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

[vizzer]

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.

But this is after a couple of centuries of weapon development - initial firearms involved a wresting match with powder, shot and lit matches, now try doing that on horseback at this time mounted archery was much more effective and Asiatic horse-archers have no real incentive to adopt gunpowder weapons. Therefore the initial & slow developments take place elsewhere and once the technology is in place to make effective weapons it is difficult to translate into a steppe nomad culture.

If during the conquest of China the Mongols run into effective firearms they would probably have adopted them but effective firearms in Chinese hands would probably have prevented the conquest in the first place.

 

[Balaur]

But this is after a couple of centuries of weapon development - initial firearms involved a wresting match with powder, shot and lit matches, now try doing that on horseback at this time mounted archery was much more effective and Asiatic horse-archers have no real incentive to adopt gunpowder weapons. Therefore the initial & slow developments take place elsewhere and once the technology is in place to make effective weapons it is difficult to translate into a steppe nomad culture.

If during the conquest of China the Mongols run into effective firearms they would probably have adopted them but effective firearms in Chinese hands would probably have prevented the conquest in the first place.

Effective infantry firearms during the 13th are highly unlikely as anything other than a gimmick. It took until the 14th century for cannons and the 15th century for handgonnes.

The post I was responding to mentioned flintlocks(which are actually after the heyday of firearm using cavalry). Besides that, even though matchlocks were too much of a pain for cavalry, they got plenty of mileage out of wheellocks from the 1540s onwards. That's only a few decades between firearms becoming standard for missile troops and them being adopted by some cavalry.
Those were too expensive and finicky for general infantry use, but they existed and were highly effective.

 

[Saphroneth]

Tricky thing about pistols is that, owing to the suite of problems related to using a short barrel weapon from horseback, they're basically a melee weapon. The "party trick" of the steppe nomad army is to deluge the enemy with high-rate-of-fire archery from a moving horse and to generally remain mobile, with the melee combat coming later on - but the two ways to use a short-barrel firearm are the caracole (essentially a deferred charge) or in melee, where each pistol is a one-use weapon.
It's telling that Swedish cavalry routed "caracole cavalry" by basically charging home (try that against Mongol horse and they'll run away laughing and shoot you a lot).

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The only way I think you can reasonably introduce gunpowder artillery to the steppe hordes is basically to try and invent mobile artillery super early. It is terrifying, but a steppe army with say, 20 of these could split up into small groups to use the cannons to break up formations, before their forces moved in. However, it'd be entirely dependent on settled societies providing them with gunpowder. I could see this being a valid strategy for a steppe horde that ruled over Crimea, essentially having the cities under guard, providing gunpowder to their steppe overlords.

That number would also keep needing to increase over time. But that is a way I think they could adopt cannons. As for carbines (when invented), they could be useful, but I don't think they'd replace bows simply because they're slower to reload. You'd have to reach near-modern weaponry to have rapidly reloading gunpowder carbines that would suit their purposes.

A third way, early "Organ Guns". Similar idea to mobile artillery - break up formations. Except in this case, using lots of small shot to cause a lot of damage, before dashing off.

So yeah, breakup and precision would be key for using cannons on the steppe.

 

[Aphrodite]

Effective infantry firearms during the 13th are highly unlikely as anything other than a gimmick. It took until the 14th century for cannons and the 15th century for handgonnes.

The post I was responding to mentioned flintlocks(which are actually after the heyday of firearm using cavalry). Besides that, even though matchlocks were too much of a pain for cavalry, they got plenty of mileage out of wheellocks from the 1540s onwards. That's only a few decades between firearms becoming standard for missile troops and them being adopted by some cavalry.
Those were too expensive and finicky for general infantry use, but they existed and were highly effective.

You can use firearms from horseback its just hardly effective. Horses never really take to the ding of firearms and it takes a lot of skill to keep the horse steady. The tactics you cite are part of a combined arms approach- cavalry supported by artillery and infantry. This is not possible for steppe nomads They are all cavalry units. Finally, with few exceptions, the use of wheellocks from horseback last briefly. The use of cold steel is pretty exclusive

 

[Balaur]

You can use firearms from horseback its just hardly effective. Horses never really take to the ding of firearms and it takes a lot of skill to keep the horse steady. The tactics you cite are part of a combined arms approach- cavalry supported by artillery and infantry. This is not possible for steppe nomads They are all cavalry units. Finally, with few exceptions, the use of wheellocks from horseback last briefly. The use of cold steel is pretty exclusive

"Horses never really take to the ding of firearms"-Then how was any use of cavalry practical post firearms?

"Combined arms approach"-Not true. Mounted arquebusiers gave cavalry it's own organic fire support. They were supplanted by improved combined arms tactics, such as light cannon and detached musketeers, in some armies, although others continued using them. For example, the French Carabiniers were units of picked mounted marksmen with a status equivalent to infantry Grenadiers.

"Use of cold steel is pretty exclusive"-Also not true. Cavalry firearms become a secondary weapon, but were still quite useful in the 18th/earl 19th centuries, and revolvers and repeating carbines gave them a comeback. Even during this period, cavalry still carried pistols and carbines much of the time, suggesting they were still fairy useful.

 

[Saphroneth]

"Horses never really take to the ding of firearms"-Then how was any use of cavalry practical post firearms?

There's a difference between wholesale panic and a momentary flinch, but flinch is enough to throw off accuracy and indeed was one of the main causes for pre-percussion firearms to miss at short range.

 

[Balaur]

There's a difference between wholesale panic and a momentary flinch, but flinch is enough to throw off accuracy and indeed was one of the main causes for pre-percussion firearms to miss at short range.

Inexperienced human shooters flinch as well. Doesn't make firearms useless. Again, horses were specifically trained to desensitize them to gunfire, and shooters were trained to fire mounted.

 

[Saphroneth]

Inexperienced human shooters flinch as well. Doesn't make firearms useless. Again, horses were specifically trained to desensitize them to gunfire, and shooters were trained to fire mounted.

And while both of these are true, it still didn't really help very much with producing mounted combat at a comparable range to foot combat. Pistols, sure, that happened, and carbines were used at close range, but long-range shooting with a musket type weapon from horseback was a bit harder than doing the same thing on foot.

 

[NHBL]

You need a significant industrial base to make guns, and even more to make cannons. That is NOT mobile.

 

[RousseauX]

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.

The big game changer of sedentary vs nomadic armies wasn't so much handheld guns: it was field artillery and the decline of the Ottomans are directly tied to their inability to take advantage of advances in field artillery like the Europeans did

 

[RousseauX]

The only way I think you can reasonably introduce gunpowder artillery to the steppe hordes is basically to try and invent mobile artillery super early. It is terrifying, but a steppe army with say, 20 of these could split up into small groups to use the cannons to break up formations, before their forces moved in. However, it'd be entirely dependent on settled societies providing them with gunpowder. I could see this being a valid strategy for a steppe horde that ruled over Crimea, essentially having the cities under guard, providing gunpowder to their steppe overlords.

That number would also keep needing to increase over time. But that is a way I think they could adopt cannons. As for carbines (when invented), they could be useful, but I don't think they'd replace bows simply because they're slower to reload. You'd have to reach near-modern weaponry to have rapidly reloading gunpowder carbines that would suit their purposes.

A third way, early "Organ Guns". Similar idea to mobile artillery - break up formations. Except in this case, using lots of small shot to cause a lot of damage, before dashing off.

So yeah, breakup and precision would be key for using cannons on the steppe.

The problem with this is that gunpowder artillery armies required really centralized states to generate the amount of revenues required to maintain them: if the Mongols try the "Golden Horde" model on using subjugated sedentary people for their artillery the states they subjugate is going to get more sophisticated and powerful: it's inevitable at some point they start shooting the cannons at their nomadic overlords.

 

[RousseauX]

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.

Manchu armies were gunpowder infantry based armies by the mid 1600s and were virtual indistinguishable from Chinese armies even before they conquered China

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

The problem with this is that gunpowder artillery armies required really centralized states to generate the amount of revenues required to maintain them: if the Mongols try the "Golden Horde" model on using subjugated sedentary people for their artillery the states they subjugate is going to get more sophisticated and powerful: it's inevitable at some point they start shooting the cannons at their nomadic overlords.

The first part isn't impossible. Just hard at distances. But the Mongols are naturally placed for a fast messaging network.

Aye, you couldn't do that. You'd have to have Mongols monopolise the artillery foundries and other industries. The problem there is when do those Mongols become settled, and become culturally distinct.

 

[Aphrodite]

"Horses never really take to the ding of firearms"-Then how was any use of cavalry practical post firearms?

"Combined arms approach"-Not true. Mounted arquebusiers gave cavalry it's own organic fire support. They were supplanted by improved combined arms tactics, such as light cannon and detached musketeers, in some armies, although others continued using them. For example, the French Carabiniers were units of picked mounted marksmen with a status equivalent to infantry Grenadiers.

"Use of cold steel is pretty exclusive"-Also not true. Cavalry firearms become a secondary weapon, but were still quite useful in the 18th/earl 19th centuries, and revolvers and repeating carbines gave them a comeback. Even during this period, cavalry still carried pistols and carbines much of the time, suggesting they were still fairy useful.

Horses spook from their own shadows. Its not the easiest thing to keep a thousand pound animal calm Yes cavalry units were equipped with carbines- but they were used when dismounted and a fifth of the unit was holding the horses

If firearms are so effective from horseback, why did the cavalry carry swords and lances?

Seriously- if firearms were effective from horseback you would never close with a sword or a lance yet that is the weapon they always are using

Look at a Napoleonic battlefield. the cavalry charges, the infantry forms square and then the cavalry can't do anything. The don't just pull out pistols and fire into the square

 

[Earth Judicar]

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.

So basically a nomad ruling elite with sedentary ground troops with muskets?

Sounds cool.

 

[sloreck]

Infantry in proper formation and well drilled can almost always withstand cavalry unless the numbers are very against them. A pre gunpowder example is the pike formation. If a formation is broken and infantry tries to run, then they are toast. The square with bayonetted rifles, especially with flintlocks let alone magazine weapons was usually proof against cavalry. Of course it took a lot of drill and brass balls to keep a pike formation or infantry square from wavering when faced with tons of charging horseflesh.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

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?

Isn't this basically what all three of the "Gun Powder Empires" were? The Ottomans were descendants of the nomadic turks and retained much of their heritage. The Mughals were direct descendants of Timur. If I'm not mistaken the Safavids hailed from a region of Greater Iran that would have been very nomadic at the time.

 

[Balaur]

Horses spook from their own shadows. Its not the easiest thing to keep a thousand pound animal calm Yes cavalry units were equipped with carbines- but they were used when dismounted and a fifth of the unit was holding the horses

If firearms are so effective from horseback, why did the cavalry carry swords and lances?

Seriously- if firearms were effective from horseback you would never close with a sword or a lance yet that is the weapon they always are using

Look at a Napoleonic battlefield. the cavalry charges, the infantry forms square and then the cavalry can't do anything. The don't just pull out pistols and fire into the square

"If muskets/bows/javelins were effective on foot, why would you ever close with hand weapons"?

Oh wait, because both shooting and charging are useful depending on the tactical situation. Generally, infantry are better at shooting and/or holding ground and cavalry are better at charging. Doesn't mean banging away with carbines or fixing bayonets wasn't done or useful.

Pulling out pistols and firing into a square wouldn't work because the cavalry are bigger targets and less of them can be packed into a given area. They'd lose a firefight with infantry. This also applies to foot vs. horse archers; crusader archers and crossbowmen wiped the floor with Turkish mounted archers and javelinmen for the same reasons.
Doesn't mean carbines/pistols aren't useful against other cavalry, especially armoured cavalry, or against melee troops who can't shoot back. This is, IMO, why firearms where so important to cavalry tactics in the 16th/17th centuries-charging with swords is ineffectual against heavy armour and dangerous against pikes. On the other hand, getting into a firefight with infantry is also a bad idea. So the changes in equipment and tactics caused by increased infantry firepower actually caused a reduction in cavalry firepower.

Also, full length muskets were used dismounted. Cavalry units trained to fire carbines mounted and did so under a variety of tactical conditions, especially in the late 16th/early 17th century where you had entire units trained for that role rather than being primarily chargers who had firearms just in case.

 

[RGB]

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.

Based on what data?

They accurately outranged the recurved bows

Based on what data?

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

True. Self bows and their ammo even at their priciest are the cheapo option.

and of course perfectly effective arrow heads can be made of bronze, or even bone/stone.

If people aren't wearing any armour, maybe.

You can use firearms from horseback its just hardly effective. Horses never really take to the ding of firearms and it takes a lot of skill to keep the horse steady. The tactics you cite are part of a combined arms approach- cavalry supported by artillery and infantry. This is not possible for steppe nomads They are all cavalry units. Finally, with few exceptions, the use of wheellocks from horseback last briefly. The use of cold steel is pretty exclusive

The Muscovite gentry horsemen (a universal soldier if there was any for about 300 years) were basically mounted bowmen for most of their existence, but despite their conservatism and the cultural power of the bow, they ended up using pistols and short-barreled firearms same as the regular Muscovite dragoons and reitars by the late 17th c. It happened even earlier with the Ottoman cavalry.

It could well be argued that this had to do with change in tactics as a whole, of course, but we aren't exactly swimming in historical examples, so we have to account for the few that we do have.

As for the rest, it's basically what some people said: it's not the muskets, it's the artillery. A few pieces of field artillery and a cheapo earth-and-timber-walled fort is too much for even several hundred men without artillery. Better walls and better guns just multiply the advantage, and the sedentary state can start restricting the area where the nomads can live and dominate.

Mass encastellation was a valid strategy even before powder arms, but powder arms are more accurate, longer ranged, and vastly more lethal than anything else before them, and the rate of arrow shooting is offset by the costs of lugging arrows around.

As for why nomad armies can't afford cannons: same reasons why individual knights and lower nobility couldn't afford cannons during the early modern era in Europe: the cost of building and running one large gun was phenomenal relative to the cost of hiring regular fighting men. None of the nomadic states commanded that kind of resources.