Effectiveness of steppe battle tactics

Originally posted by Justinian Some fascinating stuff guys.  I guess the first example that comes to my mind of a sedentary army beating a steppe army is Alexander beating the scythians in, the battle of the jaxartes in 329 b.c.  It was not a large battle but, his victory over them is a great example for explaining many of the issues being discussed.    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.

The Mongol victories against armoured infantry, and for that matter heavy cavalry, was in part due to their warrior spirit, in part due to tactics and in part due to weight of numbers. There no European states which could put one or more hundred thousand troops on the field at a given time, and retreat behind city walls resulted in one of two things; siege or relentless attack until they gave in. Being nomadic and self sufficient, the Mongol leaders were masters at logistics.

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd 1. This sassanide has a shield, so he got just one hand for the lance

1. This sassanide has a shield, so he got just one hand for the lance 2. I think it is just the harness, and not a chain.

Originally posted by Tar Szer�nd Ok, why I thought this: because if the lance was tied on the horse nack, how could it be used for the two handed lance fighting (almost like in samurai films). The tactic yuo have described is forcing the sarmatian (after only one attack) to use his secondary weapon and it is hinding both the warrior and the horse in the close fighting. So I think it is really a misunderstood not used lance cariing method.

Ok, why I thought this: because if the lance was tied on the horse nack, how could it be used for the two handed lance fighting (almost like in samurai films). The tactic yuo have described is forcing the sarmatian (after only one attack) to use his secondary weapon and it is hinding both the warrior and the horse in the close fighting.

Edited by Tar Szer�nd - 11-Dec-2007 at 08:32

^they didn't break like the European lance if I'm not wrong

Originally posted by Justinian Sarmat - I hope you can find your source for that tactic of giving the horse a lance.  I am intrigued.  That would be incredible ingenuity.

Edited by Sarmat12 - 10-Dec-2007 at 04:46

Originally posted by Temujin as for Alatriste. the French (in particular but also most other european nations) at this time had a cavalry tactic called "caracole", which means to charge at the enemy pike formation, shot the pistol and then retire over the flanks to reload the weapon behind the own lines to make another charge. watch the movie again, what do you expect pistol-armed cavalry to do other than to shoot their pistols?

Edited by ataman - 09-Dec-2007 at 05:06

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by Justinian Sarmat - you misunderstood; the battle was indeed small, my point was the tactics alexander used to win were worth studying.  I did not mean to say alexander subdued the scythians, nothing of the sort.  What happened was he defeated this raiding party basically and overawed/intimidated the scythians enough to keep them from raiding across the jaxartes again while he lived.  Hope that explains it better.   But are there any descriptions of this tactics? Destruction of a small detachment of Skythians IMO wouldn't require a very advanced tactics. Macedonians could just take them by surprise.  And I really very strongly doubt that the Skythians were that intimidated by Alexander.

Originally posted by Sarmat12   It's really strange that you didn't read about this before. I read it in a number of books, in Gumilev's "Hunnu" for example. He actually wrote that the the spears were fixed on horses' necks with a special chain. Parthian heavy cavalrymen did the same thing. Sarmatian spears were about 3-3.5 meters long and they hold them with both hands. I think Gorelik has a picture of Sarmatian warrior with the spear fixed like this.   Why do you think it would be ineffective?  I believe it, on the contrary, was very effective.

i really never heard about this, are you sure it is an accurate translation? of what efficiency is it to fix a lance to a horsehead? as you said the ancienct cataphracts used the two-handed grip to the lance, that doesn't recquire any fixing at all, unless you want to limit the range of the lance.

he battle shown in the clip does have some features of mongol fighting tactics, but overall it can't be regarded as an adequate depiction of Mongol warfare.

even for steppe battle tactics it is horrbile, even such minor details like the release of the bows is inaccurate, they have the mediterranean release and no thumb draw... also note the numerous infantrymen in the final battle

Originally posted by calvo You�d certainly need to train the horse very well to make it do crazy things. A representative cinematic portrayal of calvary against dense infantry formation was in the 2006 Spanish film �Alatriste�. In the final battle scene the Spanish Tercios formed up in a dense phalanx while the French knights tried to charge them. The horses always stopped short of the wall of pikes; and some pikemen took the opportunity to thrust at its legs.

i don't understand the problem, trained military horses can and will do anything. read up the battles of Megiddo or Bersheeba in 1917/18, many horses being (mortally) hit by machine gun fire in the chest, legs or even head continued their charge to the enemy lines and only then collapsed. horses are incredible creatures with much more stamina than humans. even riderless horses, due to the drill, will rally to the sound of the units trumpet, there are numerous accounts of that from all times.

as for Alatriste. the French (in particular but also most other european nations) at this time had a cavalry tactic called "caracole", which means to charge at the enemy pike formation, shot the pistol and then retire over the flanks to reload the weapon behind the own lines to make another charge. watch the movie again, what do you expect pistol-armed cavalry to do other than to shoot their pistols?


Edited by Temujin - 08-Dec-2007 at 20:05