Why couldn't steppe hordes take advantage of gunpowder&firearms to perpetuate military superiority?

[Fenestella]

Steppe Hordes were known for their versatility to exploit sedentary societies' technologies and talents like siege engines and engineers.

Why couldn't they incorporate gunpowder & firearms into their war machines to perpetuate their superiority over sedentary societies?

 

[DominusNovus]

From my reading of history:

Because firearms play to sedentary societies' main strength: numbers. Once firearms are developed enough, they require a fraction of the training bows require, so anyone can use them (small wonder that they preceded the enlightenment, which toppled feudalism more or less for the same reason), so your whole population is now capable of going toe to toe against the fiercest nomadic warriors, and take out a large number of the riders even in defeat. The nomadic societies just can sustain the losses such fighting would involve.

 

[Aphrodite]

1) Horses don't like gunfire

2) Its really hard to reload a flintlock while on horseback

3) You can't really aim while a horse is galloping. Old Westerns aside, the stride of the horse disrupts your rhythm

4) Horses present big targets

The best you could do is use the horses for mounted infantry- like dragoons

 

[Earth Judicar]

I'd also assume manufacturing firearms is a lot easier for sedentary societies than it is for nomads.

 

[Avrorrange]

I'd also assume manufacturing firearms is a lot easier for sedentary societies than it is for nomads.

Not to mention,it takes money to do that.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Because firearms play to sedentary societies' main strength: numbers. Once firearms are developed enough, they require a fraction of the training bows require, so anyone can use them (small wonder that they preceded the enlightenment, which toppled feudalism more or less for the same reason), so your whole population is now capable of going toe to toe against the fiercest nomadic warriors, and take out a large number of the riders even in defeat. The nomadic societies just can sustain the losses such fighting would involve.

The notion that bows required loads of training compared to firearms is a myth. Whilst getting really good with a bow required a lot of practice, you didn't need to be really good to usefully take part in a battle.

 

[Droman]

I mean, the Ottomans did and they were a Turkic civilization that had a non-sedentary lifestyle for a long time. I don't think their Kurdish auxiliaries for example were ever fully settled until the late 1800s, if my understanding of Sultan Hamid's desire for a military force resembling the Cossacks is anything to go on.

 

[DominusNovus]

The notion that bows required loads of training compared to firearms is a myth. Whilst getting really good with a bow required a lot of practice, you didn't need to be really good to usefully take part in a battle.

They sure as hell required more strength.

 

[The Undead Martyr]

Guns are a deliberate tradeoff that favors large, densely packed infantry formations- precisely the opposite of nomadic warfare, which emphasized cavalry and mobility.

Guns also are chosen when armor is a major problem- as with Africa and the Americas, for instance, where guns were disdained by the locals who also managed to bloody Europeans regardless. It's important to remember that these sorts of societies don't have large scale troop movements, at least not as frequently- when you're armies are only a few thousand, and are depending more on raids, skirmishes, melees, or ambushes guns aren't any better than bows and arguably worse.

 

[Saphroneth]

It used to be that the way of fighting practiced by the steppe nomads (bow, horse, and incidentally lance) was the most effective style of warfare bar none, not only in terms of numerical efficiency but also full stop - a steppe horde was tactically and strategically mobile, had a very small logistical footprint for their size and was able to effectively destroy other armies as a rule.

Firearms acted as an equalizer, and more importantly the (heavy) use of firearms would have required a complete reshaping of nomadic tactics and strategy. Their logistical footprint would increase because of the need for gunpowder (which can't really be made on the move), their prized accuracy would be obviated (horseback smoothbore gunfire is a no-no for accuracy, and the reload rate is going to be awful) and their cavalry formations would be relatively easy targets for enemy gunfire because of the size of the formations.
Essentially to use musketry in place of archery involves giving up almost every advantage the steppe hordes relied upon.


Of course, they did use gunpowder nevertheless, such as grenades and fireworks. But their main advantages relied on archery.


Now, if you could imagine them going directly to breechloading infantry rifles, and the supply of ammunition wasn't a major concern (if if if...) you could actually still have a very dangerous and recognizably steppe-nomad style of fighting - it'd probably be more "mounted infantry" than cavalry, but very long range sniping and the ability to reload on horseback would combine quite well.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

They sure as hell required more strength.

Sure, but given that most people in medieval and early modern Europe were farmers who worked on the land, I don't think pulling a bow would prove too much of a problem.

It used to be that the way of fighting practiced by the steppe nomads (bow, horse, and incidentally lance) was the most effective style of warfare bar none, not only in terms of numerical efficiency but also full stop - a steppe horde was tactically and strategically mobile, had a very small logistical footprint for their size and was able to effectively destroy other armies as a rule.

I don't know about that -- they were difficult to pin down and defeat, but there are plenty of examples of settled forces defeating nomads. People tend to remember big, dramatic events like the Mongol conquests, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Also, I'm not sure you can talk about "the most effective style of warfare" without qualification -- steppe cavalry tactics would have been totally ineffective in mountainous or forested terrain, for example.

Now, if you could imagine them going directly to breechloading infantry rifles, and the supply of ammunition wasn't a major concern (if if if...) you could actually still have a very dangerous and recognizably steppe-nomad style of fighting - it'd probably be more "mounted infantry" than cavalry, but very long range sniping and the ability to reload on horseback would combine quite well.

Kind of like the Boers, you mean?

 

[Saphroneth]

I don't know about that -- they were difficult to pin down and defeat, but there are plenty of examples of settled forces defeating nomads. People tend to remember big, dramatic events like the Mongol conquests, but these were the exception rather than the rule. Also, I'm not sure you can talk about "the most effective style of warfare" without qualification -- steppe cavalry tactics would have been totally ineffective in mountainous or forested terrain, for example.

When people talk about "perpetuating military superiority", I assume it to mean in the area the steppe nomads were traditionally dominant (i.e. the area they were already dominant). But most fighting takes place in terrain that's at least somewhat open because that's where people fit.

As for the Mongol conquests, I'm rather assuming this is the base point because they were by far the most successful and it's the Mongols who were around during the switch to gunpowder. Obviously for other steppe nomads the simpler way for a major improvement is "be more like the Mongols" (e.g. develop siege).

Kind of like the Boers, you mean?

I'm actually thinking of the Skinners from the Raj Whitehall books!

 

[Napoleonrules]

Um, several of these thoughts mentioned above seem to be going straight to flintlock technology... the fact is early guns required a tripod and a literal match. The earliest technology wouldn't have been effective until you're lined up and your cavalry dismounts, making your horses more a Jeep than a tank. Now once the Mongol Empire has China and Persia there's no reason they can't have "tanks" and "Jeeps" in different cavalry styles.

 

[corditeman]

Gunpowder, not guns, is the problem...

...Settled societies use compost heaps, urine, ash and lime, to make sodium nitrate. Nomad societies are unable to make nitrate, which is the key ingredient of gunpowder. Sulphur needs to be imported and charcoal comes out of bonfires, but nitrate is heavy, soluble, needs purifying and mixing at fixed sites. Some gunpowder is violently unstable during transport. So, Russians ten, hordes nil.

 

[PuffyClouds]

Steppe Hordes were known for their versatility to exploit sedentary societies' technologies and talents like siege engines and engineers.

Why couldn't they incorporate gunpowder & firearms into their war machines to perpetuate their superiority over sedentary societies?

I thought your title said "Steppe Horses", and my reaction was "because they don't have thumbs".

 

[mrmandias]

Now, if you could imagine them going directly to breechloading infantry rifles, and the supply of ammunition wasn't a major concern (if if if...) you could actually still have a very dangerous and recognizably steppe-nomad style of fighting - it'd probably be more "mounted infantry" than cavalry, but very long range sniping and the ability to reload on horseback would combine quite well.

The Boer Kommandos, sorta.

Edit: I see @Fabius Maximus made the same point.

 

[Optical_Illusion]

Numbers, yes, to a degree. My stereotyped understanding is something like:

Groups on the steppe tended to have low numbers, because of the low intensity of subsistence. At the same time, they could have high mobilisation, because of the same factor (subsistence doesn't take as much time / effort away) and because they spend a lot of time fighting each other, are well trained.

So steppe groups could field pretty good sized armies against intensive agriculture sedentary states. Even though sedentary states had a large pure population advantage, it was hard to translate that advantage into actual trained fighting strength.

At some point, sedentary states begin to be efficient enough at producing surpluses and raising tax revenues that they can field armies that are just better, both by being larger and having better trained, superior soldiers and strategists, man-for-man, unit-for-unit. This is most true for states with high per capita productivity and that can tax at higher levels.

The trends with mounted archery and gunpowder will tend to exaggerate these, as the former plays to steppe nomads strengths', and the latter plays to sedentary logistics advantage. But it's lots of the above happening at the same time as gunpowder as well.

 

[sloreck]

Disciplined English (and Welsh) archers properly used would chew up a steppe horde formation as long as the numbers were not to heavily against them. They accurately outranged the recurved bows, and shooting a bow accurately riding at speed on a horse is not as easy as some have made it out. The problem with firearms and gunpowder is that they require a much larger fixed base and industry than bows and arrows. Even something as simply as iron - you can make a lot of arrow heads with the same amount of iron you need to make a firearm, and of course perfectly effective arrow heads can be made of bronze, or even bone/stone. Once you have a society populous enough and with enough industrial base to manufacture firearms, powder, and shot in quantities sufficient to replace the bows and arrows of your horde, you don't have a nomadic society any more.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

It seems plausible that a steppe-based Empire could have sedentary societies within it - heck, that was the Mongols with China and the Manchu dynasty later: the Ottoman Empire too in a way. In these cases the sedentary culture eventually became the power base for the Empire though and the nomadic element lessening in importance, both militarily and eventually culturally.

What would be needed is for a Steppe Empire contain the "right" proportion of sedentary elements. That could provide it with guns, artlillery etc. but not dominate it. The Black Sea Coast of the Ukraine maybe for the Cossacks? Then choke points can be defended with forts and the nomads can have a siege artillery train when required. It's still going to be difficult though for such a polity to survive once populations rise in Europe with the agricultural and industrial revolutions, or to defend against an expansionist China under the Manchus.

 

[Balaur]

1) Horses don't like gunfire

2) Its really hard to reload a flintlock while on horseback

3) You can't really aim while a horse is galloping. Old Westerns aside, the stride of the horse disrupts your rhythm

4) Horses present big targets

The best you could do is use the horses for mounted infantry- like dragoons

16th and 17th century heavy cavalry used pistols as their primary weapons, while Harquebusiers, Petronels and Carbineers all made extensive use of their namesake weapons as fire support. Shooting from horseback is a pain in the ass, but one of the best ways to take out heavily armoured opponents(certainly easier than fucking around with lances). Mounted firepower only really disappeared in the 18th century as armour and pikes became less of an issue, while infantry firepower increased. Cavalry still carried firearms, but they were neglected compared to the sword and lance.

Also, training horses to tolerate gunfire was standard practise, with things like firing off a pistol at feeding time to desensitize them to gunfire.