Horse archers and their tactics

[CarlL]

OK this might just be another senior moment BUT I was trying out a set of rules, which have been fun, and using horse archers - a fictional tabletop battle between Parthians and Palmyrans - and it got me thinking if the rules were neglecting what we know about horse archers.

This then led me to think: just what DO we know about horse archers and their tactics?
I mean what sources do we have and do they describe their tactics or have I just absorbed that many rule designers ideas about horse archers (since 1960s) that I think I know historical 'facts' but really they are just rule writers conventions?!

I mean our period covers a broad period and many horse archer nations: my own tabletop armies reflect some of this broad sweep: Skythians; horse archers in "Persian" armies (Saka / Achaemenid? Parthian? Sassanian?); Huns; Mongols. Then there are all the ones I never got round too: Avars, Khazars, Magyars, Bulgars, Pechenegs, Alans, Turks (in many forms). 

So I was left scratching my head (I know its a bad habit) trying to think of articles in Slingshot or books I had read citing any historical records and descriptions. It's possible my head is too full of stuff after 58 years of toy soldiering and history reading to access any of it; or too empty (losing the marbles literally?!) so I thought I would seek help from you fine fellows; since I struggled to recall any!! HELP!?!

CarlL

[aligern]

Hi Carl, Maurice's Strategikon is a good source for how horse archers operate. The info there is summarised under Skythian tactics and the actions of detached units in the description of how a Byzantine cavalry army operates and of how the Avar army deploys.
One key manoeuvre is small bodies of light cavalry that move quickly across the front of the enemy force , shooting as they pass.  A troop will set out from one flank, say tge left, carry out its shoot and then join the right wing. Then a unit from the right wing will cross the enemy front and join the left wing.  This continues until the opponents cannot  stand the abrasion of continual arrow shots and decides to advance.  At  that point the horse archers break off and retire, shooting into the advancing enemy and leading them into an ambush by the heavier elements of the steppe army. This tactic is also described in a later ( 8th century) Arab source . Another plan is tgat used by the Byzantine army at Tricameron, against the Vandals. Faving a long line of opponents a horse archer unit advances, shooting at one point in the enemy line. It then makes a brief contact with the  opposing front.  If the enemy falls back the horsebowmen pursue, if they stand the archers break off and retire, tempting the enemy to follow, fall into disorder and be first shot and then charged by their main body.
Something that is immensely important to the commander if the steppe force is controlling the expenditure of arrows.  Its no use to have half the army having used all its arrows whilst the other half has full quivers. 
Also, crossing the enemy front , even if it has bows looks to be a safe manoeuvre.  It may be that the horse archers appear and pass so quickly that the foot bowmen cannot be commanded, load, draw, aim and shoot quickly enough the get a volley into  the flying horsemen.
Massed horsebowmen, light as well as heavy, but classically the armoured , nay cataphracted  troopers advanced, stood and volleyed into the opponent, following up with a charge .
RGB

[Erpingham]

Well out of period but neverless interesting are Napoleonic French encounters with horse archers in 1813.  Helpfully collated here.

I'm sure the subject has been discussed on the forum before and is worth a search.

[CarlL]

Anthony

surprisingly searches using "horse archers" = no results on Forum; and using "horse archers and their tactics" just brings me back to my post above!!

CarlL

[CarlL]

Many thanks Roy & Anthony.

I suppose we should bear in mind that Maurice's Strategikon was written in period 582AD to 602AD, by which time it appears that Eastern Roman Empire labelled all horse archers as "Skythian" when the period of Skythian kingdom(s) had passed, so its not a reference to Scythia / Skythians per se. Good news, this work is available as free download on many websites.

CarlL

[CarlL]

Baron Marbot's description of the Bashkir horse archers as being like a swarm of wasps, with ineffective weapons (he describes the arc of shooting rather than flat trajectory shooting as rarely causing serious injury) begs the questions:
1. Why did horse archery persist?
2. How did likes of Huns or Mongols carve out their kingdoms of conquest?

Certainly descriptions of the wars between Parthia and Rome (see Rose Mary Sheldon's 'Blood in the Sand / Rome's Wars in Parthia') gives warning of how the Roman's could be ambushed, shot down on march / ambush or in retreat in open country, or led into ambushes by horse archers. The 'Parthian shot' being one of their tricks when pursued. Were they better marksmen / archers, or better bows, or better arrows to strike armoured men compared to the Bashkir's archery or weapons?

[Ian61]

I have never had any horse archers to worry about all this but I have some Persian horse archers 'in the painting queue' as it were so it looks like I need a bit of study before they hit the tabletop in anger.  I notice Simons Alala! rules for cavalry already allow them to keep their distance as it were at exactly bow range so I can see that being as I imagine, infantry finding it difficult to get to grips with and taking arrows turn after turn.
Some of the debate above seems to mirror discussions elsewhere on the effectiveness(or otherwise) of archers and 'arrow-storms' its just that these guys are on horses. (Antony may be able to remind us which edition of Slingshot a certain article on that appeared, oddly I don't seem to be able to get it to hand some editions seem to have gone astray.)

[Erpingham]

Anthony

surprisingly searches using "horse archers" = no results on Forum; and using "horse archers and their tactics" just brings me back to my post above!!

CarlL

That's odd.  Horse archer gave me 15 pages of results  Now, I'm using a less specific search (no quotes) but even so.  I assume you checked the parameter was set to whole forum, not this board?  I noted links to articles on Steppe archers, Persians and Huns at a glance, so I recommend another go.

[gavindbm]

Friday writes about Japanese horse archers (12th Century) - discussed a bit here http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=7402.0

[Orc65]

I ran a word search through the Index on my Slingshot USB and found some articles, they're probably not what you're looking for, but here they are:

• Aetius and the Origins of the Late Roman Armoured Horse Archer (193/57-58, Jim Sye)
• Horse archers in medieval western Europe (74/66-7, Steve Badsey; 160/7-8, Matthew Bennett)
• The Ghostly Horse Archers of Dark Age Europe (140/11-12, Peter Bone)
• Shooters of Crows: Horse Archery in Glutter of Ravens (209/39, Daniel Mersey)
• Depiction of Horse Archers (291/13-14, Perry Gray)
• Of Horse Archers and their Bases (299/32-33, David Kay)
• Review of Vendel 28mm Parthian Horse Archers (268/52, Mark Watson)

[Andreas Johansson]

Anthony

surprisingly searches using "horse archers" = no results on Forum; and using "horse archers and their tactics" just brings me back to my post above!!

CarlL

That's odd.  Horse archer gave me 15 pages of results  Now, I'm using a less specific search (no quotes) but even so.  I assume you checked the parameter was set to whole forum, not this board?  I noted links to articles on Steppe archers, Persians and Huns at a glance, so I recommend another go.

FWIW: if I search with quotes on the phone I get no hits because Apple "helpfully" replaces the plain quotes with fancy opening and closing quotes that the forum search doesn't recognize as quotes at all.

Regarding Marbot's Bashkirs being not very effective, it's perhaps worth remembering that even in our period, horsy nomads were more often nuisances than existential threats to settled civilizations. Nomadic conquests mostly happen when settled states are already weak and divided.

But also, they faced opposition that the likes of Chingis Khan never had to - and contemporaries tended to be more impressed by the advantages of firearms over bows than wargamers.

Perhaps relevantly too, the Bashkirs were marginal nomads of the forest steppe. This zone seems to have been less liable to produce conquerors than the steppe proper.

[Keraunos]

I have been told that a major reason why the Mamelukes defeated the Mongols at Ain Jalut is that due to drought in their grazing lands, the Mongols were short of horses, so each soldier went into battle with only one horse, rather than with the 2 or 3 remounts they would normally have had.  If this is so, I can see how fresh remounts would give the Mongols a huge advantage in mobility and resilience over other forces lacking such resources and this may well have contributed to the effectiveness of other steppe peoples.

My impression is that space - giving the horse archers ample room to manoeuvre and wear down an opponent - is a also key to their success, but this is not something that the usual gaming table affords unless one goes to small scale troops on a big table.

[Justin Swanton]

My impression is that space - giving the horse archers ample room to manoeuvre and wear down an opponent - is a also key to their success, but this is not something that the usual gaming table affords unless one goes to small scale troops on a big table.

True. This makes LH difficult to model on a gaming table if they're facing enemy cavalry.

[tadamson]

Horse Archers is a very vague term...

There are extensive primary and ancient sources in less accessable languages (eg chinese, persian, arabic). These detail several different tactics and show that individual troops would choose between tactics in different circumstances.
some key points:
1. All horse archer types wore as much armour as they could get - including horse armour.
2. The key advantages over foot archers are mobility AND lots more arrows.
3. Dismounting was a common practice.  In bad terrain, fortifications, boats, etc. Also for 'shower shooting' tactics.
4. The most effective shooting was at very short range. heavy arrows, powerful bows, ranges 10m or less. This was typicaly when galloping across the enemy front or at a point charge before contact or withdrawal.

next tactics..