurts (or whatever is their equivalent) can not be moved fast especially if they are being transported by the oxen as was seemingly the case with the big yurts in Mongolia (http://originalyurts.com/yurt-gallery/yurts-in-history-and-art/) and probably Pechenegs, Cumans, etc. were not too different. So if you know whom you are trying to punish and have an adequate force, then you can invade the nomadic territory with a noticeable success .
 

elkarlo

Banned
Maybe they could circle the wagons like Jan Hus did later. Could corrals be effective against horse arching nomads ?
But bringing that would alow down an army
Have villages act as redoubts woukd be more feasible.
Also maybe pavaise mounted archers?
 

Redcoat

Banned
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.
What do you mean by that?
 
But bringing that would alow down an army

Most of the nomadic raiders ended up with having at least some wagons and, anyway, a traditional looting "item" were slaves who would slow raiders down to a great degree. Which is why one of the methods was to try to catch up with them on their way back from the raid when they'd be forced either to abandon most of the loot or to stand and fight the heavier opponent.


Have villages act as redoubts woukd be more feasible.

Yeah, sure. Also provide each and every village with a heavy artillery and not let the peasants go beyond the fortifications without being accompanied by a strong cavalry detachment. :winkytongue:

Putting an idea of the fortified villages aside, building numerous small border fortresses was a popular method of squeezing the nomads out of the area.


Also maybe pavaise mounted archers?

A mounted archer carrying a huge shield capable of covering the whole body is an interesting idea. Can you please explain how he is going to use his bow? :cool:
 
A mounted archer carrying a huge shield capable of covering the whole body is an interesting idea. Can you please explain how he is going to use his bow? :cool:

Just have it worn right on the body integral with the armour, like a Koryak/Chukcha/Nauru islander :p

But generally horse-archer shields only protect the wrist when worn with the bow. Archers with pavises would have to dismount, I imagine.
 
Wouldn't well trained foot archers work? I mean develop a proper tradition of it, like English longbowmen, but a soldiering class based in frontier forts like the streltsy? Combined with forts, they are cheaper maintain and perhaps more reliable than paying nomads. I guess arbalests would work as well? I know the greater range of foot archers and crossbowmen was used effectively against nomads from time to time, but none of the neighboring states really had a tradition for archers.
 
Wouldn't well trained foot archers work? I mean develop a proper tradition of it, like English longbowmen, but a soldiering class based in frontier forts like the streltsy?

I'm picturing something a lot like the marches in Wales and the Northland....in essence deployed to counter a similar threat of fast raiders, though not ones with the advantages of horse archery.

And yes, I do think that this would be highly effective. Most horse archers in history used bows of relatively low power, nothing that could match an English longbow in range. And the necessity of having unarmored horses in battle for quick movement is going to make broadhead arrows terrifyingly effective. Coupled with a heavy cavalry force and/or field fortifications, this approach allows you to deter heavily...you might not win, but you should make the horde pick an easier target.
 
What do you mean by that?
The life of a nomad was very difficult. However it was that same difficult lifestyle that make nomadic groups so talented at mounted warfare, archery, and hardiness. Over and over again, civilizations have come up with the idea of giving nomads land to settle in exchange for military service against other nomads. The nomads would dismount their horses, end up adopting agriculture, and pick up civilized traits. They also ended up getting steamrolled by the next group of nomads who kept up their old lifestyles. Because it was the lifestyle out on the plains created such hardy warriors. Once they adopt cities and agriculture, they quickly lost those traits in at most a few generations, leaving them vulnerable to being conquered by the next group.
 
The Crusaders used crossbow infantry, whose weapons outranged the Turk horse archers, to keep the horse archers at bay and limit theur ability to constantly ride in and out of range raining arrows on them. The alternatives for the Turks were then to give up and let the Crusaders go, or close in and fight which left them highly vulnerable to a heavy cavalry charge which was devastating.

Of course the big problem with this is the discipline it requires, fine with Richard or Barbarossa but it is a struggle for less disciplined armies. The Turks knew this too and would usually spend a week or more harrassing a moving army to goad smaller attacks that could be defeated before fighting a decisive battle.
 
Wouldn't well trained foot archers work? I mean develop a proper tradition of it, like English longbowmen, but a soldiering class based in frontier forts like the streltsy?

The streltsy were soldiers with the firearms, in the field they routinely used the mobile wooden "frortresses" as a cover, and what's more important they hated staying as the garrisons of the small border forts because for them it meant economic devastation: the state had been paying them salary but salary alone was not enough to sustain them and their families and in a time of peace they were small traders, artisans, etc. This worked in Moscow and reasonably big cities but not in the small forts far away from their shops. OTOH, the state simply did not have enough money to cover the gap. That famous "Streltsy Uprising" during Peter's reign (1698) was not just "ideological": the streltsy regiments involved had been sent from Moscow to the border, their salaries were not paid regularly and their businesses in Moscow had been ruined.

So the archers-based schema would suffer from the similar problems. Plus, these foot archers would be of a little use against the raiding nomads unless these nomads came to the fort's walls. In the field they alone would not be able to defend themselves (look at what happened to the unprotected longbowmen at Bannockburn): they needed infantry with the pikes and/or cavalry for a cover.



Combined with forts, they are cheaper maintain and perhaps more reliable than paying nomads. I guess arbalests would work as well? I know the greater range of foot archers and crossbowmen was used effectively against nomads from time to time, but none of the neighboring states really had a tradition for archers.

The nomads could be quite reliable if they are provided with the good accommodations within the country and consider the potential invaders as a danger to their own well-being. What (I think) you are talking about is hiring nomads as the mercenaries/allies on a temporary basis (as Byzantines had been doing quite often). Then, of course, their loyalty was "negotiable".

The bows or crossbows were not a solution, just a tool used as a part of the solution. And solution would have to include a mobile cavalry capable of catching up with the invaders. Both Russian and Polish models had been based on that premise (in both cases the mounted archers existed as a part of the cavalry).
 
Top