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

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.

The problem with steppe nomads was their ability to raid your territory and escape without facing you in a battle. As far as the Eastern Europe was involved, victories in the battles (quite a few of them) were not producing the desirable results (elimination of the nomadic raids) until the mid-XVIII which is a time of the firearms and regular armies.
 
The problem with steppe nomads was their ability to raid your territory and escape without facing you in a battle. As far as the Eastern Europe was involved, victories in the battles (quite a few of them) were not producing the desirable results (elimination of the nomadic raids) until the mid-XVIII which is a time of the firearms and regular armies.

Beating the nomads in battle might not be enough on its own to defend your lands against them, but it sure helps.
 
The best defense is a good offense, the Mongols were only dangerous when they united under a powerful leader, without a Genghis, they would be stuck in the steppe cycle of conflict. Just keep an eye out for dangers and interfere in steppe politics when needed. Hell some of the tribe leaders may even thank you.
 
Were they tried and found to be effective?
Persia recovered Ionia from the Greeks without fighting by threatening to fund the enemies of whoever did not assent to the arrangement. The Scythians defeated the Persian invasion by scorched earth methods, not battle. The Romans repeatedly beat the Parthians, capturing their capital multiple times. Unable to beat Hannibal in the field, the Romans drove him from Italy by invading Africa. The French avoided battle with Edward III and forced him to cede much of his lands and renounce the crown of France even while he held their king captive. Frederick prevented the Habsburgs from taking Bavaria through superior diplomatic maneuvering to create strong armies of observation. The Turks forced the Venetians to assent to the loss of Cyprus and pay and indemnity by cutting off their economic lifeline of trade with the Levant even after the crushing defeat at Lepanto. Suleiman got Charles V to assent to a truce by brutal slave-raiding along the coast of Italy. The Continentals gradually eroded the British will to occupy the colonies by keeping an army in being and avoiding pitched battles. The Vietnamese got paved in every major engagement with US forces, but exhausted our will to fight in Vietnam.

So yes, strategies besides pitched battles could be highly effective, as any educated person would expect; war being a simple continuation of politics, political tools are often just as useful in war.
 
Persia recovered Ionia from the Greeks without fighting by threatening to fund the enemies of whoever did not assent to the arrangement. The Scythians defeated the Persian invasion by scorched earth methods, not battle. The Romans repeatedly beat the Parthians, capturing their capital multiple times. Unable to beat Hannibal in the field, the Romans drove him from Italy by invading Africa. The French avoided battle with Edward III and forced him to cede much of his lands and renounce the crown of France even while he held their king captive. Frederick prevented the Habsburgs from taking Bavaria through superior diplomatic maneuvering to create strong armies of observation. The Turks forced the Venetians to assent to the loss of Cyprus and pay and indemnity by cutting off their economic lifeline of trade with the Levant even after the crushing defeat at Lepanto. Suleiman got Charles V to assent to a truce by brutal slave-raiding along the coast of Italy. The Continentals gradually eroded the British will to occupy the colonies by keeping an army in being and avoiding pitched battles. The Vietnamese got paved in every major engagement with US forces, but exhausted our will to fight in Vietnam.

So yes, strategies besides pitched battles could be highly effective, as any educated person would expect; war being a simple continuation of politics, political tools are often just as useful in war.
Any specific examples related to the topic in question? The question isn't really about historical generalities about how you don't need to fight pitched battles to achieve victory, but rather how that applies to pacifying the steppes.
 
Any specific examples related to the topic in question? The question isn't really about historical generalities about how you don't need to fight pitched battles to achieve victory, but rather how that applies to pacifying the steppes.
Not off the top of my head. Nomad policy not really my field, but since I was responding to an argument about the general relationship between strategy and tactics, I used a wide variety of examples to illustrate the underlying principle.
 
Isn't it almost word by word the description of a samurai?

Take a look:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Samurai_on_horseback0.jpg

What you see on that picture is not a shield but a part of samurai's armor style ō-yoroi : fabric and plate sleeve (yugote) worn on the left arm when using a bow. The differences with pavise shield are obvious: (a) size - pavise was big enough to cover the whole body and (b) it was a single inflexible solid piece.

During the early Middle Ages the Western heavy armored cavalry had been using the big shields (like those seen on Bayeox Tapestry; the same shields as infantry was using) but it did not have the bows and, as far as I can tell, even these shield had been smaller than the pavises.
 
EVERYONE was a nomad

The Cimbric Wars was Rome against the Nomads. Rome won because Marius was a tactical genius (and because he had sufficient authority to weather the criticism of his death-or-glory critics, though only just)
 
What you see on that picture is not a shield but a part of samurai's armor style ō-yoroi: fabric and plate sleeve (yugote) worn on the left arm when using a bow. The differences with pavise shield are obvious: (a) size - pavise was big enough to cover the whole body and (b) it was a single inflexible solid piece.

I know that it is his armor, but I am showing to you how you can use some type of shield-like protection that will cover your entire body. To further explanation about what I am talking and why I am stating that it is like a shield I invite you to watch this video:


The part that is interesting to my point starts in 5:45
 
I know that it is his armor, but I am showing to you how you can use some type of shield-like protection that will cover your entire body. To further explanation about what I am talking and why I am stating that it is like a shield I invite you to watch this video:


The part that is interesting to my point starts in 5:45

It can not cover the whole body because it is too small. Then, of course, there is a huge difference between using a cavalry pistol (as in the picture), which requires one hand, and using a bow, which requires both hands.

The shields had been routinely used by pre-gunpowder cavalry, even by the mounted archers, but the were small. What the video is talking about is his interpretation of armored sleeve as an equivalent of a more traditional European and Asiatic small cavalry shield. Logic somewhat dubious but, anyway, he is not talking about pavise style shields which in that video are clearly shown as being used by infantry.
 
Top