/twg/ fag here, asking this question because the general is too full of memes.
Is it true that before widespread use of gunpowder that horse archer spam hordes >>> everything, or is this just a meme thats only relevant thanks to the mongols?
It's bullshit
There is no iron clad tactic that beats all others.
If there was everyone would be using it.
>>800765
how the fuck does a horse archer defeat a heavily mailed knight? i read about feinting retreats and drawing out/breaking formation, but i still dont get how the mongols just rolled over everything. did no one in russia wear mail? What about Legnica?
>>800820
Mongol arrows can penetrate heavy plate/mail armor at mid/close range, not by a lot, but still enough to eventually kill someone. Since the heavy cavalry can never catch up to them, they just keep shooting until all the gueilos die/flee
>>800765
Well China started Using it in the 1100's and it didn't stop them from being Cucked By the Mongols and Manchu
Also Horse Archers adapted to Gunpower very quickly(Mongols, Mamluks, The Gunpower Empires)
>>800842
By widespread use of gunpowder I kind of meant massed formations of musketeers and similar tactics, not just cannons alone.
If horse archers still came out on top, what was it would eventually cause them to be outdated and ineffective on the battlefield? Was it what i was referring to?
>>800842
Are You Black (This isn't Twitter Senpai) or Just Schizophrenic?
>>800765
Well if it was than Mongols would not have bothered with a significant force of expensive heavy cavalry would they?
>>800765
No, horse archers are meme that won't die because the eternal meme empire, the mongols, get praised by autists for it's "destruction" and "awe"
>>800834
No. First off, show me a test that actually supports you're claim. Second, plate armor is designed to deflect, not stop. It can stop, but it's much more effective and reasonable to simply angle them off. Third, English longbows could barely pierce plate at nearly 30 meters, and that's just the plate, not the padding or mail behind it.
Heavy cavalry is much more likely to have the best horses available, ie stronger, faster
>they just keep shooting until all the gueilos die/flee
This has never been their tactic. Horse archers have traditionally been more effective at disorganizing and suppressing the enemy than actually killing them. Read about Legnica, the horse archers did very little until total chaos erupted and the peasant levies routed, where they were able to simply run down the retreating foot soldiers
>>800820
>how the mongols just rolled over everything
They didn't.
>did no one in russia wear mail
Not everyone, Russia was at a low point, most fortresses were wooden and poorly designed. Not to mention the russians literally left their forts to go engage the mongols on open ground.
>Legnica
Mostly a tactical error on behalf of the poles. And don't discount it as a total defeat, they inflicted heavy casualties and the knights still performed well in combat. As with most mongol victories, it was a tactical one.
>>800765
>Is it true that before widespread use of gunpowder that horse archer spam hordes >>> everything
It is true in this one wargame so it must be true
I wish I could pantomime the answer with Crassus' head m8
>>800765
>Is it true that before widespread use of gunpowder that horse archer spam hordes
Musketry & Cannons did not stop horseniggery.
What did was organized fucking invasion of the Steppes.
Both Qing China and Romanov Russia's mainstay forces in the wars in Cetral Asia were horse archers. Muskets and artillery usually stayed behind and provided cover fire for retreating/rearming Tsarist/Qing cavalrymen.
Pic fucking related during the Dzungar Wars of China. Horsemen up front. Infantrymen with Muskets and cannons unlimbered at the rear.
>>800765
Even the mongols had 4/10 lancers and 6/10 horse archers.
>>804115
>t polak nationalist
>>800880
light cavalry that could catch them
>>800880
>If horse archers still came out on top, what was it would eventually cause them to be outdated and ineffective on the battlefield? Was it what i was referring to?
Fast firing firearms like repeaters and machine guns.
Horse archery was pretty much a viable, even dominant combat arm in central asia up until the 1840's.
>>800765
Everyone talks about the victories of the Mongols. No one ever talks about the fact that the Mongol empire failed to conquer India. Or just how long it took for them to conquer the southern Song dynasty. Or that the Mamluks got into the habit of winning battles against them.
>Is it true that before widespread use of gunpowder
It looks like the hand cannon was invited in western China around ~1189. The Chinese had invited a bomb that was made to be launched from catapults for counter battery fire in ~1160. The first real foe they faced was the Chinese Jin dynasty.
>>800765
It's bullshit because horse archers have lesser range and accuracy than regular archers therefore the ultimate counter for them is to put bunch of foot archers behind soldiers with shields.
>>800834
>Mongol arrows can penetrate heavy plate/mail armor at mid/close range
This is very vague statement and most of the time it's not true.
In the region which historically used bows extensively - middle east, chainmail was the most common armour ever since it first appeared... long time ago. If it didn't work they wouldn't use them.
Similarly, plate tended to have some mail underneath it.
Both kinds of armour had padding, which may have not been impressive for arrow if there wasn't for the fact that it already lost lots of force on chain mail, plate or plate and chain mail together.
The mongols were just unbeatable m8. Their soldiers were like supermen from growing up in the harsh climate of the mongol steppe. They were super strong, super accurate, and amazing with horses. They just didn't play ball with the military conventions of the time, they played it like ruthless practical exploiters in a game today. They took the cheapest, most effective tactic and just ruthlessly used it to their advantage. They had an unbelievable amount of horses and could live independent without any need for much of a support column, which no one else could do. You know the "don't invade Russia in winter" meme? Well the Mongols invaded Russia IN WINTER with their SCOUTING force of just ~10,000 men and utterly DESTROYED the entire Russian army, despite being led into a trap and being exhausted as fuck after being intentionally guided through the worst possible way to get to Europe through the mountains. And the Russians didn't even know that was just the scouts. The mongols were so fucking tough from growing up in the mongol steppe it actually became a serious problem later on for them when Mongols would go soft from spending too much time (in comparative luxury) in the lands they conquered, so they'd have to send their guys periodically back to Mongolia to make sure they didn't lose their mongol bullshit powers. Genghis operated a meritocracy where the most skilled got promoted. That just didn't happen back then, it was all nepotism. The mongols operated like a modern military, splitting their forces into multiple armies, divisions, and operating them independently. They moved so fast and so unexpectedly that when they were in the middle east (literally) raping the islamic world to (near) death, they wildly overestimated the number of Mongols because they thought there was no way the same army could be in so many places at once and cross various previously unpassable terrain. The only thing that stopped the Mongols from conquering the world was khans dying.
>>805159
>Or just how long it took for them to conquer the southern Song dynasty
How long did England try to conquer France during the 100 years war and still failed?
>>805159
The Song were the most greatest nation on Earth at the time, the fact that the Mongols even beat them shows they were the ultimate military power
>>805226
To be fair, France had five times as many people and a vastly bigger economy.
>>805408
So? China had around 50 million people in the 13th century, the mongols at max had 1 or 2.
>>805234
At the start of the 13th century they had far more people then any one else sure. However the Delhi Sultanate had a far larger army, so perhaps the Delhi Sultanate was wealthier? By 1234 they had 220 thousand men under arms and by the end of that decade it was up to 300 thousand. For the Delhi sultanate at the year 1230 they had a standing army of 400 thousand plus a garrison force of 120 thousand for a total of 520 thousand men under arms. If we use the same rate of 'ghost soldier' that the UK found it its locally raised force in India later on of 5 to 12 percent that would still put the armed forces of the Delhi sultanate at 457,600, way more then that of the Song. Btw ghost soldier are 'invited' soldiers or formations that are only a thing on paper.It is a form of embezzlement among officers and goes a long way to account for over sized army strengths on historical records.
You may now be asking was the ghost soldier rate higher then 12% for the Delhi Sultanate in the mid 13th century. I would think so. However did the Song dynasty also have ghost soldier at the same time? The Han, Tang, Yuan, and Ming all had issues at various times with that. Normally it shows up the most when a larger scale build up of forces is happening. I would be shocked if the Song really had a full strength of 300 thousand men under arms in the year 1240.
Putting the real strength aside right now because what would be inflating the number is embezzlement, the Delhi Sultanate still payed for a much larger army. Either the Song felt it needed less troops to protect itself from the mongols, or it could not afford as large a army. Both states actively viewed the Mongols as a life or death threat to them. When faced with that I think that rulers do not cheap out.
the Delhi Sultanate likely had a larger revenue stream then the Song during the 13th century.
>>805587
the song focused their attentions on naval trade, and bolstered their navy. sucks for them that their useless peasants were more focused on breeding.
>>805587
>Delhi sultanate at 457,600
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Huan'erzui
>1. Border troops: recently defeated by Mongolia at the Battle of Wushabao several months before the campaign, the border troops had withdrawn to Badger Mouth. Their total strength amounted to 100,000 and were led by 1st Prime Minister Du Qiannu.
>2. Main troops: their strength amounted to 250,000 and chief commander of the army was field marshal Wanyan Chenyu, 2nd Prime Minister and general Ming An. Most of the troops hailed from the capital.
>3. Reinforcement troops: emergency troops from all corners of Jin country, their strength amounted to 150,000 and the commander was vice field marshal Hersle Whosawho, an ambitious man. He was to defend Datong with his reinforcements.
Defeated by 90k mongol cavalry.
>>805234
>Using the dynasty name for the nation.
Also: no. The Song was in decline since the Jurchen Invasion split China and half
>>805552
>China had around 50 million people in the 13th century, the mongols at max had 1 or 2.
When the China-based Mongols started invading Southern Song they had the population of Mongolia + Northern China.
>>805234
The Song were mere shadow of the Tang, so if the Song were the greatest nation on earth at the time, then it was a sad fucking state of affairs for the world.
>>805614
Im talking the about ethnic Turko-Mongols not conquered states giving armies to the Mongols.
Genghis Khan had to conquer first the Xia and then to Jin so hes sucessors could start conquering the Song.
If England lacked manpower then why didn't they just conquer the Swedes or something?
>>805631
The really big difference here is that by the mid 13th century most of the soldiers of the Mongolian Empire were from conquered peoples, not ethnic Turko-Mongols. They only were 30 to 35 percent of the army.
>>805686
So tell me why England coulnd't start conquering weaker states first to bolster it's manpower and then use that manpower for the conquest of France, just like the Mongols, were they too stupid for that?
>>805698
They did? Have you never heard of Ireland, Scotland and Wales?
>>805713
>Scots
Not under control of England during the 100 years war.
>Ireland
Not totally under the controll of England during the hundred Years War.
So they pretty much failed where the mongols suceeded.
>>805698
The Mongols had the power to conquer most of its weaker neighbors without to much trouble and then rewrite the social order in those places. England could not hold Scotland had a nasty revolt in Wales during that time. The Song did not step into the conquest of Xia because it had a very toxic relationship with them. When Brittney had its civil war and England started to fuck around in that France gave support. Do you think that if England had started a war with say Norway the French would not of stepped in?
For the Song they fucking help the Mongols take down the Jin even knowing that the Mongols would became their foes after the Jin fell well before when it happened in 1234. Many of the other places the Mongol conquered before redoubling efforts were places the Song knew of but did not have regular contact with.
The diplomatic playing field of the 100 years war and the Mongolian conquest were very different.
>>805774
>Do you think that if England had started a war with say Norway the French would not of stepped in?
If you can't defeat coalitions then you are too weak to conquer.
Mongols managed to defeat the Hungarian-Polish armies, France managed it during Napoleon, Germany managed it during Hitler.
Also Frederick II of the HRE fought against the pope and Italian rebels at the same time and almost won at the end.
So at the end you are just saying that you didn't have the power for conquest.
>>801001
No fucking reply to the most logical answer
So what were some tactics that were used against meme archers?
>>805835
Block arrow with shield and charge.
That is what the HRE told his soldiers before Lechfield and it worked.
>>805864
>CHAAAAAARGE! :D:D:D:D
Works everytime!
>>805835
Varies. Having your own horse archers, but with better close combat weapons and universal body armor is one. You'll actually win shootouts this way.
Maneuvering them up against bad terrain-into forests, or up against a river-and then commencing a general attack also works.
GOOD fortifications also go a long way. Stone European castles did not fall to mongol assault. When the song built a handful of fortifications on sites that mirrored how euros often sited defenses, the mongols found taking them to be a herculean task, and god their noses seriously bloodied.
Foot archers actually outrage horse archers very consistently. Raising good archers and protecting them properly, again, goes a long way.
You can't completely eliminate the threat they pose, but you CAN reduce nomad armies form "existential threat" to "they burn fields and it costs me fucking money."
>>805698
Because for it to work the same way,. the french would have to fucking blockade Norway for the English, send soldiers to help fuck it up, and NOT harm them in any way.
They'd have to do this while a HUGE portion of the Norwegian military defected to the English.
And then the entire thing would have ot march on france with the English.
While they imported specialists from even farther afield to help take french cities.
You're one of the most aggressively ignorant posters i've seen in a while. Stop.
It's just a meme.
> 1: horse archers can't hold a position for shit.
Their way of fighting meant that they could not directly face off a determined attack on their position, they can't withstand heavy infantry or cavalry, so they have to retreat.
> 2: outranged and outnumbered by foot archers.
Horse archers can't get the accuracy or range of an archer on foot and if they are against a large formation of foot archers they wont get anywhere near it as they will be annihilated by them before they themselves are within useful range.
> 3: they are skirmishers and scouts.
The horse archers purpose is to scout forward and skirmish the opposing army to put pressure on them before their army is properly formed up.
As a medieval commander, you couldn't afford to rely on mounted archers, your opposite number would have a way of easily dealing with them.
>>809064
>so they have to retreat.
All part of the plan, while they're retreating they led the enemy into the trap and destroyed them
>no accuracy compared to foot archers
Simply not true, Mongols horse archers basically trained from childhood with bows, they were incredibly accurate and part of the reason they were so dominant was they could loose arrows quickly and accurately while riding, which no one else could do
>horse archers just for scouting and skirmishes
The Mongol horse archers could fight in melee too, they just didn't bother most of the time since that's what their enemies wanted
The truth was there was no simple or effective way to deal with the Mongol cavalry, which is why they BTFO pretty much everyone
>>809092
You only need:
Discipline, massed ranks of archers and some spearman to take down an army based on horse archers. The Mongols were not unbeatable.
>>809092
>All part of the plan, while they're retreating they led the enemy into the trap and destroyed them
Lelnope.
Especially when they're nomads. Retreat to far = enjoy your war camp/YOUR WHOLE FUCKING SOCIETY left defenseless
Part and parcel why Qing China managed to genocide the Dzungars.
>>809124
Terrain is also a huge factor, the Mongols had some of their worst defeats in soft terrain, rendering their horses uselessly slow.
Foot archers can also use a larger, more powerful bow than one on a horse, so your argument about the horse archer being superior is null and void.
You could also force them to attack you head on through deception, like at Ain Jalut, where a small bait force was sent ahead of the main army and once the Mongols committed to battle, the main force showed up and comprehensively beat them. Or you can identify a target that they can't afford to lose and attack it, they would be forced to meet you in battle then.
>>800765
There was no single tactic that could defeat anything. Horse archers had trouble in close quarters, places like narrow passes, forested areas, and of course sieges. They were also far less effective against heavily armored foes and other cavalry than they were against peasant levies.
Those factors combined meant that armies which composed themselves mainly of archer cavalry had a hard time facing European powers who had an abundance of fortified positions, utilized mail and plate, and lived in heavily forested and sometimes mountainous areas. But in flat, open steppes/deserts/plains populated by poor peasants who couldn't afford heavy armor, they could dominate unopposed thanks to their mobility and versatility. Almost all of the Khanate(s) consisted of this type of land.
>post yfw you will never race across the steppe killing/raping/pillaging anything that moves
>post yfw you will never live in a yurt and drink yak milk
>post yfw you will never gonna a mongol qt to raid with
>post yfw you will never please tengrii
>>809150
>lelnope
You think all of Mongolia went on campaign? The Mongols used feigned retreats, most famously Subutai in the initial scouting raid into Rus. They would retreat to wear you, and more importantly your horses out.
>>800765
Remember that Horse Archers predate the mongols, and that the Parthians, Xiongnu and Huns, all equestrian archers, were all soundly defeated by the Romans, the Han Chinese, and the Late Roman Empire respectively.
The Mongols were the exception, and that was only because they were willing to go beyond horse archer spam to develop their own shock cavalry, marines and siege infantry.
>>800820
People forget that the Mongols did not only field horse archers. They conscripted all those that surrendered.
By the time they attacked Russia they had a large force of spear wielding cavalry, Chinese siege engineers, etc.
Due to the diversity of their army they could deal with basically anything.
>>809092
>while they're retreating they led the enemy into the trap and destroyed them
It's always hilarious when these plans fail.
If the horse archers have to retreat, who the fuck are they going to lead them too? More horse archers?
>Mongols horse archers basically trained from childhood with bows
Makes no difference. And not every soldier was mongolian, most were levies or foreigners
>they were incredibly accurate
You literally cannot support this
>part of the reason they were so dominant was they could loose arrows quickly and accurately while riding
No it isn't, give some backing if you're going to make stupid claims
> there was no simple or effective way to deal with the Mongol cavalry
Actually, there was. Castles. Stone fortifications. Cavalry is now useless. They required chinese siege experts to get anywhere and their early sieges without them were disastrous
Both Mohi, Legnica, and all of the sieges which occurred in the European campaign resulted in heavy casualties, and the campaign never amounted to anything.
>>812304
>Both Mohi, Legnica, and all of the sieges which occurred in the European campaign resulted in heavy casualties
I don't understand how people gloos over this.
Mohi and legnica alike could heave eaisly ended in total defeat for the mongols.
ESPECIALLY Mohi. Had the king not been completely incompetent, the western world would care no more about the mongols than it does the avars.
>>812396
>I don't understand how people gloos over this
They don't actually read past wikipedia, hell, they don't even read the wikipedia which makes a ton of references to the mongol's troubles.
The Hungarians literally beat the Mongols in the first encounter they had with them, and nearly destroyed all of Batu's forces
>>805621
>The Song were mere shadow of the Tang
Militarily, yes. Culturally speaking I don't think they cared that much about making territorial gains because everyone was too busy making shitloads of money and inventing consumer, mass-market printing.
>>812396
>The hungarians literally beat the Mongols in the first encounter.
No they didn't, killing a few men in an ambush doesnt mean that they won the battle.
Also do not forget that the Mongolians split their forces when going agaist the polish hungarian armies so it was 50% of the mongol army THAT WENT INTO EUROPE, meaning not all of the mongol armies, and that devision fought and won against 80% of THE TOTAL HUNGARIAN FORCES
>muh hungarians couldn't be defeated!
>>812580
Oh good, the mongolaboo who can barely speak English arrived
>No they didn't, killing a few men in an ambush doesnt mean that they won the battle.
>they defeated a part of the force in a battle and forced Subutai to change tactics
>but they didn't win that battle
Okay, whatever makes you happy.
>do not forget that the Mongolians split their forces when going agaist the polish hungarian armies so it was 50% of the mongol army THAT WENT INTO EUROPE
Yes, 50% of the mongols fought the other main force in Europe. The battles were balanced. You act as if the Mongols were at some disadvantage.
>meaning not all of the mongol armies
Meaning not all the European armies.
>and that devision fought and won against 80% of THE TOTAL HUNGARIAN FORCES
Please stop yelling. And they nearly lost the battle, Batu wanted to retreat. Also, source on the number, obviously you didn't read the mongol side because you'd know the forces are estimated to be equal
>>muh hungarians couldn't be defeated!
Literally no one said that you illiterate fuck
>>812645
Their english is Literally as good as yours.
>>812580
>it was 50% of the mongol army THAT WENT INTO EUROPE, meaning not all of the mongol armies, and that devision fought and won against 80% of THE TOTAL HUNGARIAN FORCES
And they still had numeric parity at mohi, or even superior numbers-estimates for the hungarians range from 10,000-25,000 men. The mongols are estimated at between 25,000 and 30,000.
Never, in the history of man, has the number of "divisions" painted a clear picture as to how many men take the field, because a "division" is not a set entity of a certain size until very recently, and even now, they are routinely under or over strength.
>>812684
No. It's actually quite clear that the mongol wannabee is either not a native speaker, or simply has very poor comprehension and composition skills.
Wasn't heavy armor a liability against horse archers? Seeing they could just shoot your horse and leave you vulverable.
we got our asses handed to us at Muhi for one reason or another
the country was open and the king fled to an island and the mongols crossed the danube during winter
also how is this a hard concept to graps these hordes werent only horsearchers?
