While fortresses were built in Germany and Italy against the Magyars, there was nothing about them that made them especially useful against horse archers. The purpose of the Ungarnwälle and similar structures (which were, as far as we know, mostly wood-and-earth forts) was to create an infrastructure to interdict raiding, and while overland raiding is indeed easier with horses, the forts would have served equally well against raiders who fought primarily as melee cavalry. The encastellation of central Europe arguably has more to do with internal social developments (i.e. the emergence of an autonomous local nobility that wanted security against their neighbors/the king) than it does with a supposed continent-wide reaction to Magyars or the Avars before them.
Why Did Western Europe not use Horse Archery?
- Thread starter Dr. Hochmeister
- Start date
While fortresses were built in Germany and Italy against the Magyars, there was nothing about them that made them especially useful against horse archers. The purpose of the Ungarnwälle and similar structures (which were, as far as we know, mostly wood-and-earth forts) was to create an infrastructure to interdict raiding, and while overland raiding is indeed easier with horses, the forts would have served equally well against raiders who fought primarily as melee cavalry. The encastellation of central Europe arguably has more to do with internal social developments (i.e. the emergence of an autonomous local nobility that wanted security against their neighbors/the king) than it does with a supposed continent-wide reaction to Magyars or the Avars before them.
PhilippeO
Banned
Single victory by horse archer didn't prove horse archer could always defeat defensive infantry archer. Besides Batu did suffer from grievous casualties and Hungarian have internal political division in camp and Mongols had nearly twice number of soldier and Hungarian casualties mostly come from decision to retreat on path that Mongols deliberately opened.
Jonathan Archer book Art of War in Western World does support that defensively infantry archer would win over horse archer.
It's simplification, a lot of factor did influence many battle so there exist numerous exception, but as rule of thumb it worked.
Last edited:
The effectiveness of horse archers under the Mongols and the effectiveness of horse archers under the use of others wasn't the same. Of course the Mongols like everyone didn't use just one type of unit, even if they made heavy use of horse archers.
Western Europeans didn't see horse archery as the solution to forming the most formidable army or being superior to any others. At least in the kind of battlefield they fought.
One could argue that the Mongols heavily relying on horse archers (but not only) force, was the most formidable army of its time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else could or should have focused on horse archers use as much as them.
This isn't to say that a focus on horse archery couldn't be effectively used by non Mongols, but I am not sure it should be considered a superior form of warfare in other hands, in comparison to armies of different composition.
Western Europeans didn't see horse archery as the solution to forming the most formidable army or being superior to any others. At least in the kind of battlefield they fought.
One could argue that the Mongols heavily relying on horse archers (but not only) force, was the most formidable army of its time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else could or should have focused on horse archers use as much as them.
This isn't to say that a focus on horse archery couldn't be effectively used by non Mongols, but I am not sure it should be considered a superior form of warfare in other hands, in comparison to armies of different composition.
Last edited:
PhilippeO
Banned
I think rather than comparison with nomadic horse archer in Eurasian Steppe, better comparison is with Samurai of Japan. Why Knight don't use archery like Japanese Samurai ? why Japanese Samurai pre-Takeda Shingen did not use lance ? Both look very similar, Elite Warrior Caste live in fortified castle in mountainous terrain, difference in weapon choice is strange.
Of course, but then you're not using horse archers but mounted infantry. And if you're using mounted infantry against a fort you are overspending, because they don't need the horses so they're just eating up your fodder for no purpose.
In other words, the horse archer isn't the be-all end-all of war, because in many cases they'll be better off not being a horse archer. Of course that doesn't mean the foot archer always beats the horse archer, either.
And how many horse archers succeeded in Silesia or the Yangtze Valley? The Mongols had way more than JUST horse archers, because horse archers were a tool with a purpose and so is heavy cavalry and infantry. And the Mongols were not shy about using the right tool rather than the wrong tool.
No. The Mongols had horse archers and shock cavalry, even if maybe? not as heavy as European knights, as well as infantry. The Mongols also had about parity in numbers (some sources even put them at bigger army size) rather than the financial equivalent of way more infantry against the horse archer (because Mongolia at the time was bigger and able to deploy more resources). Finally, the Hungarians weren't remotely 'just archers and spearmen' because just archers and spearmen aren't very good against the Mongols. Because the Mongols aren't all horse archers.
Europeans did use horse archers. The English(and later in imitation, the Burgundians and French) made extensive use of mounted longbowmen. However, the fact that a longbow is clumsy on horseback meant they only shot mounted in extremis, preferring to dismount to fight as a sort of primitive dragoon(also like dragoons, they eventually turned into medium cavalry rather than mounted infantry). Mounted crossbowmen and handgunners were also employed; they seem to have actually shot mounted. Later, in the 16th and 17th century, Arquebusiers E Cheval and Schutzen Pferd fired carbines from horseback in support of lancers and pistoleers, while Dragoons did the same job but dismounted to employ full length muskets.
traditionally northern Europe was not the best place to raise horses, the forests as mentioned, but winter is a limiting factor that has limited what and how much can be raised in Northern Europe. It means that horses themselves where much less common and at time ended up on peoples plates.
If the opposing combatants previously agreed on the chosen place and time of the encounter, the foot army might have had an advantage over the horse archers. I mean, I don't know, may be.
But the axiom of war is "he who has the advantage in mobility - it's him who chooses the place and the time of the battle.
So the odds are far greater here in advantage of the highly mobile horse archers - to surprise the foot army unprepared, not ready for the battle - somewhere on march on the open terrain, while crossing the river, or far from the water under the scorching sun, during the usual (unavoidable even for the most disciplined troops) disorder while preparing the place for the night camping etc.
In real warfare choosing time and place of the encounter is a great advantage.
Catching your enemy with his pants down does help to win.
Contrary to popular belief the horse archers don't climb the fortress walls mounted.
I mean they might easily get off from their horses and fight as infantry, shooting arrows etc. That's a good thing - I mean - you can't make cavalry out of infantry quickly, but you can make a descent infantry out of cavalry any time - just get them off the horse.
Yep.Mongolian horse archers were universal soldiers.They can fight well in melee.
I may be talking completely out of my ass here, but could there be an economic factor to this?
To the extent of my knowledge, people like the Sassanids which had both Heavy Cavalry and horse archers were distinguished by nobility and resource availability. If you were rich, you likely had armour for yourself and your horse. You are as a unit a mini-tank and disruption unit that is focusing on having w.e. melee weapon ready in case of both enemy cavalry and to hit down ground targets. Meanwhile, your light cavalry horse archers did not/could not invest in armour for themselves/their horse/both and thus were less effective to charge in and more vulnerable, hence being more effective for archery. Meanwhile groups like the mongols who had horses in abundance started off with everyone having the ability to be horse archers (as pointed out, they were more consistently mixed or did not specialise) but with little metalurgy, something which then changes dramatically as they integrate in their successor states with the local population and then we start to see the mongol descended people employing horse archers and heavy cavalry again as mixed units.
Once again, this may be total bs, but it would make sense, and explain why somewhere like Europe which had a more dedicated rich=cavalry class (even compared to Japan) may have not really developed much of a tradition for horse archery.
To the extent of my knowledge, people like the Sassanids which had both Heavy Cavalry and horse archers were distinguished by nobility and resource availability. If you were rich, you likely had armour for yourself and your horse. You are as a unit a mini-tank and disruption unit that is focusing on having w.e. melee weapon ready in case of both enemy cavalry and to hit down ground targets. Meanwhile, your light cavalry horse archers did not/could not invest in armour for themselves/their horse/both and thus were less effective to charge in and more vulnerable, hence being more effective for archery. Meanwhile groups like the mongols who had horses in abundance started off with everyone having the ability to be horse archers (as pointed out, they were more consistently mixed or did not specialise) but with little metalurgy, something which then changes dramatically as they integrate in their successor states with the local population and then we start to see the mongol descended people employing horse archers and heavy cavalry again as mixed units.
Once again, this may be total bs, but it would make sense, and explain why somewhere like Europe which had a more dedicated rich=cavalry class (even compared to Japan) may have not really developed much of a tradition for horse archery.
The same holds true for the whole of the North Africa (even before it was taken by the Arabs).
The Berbers did know the archery and their horsemanship was definitely good.
But from what I know they did not practice horse archery too much.
So my guess it has nothing to do with geography...
Plenty of non-nomadic peoples used horse archers, though -- the Parthians, the Sassanids, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Chinese, the Japanese...
The Hungarians were on the verge of winning at Mohi, until Subotai managed to cross the river and attack them in the rear. Plus, there are other examples of conflicts where the spear/archer combo worked quite well -- it was the standard Crusader tactic against Turkish horse archers, for example, as well as being used by the Chinese in their wars against the steppe nomads.
The Romans never used chariotry in any appreciable number. Perhaps you're thinking of the Celts here?
The impression I get is that medieval Japanese warfare was more individualistic than European, so that might have had something to do with it? Skirmishing troops can act more-or-less autonomously, whereas a cavalry charge requires much a much more cohesive and tightly-packed formation to be effective.
A javelin is heavier than an arrow, and so is better able to punch through armour, and liable to cause bigger wounds. So the answer might be as simple as "The Berbers and Arabs optimised for killing power, the steppe nomads for range."
Interesting discussion that's developed. What I'm gathering here is that the "answer" is essentially "all of the above," and that mounted archery was more common in medieval Europe than popularly depicted. To summarize:
Thank you, that was an interesting thread. I think the Mongols were a unique case in history, while their backbone was mounted archers, they would not have gotten nearly as far as they did without their ability to adopt and utilize shock cavalry, infantry, and siegecraft. Reminds me of Alexander; the right leadership in the right time with the right resources allowed them to do something practically ASB. While their successes were astounding, I don't think that Mongol style armies are something that can be easily replicated by other cultures, or that they should be viewed as evidence that the horse archer is the ultimate tool of war any more than the phalanx. The big problem with matching up a medieval European army against the Mongols seems to be that they're freaking Mongols, not just that they have excellent horse archers.
Anyone have more knowledge of warfare during the crusades? The Crusader armies seem to have punched well above their weight against foes with a strong mounted archery tradition, supporting the argument that a skilled horse archer warrior class is not invincible.
I don't totally buy the climate/geography/pasturage arguments either. While they probably had some influence, none of those factors in Europe were extreme enough to render horse archers completely impractical in Europe. The terrain in Japan for instance is similarly poor, yet they had a warrior class dedicated to mounted archery. Based on that example something similar could have evolved in Europe, but would require changes to the society, culture, and character of warfare to promote horse archery. It'd require a very early POD that would produce an unrecognizable Europe.
- Mounted archers were used in Western Europe, just not as extensively as in other regions.
- While undoubtedly useful, horse archers are not the end all of warfare and need to be utilized as part of a combined arms force, just like the Macedonian phalanx for example. A highly trained dedicated mounted archery component to an army can be very effective, but does not make it invincible against armies without mounted archers.
- Warfare in Europe was more geared towards sieges than large scale decisive battles, incentivizing skilled melee warriors.
- The climate and geography of Europe were not favorable to composite bows or nomadic style combat.
Thank you, that was an interesting thread. I think the Mongols were a unique case in history, while their backbone was mounted archers, they would not have gotten nearly as far as they did without their ability to adopt and utilize shock cavalry, infantry, and siegecraft. Reminds me of Alexander; the right leadership in the right time with the right resources allowed them to do something practically ASB. While their successes were astounding, I don't think that Mongol style armies are something that can be easily replicated by other cultures, or that they should be viewed as evidence that the horse archer is the ultimate tool of war any more than the phalanx. The big problem with matching up a medieval European army against the Mongols seems to be that they're freaking Mongols, not just that they have excellent horse archers.
Anyone have more knowledge of warfare during the crusades? The Crusader armies seem to have punched well above their weight against foes with a strong mounted archery tradition, supporting the argument that a skilled horse archer warrior class is not invincible.
I don't totally buy the climate/geography/pasturage arguments either. While they probably had some influence, none of those factors in Europe were extreme enough to render horse archers completely impractical in Europe. The terrain in Japan for instance is similarly poor, yet they had a warrior class dedicated to mounted archery. Based on that example something similar could have evolved in Europe, but would require changes to the society, culture, and character of warfare to promote horse archery. It'd require a very early POD that would produce an unrecognizable Europe.
yeah, I was a bit baffled when I was reading a book on the War of the Roses, and the author noted that in one battle , one side had mounted archers... kind of a "WTF" moment...
See, the thing about a mounted archer (or a mounted anything), is that an expensive (even that is debatable: most of the nomad population would own a horse and a bow just as part of their lifestyle) horseman who dismounts to fight on foot now and here, is much better than three cheaper infantrymen three hundred kilometres away. Tactically there are measures you can take against horse archers (same as against anything, really, nothing is the end-all of warfare), but strategically the horse archer is a fearsome and versatile tool and I'm surprised people keep repeating that it's easy to negate those advantages: it isn't.
Also, I've seen three separate claims in this thread that Batu suffered grevious casualties at Mohi and that the Hungarians were doing well. I know the English wiki says so, but what primary source is it relying on? I know that wiki policy is to rely on secondary sources for citations but I mean, I don't really care about those either. I need an actual period source with all these incredible details. I can't even find one. Seems like a bunch of just-so stories without citations with details that couldn't possibly be known, really. The first thing that Batu did after the aforementioned grievous casualties was take and burn the Hungarian capital, and after that dispersed the army to raid the country, hardly the actions of someone in a precarious position.
Then he forced the Danube later that year. I mean, really.
Well, IMO you can summarise it thusly:
1. Quality of European armour and horses was a big shock to local horse archers, who weren't able to make a serious dent on the most capable parts of crusader armies in actual set battles.
2. The crusaders did well in sieges.
3. The crusaders ended up adopting horse archer auxiliaries anyway.
4. The crusaders were highly constrained in where it was safe for them to operate: they did poorly any reasonable distance away from the coast and being supplied by ships, partly because they had poor recon and poor logistics.
Last edited:
That's actually what they call an 'internet meme'.
There's no prove whatsoever for that in any serious academic researches.