Horse Archers are Overrated

[Aldarion]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

Rest of the article on blog.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I agree with your general idea that horse archers alone will not win you battles or help you secure land. And that most successful armies in history have had different elements.

However, I think you're underestimating the bows of the cavalry archers. Of course it's easier to shoot when standing still. But that doesn't mean their bows were inferior. They still had war bows with roughly the same draw strength as foot archer bows. And a very important factor was that many grew up being a horse archer. And that kind of training is its own advantage.

 

[Aldarion]

I agree with your general idea that horse archers alone will not win you battles or help you secure land. And that most successful armies in history have had different elements.

However, I think you're underestimating the bows of the cavalry archers. Of course it's easier to shoot when standing still. But that doesn't mean their bows were inferior. They still had war bows with roughly the same draw strength as foot archer bows. And a very important factor was that many grew up being a horse archer. And that kind of training is its own advantage.

That depends from bow to bow, but no, horse archer bows were generally inferior to those of foot archers even when looking at purely technical side of it. Even with the same draw strength, draw length was generally less as bow has to be smaller in order to maneuver on horse. This means that either arrow has to be lighter (less kinetic energy = less penetration) or else bow will have shorter range.

To put it simply, maximum flight range of an arrow was achieved with a short, stiff bow shooting very light arrow, because short bow meant that less energy was wasted at accelerating arms of the bow, and thus acceleration of the arrow was much greater - and as arrow was light, it achieved higher velocities and had less drag. Short arrow was also less likely to warp and wobble, IIRC.

Maximum effective range however was achieved by a long bow driving a heavy arrow. Essentially, the heavy arrow had greater weight, greater crossectional density and was stiffer. All of this meant that it was better able to tolerate long draw lengths and better able to retain energy, as well as better able to transfer this energy to target. So while small bow and light arrow might reach further, they cannot really penetrate wet towel paper at said maximum range. To be effective, then, horse archer has to come close. At shorter ranges however, large (infantry) bows with heavy arrows have a major advantage - and because horses are big, that means that horse archers are a larger target, and that foot archers can achieve greater density of fire compared to horse archers.

And when using war arrows (as opposed to demonstration "flight" arrows), infantry bows had major advantage in range. Byzantine infantry bow had limit of flight distance of 330 meters, compared to 275 meters for cavalry bow. Killing distance was 200 meters for infantry bow, and 80 meters for cavalry bow - this was against unarmored target (linky). So essentially, effective range for infantry bow was two and half times that of a cavalry bow from the same culture.

And yes, horse archers generally grew up from childhood - but so did e.g. knights and English longbowmen. And to be utilized militarily, horse archers still required dedicated training, no different from other troops.

 

[pmmg]

A very nice and well laid out article.

I agree with Prince of Spires, in that, no matter the element, if was not part of a mix of other elements, its effectiveness would be reduced. The limitations of this element would be a good addition to any army, and could play in their tactics as a part of a whole. While i do know some how give the Mongols great respect for their horse archers, they must have had more to take and control in their expansion.

 

[Aldarion]

A very nice and well laid out article.

I agree with Prince of Spires, in that, no matter the element, if was not part of a mix of other elements, its effectiveness would be reduced. The limitations of this element would be a good addition to any army, and could play in their tactics as a part of a whole. While i do know some how give the Mongols great respect for their horse archers, they must have had more to take and control in their expansion.

That was actually one of major points I wanted to make in the article.

People often have this idea that horse archers were this "golden BB", some unbeatable troops that guaranteed success, when they just... weren't.

I mean, when I read typical article on the Mongols, it is always "horse archers this", "horse archers that"... very few articles mention their actual advantages: superior mobility, superior command and control, superior heavy cavalry, superior artillery (Mongols were ones who introduced gunpowder into Europe).

Or read about the Dothraki (I'm actually working on article about them, now): they are unarmored horse archers, with no heavy cavalry and no close-range weapons except for arakh (a type of scimitar). Realistically, they will get slaughtered against Westerosi armies which are pseudo-15th century, yet many in the fandom expect them to do well - either because they don't understand historical Mongols, or believe Martin himself doesn't understand them.

Hell, they should have gotten slaughtered by Sarnori.

 

[pmmg]

Anything can happen once the fighting starts.

I think horse archers are mostly a hit and run combat group. They would not be effective at taking and holding against a regular force. They also come with problems....horses need to be fed and all that.

If you were a group without horses, they might be difficult to catch, so you would need other elements as well, or they may be able to play a greater tactic against you.

Its always a mixed bag, and for every action there is a reaction. Horse archers may win for a little while, but people on the receiving end will start to figure out how to fight them. (Which means I agree with you as well).

 

[Aldarion]

Anything can happen once the fighting starts.

I think horse archers are mostly a hit and run combat group. They would not be effective at taking and holding against a regular force. They also come with problems....horses need to be fed and all that.

If you were a group without horses, they might be difficult to catch, so you would need other elements as well, or they may be able to play a greater tactic against you.

Its always a mixed bag, and for every action there is a reaction. Horse archers may win for a little while, but people on the receiving end will start to figure out how to fight them. (Which means I agree with you as well).

Agreed.

I think the best way to describe horse archers is as a shaping force.

On their own, they are not that useful in a pitched battle: easily outshot by foot archers, unable to cause serious damage to any infantry force (armor works!)... they can be effective against heavy cavalry, assuming said cavalry doesn't use barding (horse armor).

But horse archers have mobility to be effective scouts and raiders, and can thus force a battle. They may also force an infantry force to a disposition where it will be vulnerable to heavy cavalry.

 

[pmmg]

I would suspect the success of the Mongol horse archers has a little bit to do with who they facing. They may have been the right troop at the right time, right place, and against the right foe. Could also be, there were just a lot of them.

I will let the Mongol experts sift that out.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Sorry, but every time you say horse archer, I imagine a horse shooting a bow... I'm sad to say that I couldn't get Midjourney to illustrate a fun picture of this. AI is so stupid.

I've never seen a serious historical treatment of mounted archers that equated them to the hyperbole of a nuke, though no doubt Dothraki fans might want to go there. They certainly had their uses, wicked against exposed civilians... which is what I use them for in Trail of Pyres.

 

[Aldarion]

Sorry, but every time you say horse archer, I imagine a horse shooting a bow... I'm sad to say that I couldn't get Midjourney to illustrate a fun picture of this. AI is so stupid.

Yeah, but when I hear "mounted archer", I always imagine a longbowman that uses horse to ride from place to place but then shoots from foot. As in, mounted infantry as opposed to cavalry.

I've never seen a serious historical treatment of mounted archers that equated them to the hyperbole of a nuke, though no doubt Dothraki fans might want to go there. They certainly had their uses, wicked against exposed civilians... which is what I use them for in Trail of Pyres.

Oh, they do.

And yeah, light cavalry in general was used a lot for raiding. Croatian light cavalry in the 30 Years War was used almost exclusively for the irregular warfare, and was respected for it.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

I guess I've avoided stupid historians. I could see that with mounted archer, but it's where my brain goes. My brain would go with mounted infantry as the term for that sort of thing. Cavalry archer, there, my brain is satisfied. LMAO.

 

[pmmg]

Just doing some quick research, it cannot be denied that the Mongols were effective, and the horse archers were a large part of that. In two battles against the west, the west did not fare so well....but I am not sure that is telling.

They seemed to carry both a long and a short bow, and had several horses each. I would suggest that it might be costly to do so, but history records their successes, so it happened. They did not act alone, there was more to a mongol army than just them, but they were valued. I saw one web page say they might have had 150,000 such warriors, and could band together in large numbers. 100,000 archers sending arrows at you is probably hard to deal with.

Anyway...I am not sure what really did them in, but if they pushed far enough, I am sure the west, or others would have found ways to challenge them. Just the nature of it.

 

[Aldarion]

Just doing some quick research, it cannot be denied that the Mongols were effective, and the horse archers were a large part of that. In two battles against the west, the west did not fare so well....but I am not sure that is telling.

Which battles, exactly? Might help us determine why the "West" didn't fare so well.

They seemed to carry both a long and a short bow, and had several horses each. I would suggest that it might be costly to do so, but history records their successes, so it happened. They did not act alone, there was more to a mongol army than just them, but they were valued. I saw one web page say they might have had 150,000 such warriors, and could band together in large numbers. 100,000 archers sending arrows at you is probably hard to deal with.

Anyway...I am not sure what really did them in, but if they pushed far enough, I am sure the west, or others would have found ways to challenge them. Just the nature of it.

Read about 1285 Mongol invasion of Hungary.

There is a reason that invasion is basically a historical footnote despite involving army as large as the one in the 1241 invasion...

 

[pmmg]

The article i had read talked about poland. But i am not at the same pc over the weekend. I don't know that i can find it.

 

[Aldarion]

The article i had read talked about poland. But i am not at the same pc over the weekend. I don't know that i can find it.

Try to find them - it sounds interesting.

But in 1285 invasion of Hungary, it was a combination of castles and heavily armored cavalry that allowed the Hungarians to beat back Mongols with relatively little trouble. So easily in fact that most people don't even know about the second Mongol invasion - compared to the 1241 invasion it is merely a footnote, despite Mongol force being about as strong both times.