Effectiveness of steppe battle tactics

 

First and foremost, steppe battle tactics is dominated by horse-archery. The effectiveness of the bow was highly limited in ancient warfare as arrows could be blocked by most shields and armour. Most of the archers in ancient armies served more as a deterrent to enemy advancement and psychological harrassment rather than to "make the kill".

 

Calvary also had its limits. As long as the heavy infantry of the sedentary nations formed in a dense enough formation with a wall of shields and spikes, no horses would be able to charge them.

 

Logically speaking, as long as the army of a settled nation formed up their infantry in close order "testudo" formation with a wall of spikes, they should be immune to the attack of steppe archers. Sooner or later, the amunition of the steppe armies should run out and they would have no option left but to retreat, that is when the sedentary army could send their calvary to persue them.

 

Reality paints a rather different picture. Encounters with steppe nomads often proved disastrous to many sedentary armies and many times an army composed exclusively of steppe archers had managed to completely slaughter combined infantry and calvary of the settle nations' armies.

 

How did they do it?

Stepped armies were the first disciples of maneuver warfare.  Manuever warfare advocates attempting to defeat an adversary by incapacitating their decision making abilitites through shock and disruption brought about by movement.  A clear example of this was the 1st Rome-Parthian wars.  Carrhae and Mark Anthony's subsequent disastrous counter attack. (It should be noted that Mark Anthony lost more than half of his army with out ever fighting a set piece battle against the Parthians.)

 

The Qin and Han Chinese also suffered from them.  Early Han emperor deal with them through bribing and marriage to a Han princess.  The Han were only successful under Emperor Wu, by adopting stepped tactics themselves.  Emperor Wu spent years procuring Ferghana horses and building a professional army that could finally defeat the Huns confederacy. 

 

As the middle ages came, the stirrup and dicipline gave the Stepped Armies even greater lethality in the form of the Mongols. 

 

 

 

I agree.

The example might be Crimean Khanate and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Population of PLC in 17th c. varied between 8-11 mln, while the population of Crimean Khanate was about 0,5 mln. But CK was able to send to a war even 100.000 warriors, while the biggest army of PLC in 17th was only a little more numerous.

 

It depends which ones. As far as Zaporozhians are concerned, their art of war wasn't "steppe one". Only small per cent of their army was composed of cavalry. The bulk of their army was infantry, which was very good one, but... But it wasn't cavalry. Zaporozhians usually fought from behind the tabor. It was was completly different manner of fighting from this one which we were talking about earlier.

 

 

Russian Cossacks' warfare is definetely exclusively a "steppe one." Although it of course has been changing through ages.

 

The first Cossacks were Tatars after all. And the word Cossack itself is Turkic with the same meaning as Kazakh i.e. "free man."

 

Well, it was after the battle at Koyten mountain when Temujin  and Wang-khan defeated Jamuqa and his allies. Then Temujin chases Taijuds. Taijiud's arrow wounds Temujin in the neck. At night Dhzelme secretely gets into Taijiuds camp through carts (with which Taijiuds sourrounded their camp to protect it) and steals some milk for the wounded Temujin.

 

Mongols called this tabor-fortress guliam or gulian I forgot the exact word.

 

But, in any case, I think it's pretty natural that Nomades used tabor as a protection. After all, what else can you use to protect a camp in the steppe?

 

If they had enough time to prepare for the attack of the superios enemy and couldn't flee, they usually made a circle of connected carts around the camp and fought from this "wooden walls" with the enemy.

 

I agree some of the major factors to consider are:

 

- steppe mobility with majority or all cavalry

 

- warrior spirit retained by steppe cultures sometimes more so than sedentary civilizations

 

- percentage of steppe civilizations people bearing arms allowing a small population to fight a much larger one

 

Also studying history one sees that often the steppe cultures would fight most of their battles in terrain favorable to their tactics;  plains that favor cavalry. 

 

To respond to calvo's question:

 

Usually the steppe cavalry was of superior quality compared to the sedentary cavalry.  Also, infantry is at an enormous disadvantage on the open plains when facing cavalry.  Often the steppe forces would be better trained due to their way of life.  Normally, the sedentary forces would not know how to fight in a combined arms fashion.  (using cavalry and infantry effectively, co-ordination between the two)  When the sedentary forces leaders were able to effectively integrate their infantry and cavalry their chances of victory went up by a very large amount.  Often times sedentary forces would use the same tactics one would use in mountains or hilly terrain, not adapting their tactics to fit the terrain they were fighting on.  On the steppes cavalry ruled unless "caught" by the infantry. 

 

I'm sure there are other examples, but Alexander's battle against the scythians is a perfect example of how to beat steppe nomads.