Effectiveness of steppe battle tactics
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Steppe Nomads and Central Asia
Forum Discription: Nomads such as the Scythians, Huns, Turks & Mongols, and kingdoms of Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22457
Printed Date: 17-May-2024 at 09:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Effectiveness of steppe battle tactics
Posted By: calvo
Subject: Effectiveness of steppe battle tactics
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 09:19
|
The steppe nomad had for centuries struck up fear among the sedentary civilizations as being an aggressive, invincible, and ruthless warrior, but analysing their battle tactics, there seems to be numerous weaknesses that I'm surprised that the settled nations hadn't managed to exploit.
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?
|
Replies:
Posted By: ashokharsana
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 10:39
|
BTW Nomads lost many battles against these 'settled Nations".
The settles nations did not have any idea about the fighting skills of the Nomad Hordes so they could not prepare accordingly. Apart from that Nomads were crueler and much stronger as compared to the warriors they faced when they attacked settled nation's armies.
------------- The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars |
Posted By: IDonT
Date Posted: 15-Nov-2007 at 16:01
|
For one thing, the Steppe armies are mostly composed of cavalry. That means they have superior mobility than the typical infantry based armies of settled nations (Rome, China, Persia). This mobility gives them the option to pick their battles. They can draw their enemies away into the vast steppes and ambushed them when they are severely weakened by attrition. 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.
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 08:05
|
Here are my 2 cents.
But steppe warriors also attacked with a cold steel when necessary.
The effectiveness of every missile weapon was highly limited until 20 th c.
First of all, it is not true that horses were not able to charge dense formations of infantry. Second of all, in reality you didn't need to charge dense formation of infantry to win.
Remember that among the most favourite steppe tactic was a fake retreat.
An army composed only of cavalry had 1 huge advantage over every other army. It was its mobility. Thanks to its mobility, steppe warriors could surprise and could attack enemy who wasn't ready to fight. Thanks to this mobility, steppe warriors could avoid a battle when they wanted. Thanks to this mobility steppe warriors were able to exploit every mistake of enemy on the battlefield. Thanks to this mobility steppe warriors could impunity destroy enemy human potential (to kill civilians, to burn villages etc.).
Another advantage was a numerical superiority. Sedentary nations usually didn't have as numerous armies as steppe nations, because only small per cent (at most 1-2%) of a sedentary nation were soldiers. This per cent among steppe nations was much bigger - at least 10% (often more than 10%).
Thanks to its mobility, numerical superiority and discipline, steppe warriors could encircle enemy, cut enemy supply lines and starve enemies without any frontal attack.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 02-Dec-2007 at 22:10
|
about the last point, i think we can say that Steppe popualtions were generally much much smaller than urban civilizations, but on the other hand, as you said, the soldier class of urban empries can be small, while virtually every able-bodied man (and someitmes women) in Steppe cultures is a trained warrior. ------------- |
Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 03:02
| "Is?" As in "currently?" Or "was?" |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 05:35
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.
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 20:53
|
Would you call the Cossacks a “steppe people” as regards to warcraft? Or would they rather be an intermediate between a “Steppe people” and a “Sedentary people”? They certainly had more than just light calvary. The Zaporozhians were known to have had an infantry, artillery, and even a navy. Would you say that Napoleon’s defeat at the hands of the Don Cossacks was history last example of a horde of mobile steppe horsemen employing skirmishing techniques defeating an amassed formation of heavy infantry? |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2007 at 21:17
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.
Would you say that Napoleon’s defeat at the hands of the Don Cossacks was history last example of a horde of mobile steppe horsemen employing skirmishing techniques defeating an amassed formation of heavy infantry? |
.Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 04:38
Well, in fact fighting behind the tabor is a common tactics in the Steppe warfare. For example figthing behind the tabor is described in "the secret history of Mongols." But it's true in fact Zaporozhian infantry was much better than their cavalry.
Polish cavalry was much superior. Zaporozhians were famous priamarily as infantry men and by the naval raids against Turks in Black Sea (AKA viking style wild attacks on Turkish villages). ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 04:40
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." ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 06:46
It looks I have omitted this information. Can you tell me in which part of "The secret history of Mongols" is there a description of fighting from behind of the tabor?
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 09:24
|
Both the russian and hungarian forces fought in wagon fortesses(too) against the mongols, but I've never heard or red that the mongols ever had used it. (maybe just against Yermak) |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2007 at 21:19
|
yeah but we can't really compare apples and oranges here. Zaporozhian cavalry were basically mounted light infantry. Polish cavalry was either heavy armoured shock cavalry or lightly armoured shock cavalry. in direct comparison the Poles will always win, but that doesn't mean Zaporozhians had bad cavalry. if we put a MBT against an APC that doesn't mean the APC is worthless just because it gets blown up. both are made for different tasks. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 02:03
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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 02:03
Ermak never fought with Mongols, he fought with Tatars. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 05-Dec-2007 at 08:41
I've found it. But my version of the book (the book is translated into Polish) says aboout "warowny" and "oszańcowany" obóz (it might be translated as "fortified camp"). There is also information about wagons in this fortified camp, but there is nothing about wagons/carts which Taijiuds sourrounded their camp to protect it
Sarmat12, which version of the "Secret history..." do you use? English one?
Well, it is logic. When nomades used wagons they could use them to a defence. But how many steppe nations went to a war with wagons? I have never heard about the Tartars who took tabor for any raid against Poland.
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 03:31
|
I read a Russian version of "The secret history" translated by Kozin and also an English adaptation by Paul Khan.
In fact, I didn't mean to say that fighting behind the tabor occupied a significant place in the Steppe warfare. I just wanted to note that it existed there.
However, undoubtly the most significant feature of the steppe warfare was mobility, so fighting behind the tabor was mostly the last available resource when the nomades where not able to flee from the superior enemy.
In fact, I would say that fighting behind the tabor was the sign of weakness in the steppe warfare. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 06-Dec-2007 at 05:00
|
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. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 02:15
|
There are no reliable source about the battle you mentioned, Justinian. It's very unlikely that Alexander actually inflicted such a serious defeat on Skythians. As far as I know, the sources are just talking that Alexander repelled the Skythian back or smth. It seems that it was just a minor clash. And even after that "victory", Alexander retreated back through Yaksart river.
Generally speaking, no sedentary army could stand against Nomades without a strong cavalry.
Usually Steppe warriors were not stupid enough to perform front attacks of closed defensive infantry formations.
There are, however, few examples when a sedentary army mostly consisted of infantrymen could be victorious.
I'm talking about the war of Romans with Yazyg trime of Sarmatians in the second century. The decisive battle happened in winter and somehow Romans forced Yazyg to fight on the ice of Danube. They were able to engage them in the close hand to hand combat, even some kind of wrestling on the ice. And, eventually, better trained (for these kind of conditions) Roman soldiers won. However, that was an extremely hard war for Romans and they suffered very heavy casualties.
Sarmatians BTW were famous for heavy cavalry attack tactics. The warriors and the horses were covered with armour. A heavy spear was tied to the neck of the horse, which made a Sarmat warrior a kind of mini ram or a kind of "antique tank."
Sometimes those Sarmatian cavalrymen where even able to break through Roman testudo.
First Tukiut (Turk) Kaganate warriors also uses similar kind of heavy cavalry attacks BTW. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 12:50
|
Have steppe armies ever successfully laid siege to cities without employing mercenaries from sedentary nations who offered infantry and artillery? Sarmat has mentioned Sarmatian cataphracts breaking through Roman testudos.
Most probably they managed to break through while the Roman ranks were aready about to give way.
The major disadvantage of cavalry was that while you could drive people to do crazy things, you could not drive horses because they follow their animal instincts.
Once horses had charged close enough to a dense wall of pikes they woud halt; and if the enemy infantry scared them enough, they could even panic and throw their riders off the saddle.
Furthermore, by halting or ridig slowly in the middle of an infantry formation, the enemy footsoldiers could easily strike at the horses legs.
What I find amazing is how calvary armies could charge the enemy while holding their formation. Must have required sophisticated drill not only for the horsemen but also for the horses.
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 15:03
|
But f.e. pechenegs used wagon fortesses, and the hungarians made in most cases 1-3 war camps (fortifications made of their (or robbed) wagons),. They used them as store and base.
The Tactic of Emperor Leo says that the most efficient way to defeat the nomads is to attack their camps with infantry troops during the night.
(this was certenly just efficient after the nomadic troups were in a tight corner, in other cases usually they had placed patrol units all around their camps)
In one case, writen down in Liudprand's Antapodosis, in the 960's a hungarian unit of 2-300 men catched a 500 men strong greek force, who had surrounded the hungarians:-)
And during a hungarian campaign into Italy, the nomadic riders attacked Venice on leather boats and on their swimming horses. :-)))))))
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 07-Dec-2007 at 20:39
whats your source on that? i never read that, and it wouldn't have been effective anyways.
thats a common misconception, horses can and will do everyhting the rider wants if properly trained. ------------- |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 01:02
|
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. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 05:09
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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 05:13
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. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 05:44
Yes, you can also drive the horse crazy with the proper training. Actually you even can close their eyes and force them to charge with the closed eyes.
Steppe warriors themselves, sometimes used narcotics before the attack. Most often the smoke hemp.
Also they have special "kamikaze" units for breaking through enemies ranks. Mongols had them for example.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 08:41
It reminds me of some joke.
Some breeder wanted to sell a horse. He found a man who wanted to buy a horse. - This horse is worth 100.000 zloty.
- What? 100.000 zloty? Why is it so expensive?
- Ride it. You will see.
The man mounted the horse and galloped. Unfortunately his riding was very short. The horse hit a wall.
- What the hell? This horse is blind!
- Yes, but look how brave it is! |
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 12:00
|
Philippos defeated a scythian army by the Danube in 339 BC. Even Ateas, their 90 years old!!! king was killed. (Lucianos)
|
Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 12:12
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. The steppe nations, having been brought up on the saddle, probably drilled their horses to a much higher standard than the French cavalry in the 1600s. Is there any film that correctly portrays the battle formation adopted by steppe nomads? I have seen a few clips on Youtube of the Russian film “Mongol”. Would you say that the portrayal of the battle tactics was realistic, or was it more a fairy tale? |
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 14:47
Calvo, do you mean this movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6gk3QKtRjs&feature=related - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6gk3QKtRjs&feature=related ?
I have to watch it
 |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 14:58
Turkmens used opium Pills to gibe the horse that 'extra' for the long gallops. Sometimes 70 km  thats allotso i think they had different kinds of pills ------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 19:15
For sure you can't even compare French cavalrymen of the 17th century with Nomades, especially Sarmatians.
The horses of steppans were trained all their life. Nomades spend all their life with horses. The slept and eat on horses. Everything they had and everything they cherished related to their horses. Some authors even write that the horse was actually a continuation of the nomade's body and that they were the real centauros.
Very often a horse and nomad understood each other so well that the horse performed everything the rider needed everything without any command.
For sure, those horse could and were trained for the above mentioned type of suicide attacks.
The Russian movie, which we actually have already discussed was very dissapointing
 .Although it indeed has some nice moments, but, generaly speaking, is was a big disappointment.
The 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.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 19:56
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.
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
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? ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Dec-2007 at 20:37
Yes, I'm absolutely sure. It wasn't like fixing it to the head. There were several belts and chains fixed on the horse's neck (it's lover part) and the front part of horse's body. Then the was a chain or a belt on the right (usually) side. And they fixed the spear to this chain or belt. It wasn't like the horse being choked by all this ropes. The horse didn't have much trouble with that system. But when they fixed the spear and charged, it allowed to input all the horse mass and spead into the strike. So such kind of blow was pretty devastating for a closed infantry formations. I don't thing it was used against cavalry. They also could easily unlock the spear if the needed.
When I have more time, I'll try to find and post the picture by Gorelik of a cataphract like this. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 02:42
Yes, I've come across several biographies of Alexander that have maps and describe the tactics he used in his engagement against the scythians. If you want I could look for some online sources. Technically, yes, however the macedonians didn't just suprise the scythians, they tricked them using superior tactics.
A poor choice of words on my part. I meant to say that he beat them and by doing so they decided not to invade his territory again. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 02:47
|
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. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 04:47
Temujin, you are right that the tactic of French cavalry was different than in the movie. But I've found in internet that it is the movie about 17th c. In that time French cavalrymen used different tactic than the caracole.
Since about 1580's, French cavalrymen charged in this way - they slowly approached to enemies (at pace or at trot) at the distance10-20m (the closer, the better). The first rank (or 2 first ranks) shot to enemies. After that cavalrymen put away their pistols (or carabines), drew their swords out and charged (usually at trot; in exceptional case at gallop) with a cold steel. This tactic was later copied by Gustavus Adolphus and other armies in Western Europe.
Caracole was sometimes used also in 17th c. in Europe, but using this tactic was condemned in France since at least 1580's.
The movie shows French cavalrymen who approach enemies at gallop. It is mistake. They also approach in a loose formation (in fact there is no formation at all). It is another mistake. They should ride in a 'knee to knee' 6 ranks formation.
They also shoot to enemies at too big distance. And they don't use swords at all (at least I can't find any sword in any cavalryman's hand).
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 10:01
In the 9-10 th century (after the 'Tactic') had used bows and lances (and small spears(Liudprand)) as primary weapons. If the lance was not used, it was fixed with leather strips on the back of the warrior or on the horse. In the last case the lance could had been fixed vertical or horisontal. The horisontal way was surely much more better, because if the battle took place in a woody, shruby area, the lance wouldn't hang up in the bush and on the trees.
Could this second lance on the horse just be a misunderstanding of these not used lance fixing? (like the huns and their dinner(the meat) under the saddle? The meat was just medicine for the wounded horseback.)
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 09-Dec-2007 at 23:40
Guys, I'm really surprised that you found it so outstanding. Ok, I'll just transalte a short paragraph from a Russian article about cataphracts, which also gives an antique source for this.
Original Russian paragraph from the article about cataphracts(source:http://www.xlegio.ru/armies/cataphractes/cataphractes.htm ):
Второй особенностью как катафрактариев, так и более поздних клибанариев было их главное наступательное оружие – пики, достигавшие в длину 4-4,5 м, которые держали обеими руками. Гелиодор оставил интереснейшее описание того, как управлялись с подобной пикой: "Когда наступает время битвы, то, ослабив поводья и горяча коня боевым криком, он (катафрактарий. – А.X.) мчится на противника, подобный какому-то железному человеку или движущейся кованой статуе. Острие копья сильно выдается вперед, само копье ремнем прикреплено к шее коня; нижний его конец при помощи петли держится на крупе коня, в схватках копье не поддается, но, помогая руке всадника, всего лишь направляющей удар, само напрягается и твердо упирается, нанося сильное ранение, и в своем стремительном натиске колет кого ни попало, одним ударом часто пронзая двоих" http://www.xlegio.ru/armies/cataphractes/cataphractes.htm#cm12 - (12) .
My humble translation into English
The second feature of cataphractes, and later clibanaries was their main offensive weapon - lance which had length of 4-4,5 m and was held with both hands. Heliodoros has left the most interesting description of the way that lance was handled: " When there comes the time of combat, a cataphract having weakened mouthpiece and inspiring the horse with a battle cry rushes on the enemy like an iron man or a moving statue made of steel. The edge of the spear strongly stands out forward, the spear iself is fixed by the belt to the neck of the horse; its bottom is fixed by a loop on the groats of the horse; in the fighting the spear does not give in, but being directed by the hand of the horseman, makes only a front strike, it strains and firmly rests inflicting a serious wound, and in the impetuous onslaught pricks everything it meets one in its way, very often piercing two (men) with one strike. " http://www.xlegio.ru/armies/cataphractes/cataphractes.htm#cm12 - (12) .
Original antique source of the quotation is:
12. Heliod., Aephiop. IX, 15.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 07:55
| So there was no second lance? |
Posted By: xi_tujue
Date Posted: 10-Dec-2007 at 08:09
|
^they didn't break like the European lance if I'm not wrong
------------- I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 03:16
Dear Tar Szerend, unfortunately your post about several lances didn't relate to the point I was trying to say about cataphractes.
Yes, I don't think they used the second lance. Presumably, after the enemy formation had been broken cataphracts used their heavy swords. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 08:31
|
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.
|
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Dec-2007 at 20:50
|
i agree with Tar. it would limit the scope of the lance significantly.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 01:00
Actully I adressed this right before you posted this comment. Apparently the lance tied to the horse was used to break through close defence infantry formations. According to some assesments it, for example, was used by Parthians in the battle of Carrae in order to break thorugh Roman formations.
Once the formation was broken the lance became obsolete. The cataphract could just get rid of it (as I said earlier the system allowed to unlock and throw away the lance when needed) and use his long sword.
In fact, any kind of lance is obsolete in close combat, only sword could be an effective and handy weapon.
Yes, catafracts sometimes charged without tying the lance, but in that case the impact would be much weaker.
The tied lance also wasn't used against cavalry, but only against infantry. In the attack against cavalry catafract relied only on their hands while holding the lance.
But again the heavy and long lance was used only for the first strike then the sword was used. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 03:58
|
Wiki also has it, I should have looked there first of all, as well as you guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract#Equipment.2C_tactics_and_history - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract#Equipment.2C_tactics_and_history
Cataphract lances were usually supported by a chain attached to the horse's neck, and at the end by a fastening attached to the horse's hind leg, so the full momentum of horse could be applied to the thrust. One reason for this was the lack of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrups - stirrups ; although the traditional Roman saddle had four horns with which to secure the rider (Driel-Murray & Connolly), these were largely inadequate in keeping a soldier seated upon the full impact of a charge action.
I think on this picture you even can see the chain going from the lance to the horse's neck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Knight-Iran.JPG#file - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Knight-Iran.JPG#file
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Tar Szerénd
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 09:32
| 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. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Dec-2007 at 19:51
i also think so besides, the horse will not necessarly keep his head still, such a thign would be extremely dangerous for both horse and rider. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:35
Well, it makes the chain even more useful.
It's hard to say looking at this picture what it really is.
My main point that the lance of cataphracts had been indeed connected to the neck of the horse was confirmed though. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 13-Dec-2007 at 00:40
Well, it was tied to the lower part of the horse's neck, not to the head. So, the position, of the horse's head didn't really matter. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2014 at 12:05
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. |