When's the latest that nomads could beat a western-style army?

Out of Russia, yes, back to France, no. It required the Prussians and Austrians to chuck in massive armies.
Nomads could have won battles in frontier conditions all the way up to the introduction of breech loaders and railways, but their ability to actually do something with their armies was dead long before that (17th century).

Sort of? I'm not going to deny the Prussians and Russians were involved, but the Russians were the biggest of the three. I struggle with the idea that the Russian army at Borodino wasn't western.
 

longsword14

Banned
but the Russians were the biggest of the three.
No, reminding that people often forget that without Central Europe piling on the Russians were not going to do OTL by themselves. 1945 this is not.
Schwarzenberg's Army of Bohemia was as big as those of the Russians, and its position completely undermined all hope of a recovery for Napoleon (the start of the campaign was not going so well for Prussia and Russia).
 
In the late-nineteenth century, the Comanche could have certainly beaten the Mexican army had Mexico retained Comancheria, though this has more to do with Mexican instability than anything else.
 
It really REALLY depends on what a nomad army looks like as it evolves.

I still think that there is a plausible hybrid Nomad-Settled civilisation that is possible. As a result, you can have settlements deep in 'nomad' territory that are used to produce a form of carbine, or light cannon - or any other form of weapon that could be useful.

After all, nomad armies are defined by their mobility, not so much simply that they have lots of horse archers. It could have an equivalent of a hussite war-wagon to allow larger cannon to be used.

I'd even go so far as to say, with a blip when the gatling gun comes along, and now where wars aren't typically fought in the same way, that you could have a nomadic army that moves from horseback to combustion engine - very light tanks and armoured fuel tankers.

I might be pushing OTHER definitions of 'nomad army', but if it is as nomadic as the mongols, then it'd be fine.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say, that you could continue a Nomad Army, supported by Western-Style forces till the modern day, in the same way that the Mongols would supplement their forces with settled levies.
 
No, reminding that people often forget that without Central Europe piling on the Russians were not going to do OTL by themselves. 1945 this is not.
Schwarzenberg's Army of Bohemia was as big as those of the Russians, and its position completely undermined all hope of a recovery for Napoleon (the start of the campaign was not going so well for Prussia and Russia).

I mean Nap was magic but that's minor quibbles. Other than Bashkir auxiliaries and the pre-1813 Cossack regimental system Russia had nothing left of a native military tradition. It was a western army with western weapons and western ranks and similar enough that foreign officers could serve in it with no issue and keep their ranks if they moved to serve in another European country. On top of that it was a fairly effective western army that took on other Europeans confidently. Its great failing was a very embryonic supply and logistics system which was reformed only in the 1860s. But it wasn't unique in that respect. Basically I think that definitions which fit only a couple of examples while discounting others on arbitrary lines are not useful.
 
What about modernized nomads? Like with motorcycles and more convention wartime weapons?

I don't know about motorcycles, but the Plains Indians had plenty of guns and knew how to use them to devastating effect, as did the horse-riding Janajaweed militias during the Darfur genocide.

Assuming the special forces activities currently being conducted by the US military in West Africa are ever declassified, that might be our first look at what mechanized nomads look like depending on what vehicles the touaregs have access too.
 

longsword14

Banned
I agree that the Russian system was Western in nature with variations present. My response was to Faeelin's habit of one line snarking that often exaggerates/diminishes the reality.
Most of the Russian reversals to nomads post 16th century seem to be in small scale wars, and those never seriously threatened the heartland.
 
I’d hardly call Custer’s force an army...
Fair point, but forces not much larger than Custer's conquered entire polities for Britain and France's colonial empires or King Leopold's so called Congo Free State. Custer was arrogant and careless and his men paid the price.
 
I agree that the Russian system was Western in nature with variations present. My response was to Faeelin's habit of one line snarking that often exaggerates/diminishes the reality.
Most of the Russian reversals to nomads post 16th century seem to be in small scale wars, and those never seriously threatened the heartland.

Well, asking for a force that threatens the heartland is IMO different than what the thread is calling for. A nomadic force will succeed in the 18th century when it can use its main advantage of mobility. The nomadic states are clearly on the defensive by this point, trying to stop the Russians from conquering Crimea/Southern Ukraine, the Qing from conquering China, or the Spanish in Comancheria. You harass settlements on the margin, withdraw and attack the supply lines of troops that are moving in to face you, and repeat. Your goal isn't to sack Moscow; it's to keep the Czar from fencing you in.
 
Out of Russia, yes, back to France, no. It required the Prussians and Austrians to chuck in massive armies.
Nomads could have won battles in frontier conditions all the way up to the introduction of breech loaders and railways, but their ability to actually do something with their armies was dead long before that (17th century).

Much of the forces under Prussian command were Russian anyway...
 
I think the range of cannon and musket is, imo, the key issue here although I am not sure when the range tipped the scales to the West.

At (I think) Leipzig, the Russian forces included some horse archer auxiliaries. Their French opponents were pretty dismissive of the killing power of their bows compared to muskets.
 
It really REALLY depends on what a nomad army looks like as it evolves.

I still think that there is a plausible hybrid Nomad-Settled civilisation that is possible. As a result, you can have settlements deep in 'nomad' territory that are used to produce a form of carbine, or light cannon - or any other form of weapon that could be useful.

After all, nomad armies are defined by their mobility, not so much simply that they have lots of horse archers. It could have an equivalent of a hussite war-wagon to allow larger cannon to be used.

I'd even go so far as to say, with a blip when the gatling gun comes along, and now where wars aren't typically fought in the same way, that you could have a nomadic army that moves from horseback to combustion engine - very light tanks and armoured fuel tankers.

I might be pushing OTHER definitions of 'nomad army', but if it is as nomadic as the mongols, then it'd be fine.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say, that you could continue a Nomad Army, supported by Western-Style forces till the modern day, in the same way that the Mongols would supplement their forces with settled levies.

There's a difference between mobility as a strategy for war and nomadic peoples waging war with nomadic armies. At the very latest, warfare post industrial revolution requires economic infrastructure to produce the weapons for war. Yes, there is the potential to extort more advanced neighbors to obtain said weaponry but eventually these peoples ware going to wake up to the fact that they can put more fire power in the field than the nomads in a way that no medieval civilization could.

Further the nomadic peoples going back to ancient times had advantages over Western armies due to superior horsemanship. These people were raised on the backs for horses allowing them to accomplish extraordinary feats on the battlefield. The horse archer in particular allowed for the combination of speed and range that no other unit could match, at least on open ground. Even if you add the Gatling gun to the mix or a Hussite cannon but you are not going to be better at it than your foe like they were on a horse.
 
What about modernized nomads? Like with motorcycles and more convention wartime weapons?
No, air power and tanks destroy them. The only way I see "nomads" wining are if the are in Mountains or Jungles/swamps. These places seem to be the only terrain that stops or hampers armed forces to a degree that the "nomads" could win.
 
At an Enormous Push and a Shove...

...The Czech Legion of the Great War was very mobile (armoured trains) and fought all the way to Vladivostok. Artillery, cavalry, infantry and successfully robbing Lenin of a wagonload of gold (see Legion Bank).
 
Top