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

We have an interesting case study in the form of the Mongol invasions of Hungary. The first Mongol invasion was, as everybody knows, rather devastating, and after it was over the Hungarians implemented reforms in case they ever came back, which reforms largely consisted of building more castles and taking steps to increase the number of knights who could be raised. When the Mongols came back a few decades later, they found themselves bogged down in continual sieges and harassed by enemy raids, and when winter came they had to retreat with their tail between their legs. So, in short: lots of forts, and lots of cavalry.
 
We have an interesting case study in the form of the Mongol invasions of Hungary. The first Mongol invasion was, as everybody knows, rather devastating, and after it was over the Hungarians implemented reforms in case they ever came back, which reforms largely consisted of building more castles and taking steps to increase the number of knights who could be raised. When the Mongols came back a few decades later, they found themselves bogged down in continual sieges and harassed by enemy raids, and when winter came they had to retreat with their tail between their legs. So, in short: lots of forts, and lots of cavalry.

And the invading enemy who is not up to the task. ;)

The invasion you are talking about had been plagued, on the invading side, by the following factors:

1st, the goal of the invasion was not quite clear. Was it an attempt of conquest or just a big raid? As a result, a successful "raiding scenario" (looting) had been combined with the unsuccessful "conquest scenario" (futile attempts to take the castles which in the case of a raid could be mostly ignored in a favor of looting a countryside).

2nd, inadequate planning. Nogai was in charge of it and failed miserable (unless he was intentionally planning weakening of Telobuga). Two-prong attack was not coordinated and each "column" (just to simplify terminology) acted independently without expectation of a help from another. Even within the same "column" coordination between the lesser units seemingly was not up to the Mongolian standards.

3rd, obvious neglect of the strategic intelligence. There were numerous Cumans fleeing Hungary but it seems that information about the newl-built castles was not collected or simply ignored.

Even then, (a) column of Telobuga was defeated in a field battle (due to the absence of Nogai's cooperation), not because he could not take some castles and (b) existence of all these castles did not prevent Nogai from looting area for few months and even Telobuga made it all the way to Pest, where he was defeated in a battle. In other words, the fortified places are fine but the adequate field troops are necessary. As you said, a lot of both. :)
 
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.

That's right, the Crusader armies had European heavy cavalry and locally recruited Turcopole horse archers.

The crossbowmen were a (the?) start, they allowed infantry heavy armies to withstand the arrow shower and thus deny the horse archers victory. Once defeat is avoided the next step is to organize victory, which is where the cavalry comes in after the horse archers are stalemated by the infantry, both to harass and then finally charge home.

After tactical battles can be won territory can be fortified to ensure stategic control and victory.
 
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.

Manchu examination bows aren't significantly lower in draw power than English bows, and we don't really have that many historical composites left from other cultures. The studies on Ottoman and Mughal bows show roughly the same thing. Even the yumi can get up there sometimes. I don't know what justifies this claim, basically. A warbow needs to draw at least as much as a good hunting bow (60-70 lbs is the minimum today, for example) and upwards to the top range of human strength (say, 180-200 lbs). Most longbows and composites found and examined fall in the middle of that range (100-160). The range at which horse archery was done depends more on tactics and the accuracy challenge of shooting from horseback than bow performance, IMO.

Bows of any kind are also much more efficient per draw pound than crossbows. An 700-lb draw medieval crossbow only hits about as hard as a 100-lb bow, and both Manchu and English bows can range wayyyy up of that number.

Of course a powder arquebousse shoots harder, farther, and more accurately than either, and can actually beat tempered steel armour, but we're firmly in the pre-arquebousse era.
 
Last edited:
Seems I was mistaken. Still, the fact remains that you can probably have 2-3 times as many foot archers in the same space as 1 horse archer, so even if there's an equivalency of power for 1 bow it's much easier to fire the longbow en masse rather than picking out individual targets. While it seems the max range for some mongol bows was ~500m compared to ~400m for an English bow, the mongols' figures were highly extraordinary. I couldn't find the average mongol horseman's max range, but ~250m seems to be a consensus for English longbows. Thus, assuming that the Mongols would have to close to within ~250m themselves to provide anything more than harassing fire, the logic of spacing would give the advantage once again to the English. If they could fire effectively at longer ranges than that, I'd imagine that field fortifications would still have some effect if they could be forced to come to such range as to give plunging fire. Furthermore, it seems to me that the composite bows in use were much more fragile than the English longbow and any moisture could seriously damage the glue holding them together, compared to the English whose only concern was a wet bowstring. All this aside, given the standard skirmishing tactics of horse archers, I think that longbows especially could well be used to devastating effect, especially with broadheads.

Oh, and one thing I'd add to the list of anti-horse-archer measures would be light cavalry mounted on camels instead of horses, where practicable, given that camels have been known to spook horses.
 
Seems I was mistaken. Still, the fact remains that you can probably have 2-3 times as many foot archers in the same space as 1 horse archer, so even if there's an equivalency of power for 1 bow it's much easier to fire the longbow en masse rather than picking out individual targets. While it seems the max range for some mongol bows was ~500m compared to ~400m for an English bow, the mongols' figures were highly extraordinary. I couldn't find the average mongol horseman's max range, but ~250m seems to be a consensus for English longbows. Thus, assuming that the Mongols would have to close to within ~250m themselves to provide anything more than harassing fire, the logic of spacing would give the advantage once again to the English. If they could fire effectively at longer ranges than that, I'd imagine that field fortifications would still have some effect if they could be forced to come to such range as to give plunging fire. Furthermore, it seems to me that the composite bows in use were much more fragile than the English longbow and any moisture could seriously damage the glue holding them together, compared to the English whose only concern was a wet bowstring. All this aside, given the standard skirmishing tactics of horse archers, I think that longbows especially could well be used to devastating effect, especially with broadheads.

I suspect that figures of 400 or 500 metres mostly represent "trick shots" done for show, rather than actual battlefield shooting. Even 250 metres is probably too far to be truly effective, since by then the arrow would have lost too much momentum to cause any sort of serious wound.
 
Seems I was mistaken. Still, the fact remains that you can probably have 2-3 times as many foot archers in the same space as 1 horse archer,
so even if there's an equivalency of power for 1 bow it's much easier to fire the longbow en masse rather than picking out individual targets.

Most of the mass shooting both in the case of the English archers and in the case of the Mongols was a barrage fire at a high angle and not a precision fire (for which Genghis described special tactical form, "a chisel", used by a single rank of the skilled archers). Density considerations are not very important in both cases because a lesser density on nomadic side is being compensated by a speed of movement. Anyway, the whole comparison is pointless: the foot archers could not be used without a proper backup by a "heavy" infantry and in a battle they are pretty much static and, as a result vulnerable. Look what happened to the Janissary (very good archers with the powerful bows) at Ankara: their formation was surrounded and they were massacred.

While it seems the max range for some mongol bows was ~500m compared to ~400m for an English bow, the mongols' figures were highly extraordinary. I couldn't find the average mongol horseman's max range, but ~250m seems to be a consensus for English longbows. Thus, assuming that the Mongols would have to close to within ~250m themselves to provide anything more than harassing fire, the logic of spacing would give the advantage once again to the English.

All these, quite popular, numbers are a result of a profound confusion between a notion of a maximum range of a weapon (usually in a target practice), an effective range of the same weapon when used by the big masses in the battle conditions and the killing range at which the target (especially armored) could be seriously hurt. In other words, pretty much irrelevant.

If they could fire effectively at longer ranges than that, I'd imagine that field fortifications would still have some effect if they could be forced to come to such range as to give plunging fire.

The whole purpose of the fortifications was to provide cover for their defenders and, except for some Chinese "historic" movies, the fortifications had been rarely taken just by shooting the arrows: the attackers had to dismount and proceed with the boring tasks of climbing the ladders, breaking the gates, etc. In other words, get close enough to the walls and, quite often to put themselves in a position where they simply can't use their bows. Without any doubts the Mongolian bows had a higher range than the Russian circa XIII and yet, the cities with rather primitive fortifications had been taken by storm and not by an archery barrage which means that even a stockade can provide a considerable protection against the archery.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the composite bows in use were much more fragile than the English longbow and any moisture could seriously damage the glue holding them together, compared to the English whose only concern was a wet bowstring. All this aside, given the standard skirmishing tactics of horse archers, I think that longbows especially could well be used to devastating effect, especially with broadheads.

Finally, here we go with the "moisture" mantra (it did not take as long as I hoped)! x'D

To start with, "classic" Mongolian bows had been using the fish glue with stands up to the moisture quite well. Second, an idea that the nomads (in general) would become weaponless after a single rain is something worthy of Lord of the Rings: just wait until it starts raining and the weaponless enemy is running away. Third, if you started with the Mongolian bows, then it makes sense to talk about the Mongolian tactics and the Mongols had a powerful armored cavalry, not just the light mounted archers. Fourth, it does not really matter to you if you are being killed just because your bowstring is got wet and you are left with just a stick in your hand while being run down by a cavalry armed with the spears and swords (and holding their bows safe in the leather bags).

English archery experience was against a substantially different opponent: much slower, incapable of maneuvering, and quite often fighting on foot (the French started dismounting their knights relatively early in the 100YW). Even then, success required a reliable defensive position from which they could do shooting and the enemy slowly coming at the front. Now, what would they do with the enemy who is bypassing them on one or both flanks, which was one of the standard Mongolian and Tatars tactics? What would they do to the enemy who, following Pratchett's advice (;)), just allows them to stay in a good position (you can check what happened to the Kievan troops at Kalka)? The foot archers can't maneuver on a battlefield, they can't pursue a mounted opponent and they can't ran away from him.

The broadheads are fine but you have to hit someone with them which is not simple is you are shooting at the fast riding cavalry. And with the standard English formations and barrage fire the effect would be rather unimpressive. Actually, it was not very impressive even in OTL unless the shooting was done at point blank range as at Crecy or French cavalry detachment at Poitiers.


Oh, and one thing I'd add to the list of anti-horse-archer measures would be light cavalry mounted on camels instead of horses, where practicable, given that camels have been known to spook horses.

The best scenario would be the English archers riding the camels and elephants: all the local horses would be spooked at no time. ;)

Can you please explain why the horses brought up in an environment where the camels had been a standard part of a livestock would be spooked of them?
 
Given the expense and complexity of the methods for fighting nomads directly given in this thread, is it any wonder that Pay Them to Go Away was such a popular choice OTL?;)

Even better when you can persuade them to go off and attack your annoying neighbor, or waste all their energy fighting to come top of the heap in the nomadic confederacy.
 
using the western American-Indian wars as an example wait for winter when the nomads are tied down to winter camps, (reduced mobility) attack the camp and kill the horse herds, if they leave they lose supplies if they fight you still have the fight you want not one that they can disengage from if it's to their advantage
 
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.
They used mountains.
 
Presumably they'd be like Dragoons and fight on foot while mostly using the horse only for mobility.

What you described is an operation model of the English archers. The main differences (in the English case) are absence of (a) the huge shields and (b) the nomads. :)

Anyway, it is often forgotten that the English archers had been fighting only as a part of a tactical formation which included the foot units capable of covering them from enemy's attack.
 
using the western American-Indian wars as an example wait for winter when the nomads are tied down to winter camps, (reduced mobility) attack the camp and kill the horse herds, if they leave they lose supplies if they fight you still have the fight you want not one that they can disengage from if it's to their advantage

Very nice except that the Mongols also had a nasty habit to attack during the winter (campaign in the Central Rus, 2nd invasion of Hungary). It all boils down to who is going to be afraid of being engaged with whom so example of the American-Indians vs. XIX century troops is not necessarily a good parallel with the situation when both sides are on the same technological level and when you need to cross a big steppe space during the winter. Let's say that in the Volga area your whole expedition would have a good chance to end up as the icy statues and before you manage to get to the enemy's cattle you'd have to carry with you big quantities of food and forage which is not quite conductive to a fast march.
 
That's right, the Crusader armies had European heavy cavalry and locally recruited Turcopole horse archers.

The crossbowmen were a (the?) start, they allowed infantry heavy armies to withstand the arrow shower and thus deny the horse archers victory. Once defeat is avoided the next step is to organize victory, which is where the cavalry comes in after the horse archers are stalemated by the infantry, both to harass and then finally charge home.

After tactical battles can be won territory can be fortified to ensure stategic control and victory.

That's right but AFAIK the Holy Land of that period was not inhabited by the nomads and the same applies to most of the territory the 1st Crusade was passing through.
 
It's interesting, I realised from some replies to me that there are 2 discussions going on here parallel

I had assumed the discussion was "How would a non-gunpowder people colonise the steppe" so my replies are all based on making comparisons to how Russia did it, and looking at eternals (organisation etc) versus technology (rifles, cannon) and its potential replacements

But at the same time I now see there is the other discussion, which is how would a non-gunpowder people defeat aggressive steppe nomads.

My comments about forts are based on the former proposition - Russian forts did not control roads, passes, crossings, but placed a marker in hostile terriitory, and then used it as a base to advance from.
 
That's right but AFAIK the Holy Land of that period was not inhabited by the nomads and the same applies to most of the territory the 1st Crusade was passing through.

The Turkish polities in Anatolia were herders, is not fully nomadic at least partly so. These polities had horse-archer armies the Byz and Crusaders had to deal with when operating in central and eastern Anatolia. Further, the Muslim states in the north, Syria etc, recuited heavily from these areas for troops, so while the people there not nomads the armies certainly had large contingents of horse archers at their core. The Fatimids of Egypt didn't have large horse archer contingents in their armies, being a bit far away from the recruiting areas. They used infantry and spear-cavalry, which the crusaders readily dealt with.
 
The Turkish polities in Anatolia were herders, is not fully nomadic at least partly so. These polities had horse-archer armies the Byz and Crusaders had to deal with when operating in central and eastern Anatolia. Further, the Muslim states in the north, Syria etc, recuited heavily from these areas for troops, so while the people there not nomads the armies certainly had large contingents of horse archers at their core. The Fatimids of Egypt didn't have large horse archer contingents in their armies, being a bit far away from the recruiting areas. They used infantry and spear-cavalry, which the crusaders readily dealt with.

This is all true but has little to do with a subject: Eastern-European defense (in the case of the Crusaders we are talking about the offense) against the Steppe nomads. Existence of the mounted archers is neither here nor there: armies of the Muscovite state had plenty of them even if the state was not nomadic.
 
This is all true but has little to do with a subject: Eastern-European defense (in the case of the Crusaders we are talking about the offense) against the Steppe nomads. Existence of the mounted archers is neither here nor there: armies of the Muscovite state had plenty of them even if the state was not nomadic.

Sure, but the problem with steppe nomads is their awesome tactical power on the battlefield rather than their ability to forge powerful states and economies. States with great economies and wealth were basically prey for the kleptocratic steppe nomads, so had to be defeated in battle. That's how you defend against them, by winning battles against armies of horse archers.
 
Top