Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Horse archers
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Horse archers
    Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 10:19
But you must agree that the mobility of the Mounted archers is a big +
 
and There hit and run tactics were verry effective agianst less mobile infanty.
 
Also they were lighter armord so they were faster than a amour lets say knight so they could out run them.
 
And If they mastered the Parthianshot + recureved comopsite bow(wich is the best bow for mounted warfare) they could give you some trouble
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Tar Szernd View Drop Down
Consul
Consul


Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 384 		  Quote Tar Szernd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 11:40
They were not necesarry lighter armoured as western knights.
 
TSZ
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 16:36
Originally posted by Tar Szernd

They were not necesarry lighter armoured as western knights.
 
TSZ


yes they were they never wore plated armour never
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Onogur View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Onogur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Mar-2007 at 18:01
Depends, at a museum I have seen full armour of a crusader of the IVth crusade and a Cuman/Bulgar plated armour of Tzar/King Kaloyan Romaioktonos cavalryman. Both recovered from a battlefield in Thrace. Compared the crusader armour was lighter by 8 kilos (17 Lbs).
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817 		  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 01:00
Yes pre plate armoured there are horse archers more heavier than the knights as they have the horse armoured as well as the man .Also double lammeller was used by the Jin horse archers called iron padoga.
 
I would be interested in the battle between bulgar and crusades please Smile
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817 		  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 01:03
Originally posted by Athanasios

nope i won't Smile! The goods i'm saying them onceTongue.
 
 
Originally posted by Constantine XI

Byzantine armies typically had a cavalry force of 1/4, Latin Crusader armies typically has a cavalry force of 1/5 of their army (though this was often heavily reduced due to casualties).
 
I thought the standart formation was 50% - 50% for the Byzantines, since they were creating a line formationErmm.
 
Onogur, indeed the cavalry was the Byzantine army since it was used massly against most of their enemies. The usage of cavalry against bulgaria was not very succesful because the mountainus landscape is not
reliable fore cavalry tactics. 
 
Bulgaria heavy cavalry lead to their dominance over byzantine cavalry.When the Bulgar slayer byzantine emperor won it was becase the bulgars had lost most of theirt heavy cavalry to constant nomadic incursion from the north east.
Back to Top
Onogur View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 18-Feb-2007
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Onogur Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 23:13
BiqL, here are couple links in English, I have found about this battle. In both of them the battle is described mainly from the crusader's point of view. As I know it, the light armoured horse archers purpose in this battle was only to annoy and make the enemy chase them, breaking the formation, while the battle was won by the heavy cavalry (traditionally, except for the "melee" weapons, armed also with bow).
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople_(1205)
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
BigL View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 817 		  Quote BigL Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2007 at 00:22
Great thanks.why are the bulgarians such good strategists lol.
Back to Top
shurite7 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 14-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 91 		  Quote shurite7 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2007 at 00:00
Onogur, Thanks for your clarification and I agree with your assessment.  Most armies from Europe to northern China (crusader / Mongol era) used cavalry as their primary weapon (for lack of better term).
 
Latin Crusader armies typically has a cavalry force of 1/5 of their army (though this was often heavily reduced due to casualties).
 
Most Latin crusader armies ran a ratio of 1:10.   If they were lucky it could be 1:7 or 8 (very rare).  Often the ration was over 10 infantry to cavalry.  This statement pertains to the armies that left Europe.  It does not pertain to specific raids or small battles.  i.e. During campaigns the Templars and Hospitallers would gather their Turkopoles and raid the country side for food, such as cattle, sheep, etc.
 
Also, infantry could be affective against cavalry.  Yue Fei of the Southern Song was very good at doing this.  His foot went through special training.   
 
 
 
Cheers

Chris
Back to Top
Athanasios View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 23-Jan-2007
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 546 		  Quote Athanasios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 15:30
Undoubtely the Bulgar forces of this era were by far stronger than those of the weak Latin states of southern Balkans and Constantinopole. Under  a good commander as Kaloyan they would be superior.  The crusaders were not prooved efficient at any battle- except a battle near Adrianopole were Byzantines under a fool commander were ordered το retreat  without any reason, and the capture of Constantinopole wich was sieged with "openned gates"-.
Anyway, the Franks had better equiped foot-soldiers ( who were quite slow moving) than those of Bulgarians. I doubt if the plate armour was used by others in the battlefield except Bulgarian nobles, as for the westerners if i am not wrong, heavy cavalry men were the nobles or the people who had the comfort to maintain their horses , equipement and their grooms.According to the Feudal system that was quite difficult to anyone else. Maybe that was the reason of the low ratio. Social reasons, not military. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Do you know if the westerners used mounted archers as a separate unit like the steppe tribes and the Byzantines (in the era 8th-12th c.)?

Back to Top
Crusader3943 View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 11-Mar-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 80 		  Quote Crusader3943 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 13:00
Originally posted by stung

Why do some people on this forum believe that those who employed horse archers(huns,turks,mongols,ect.) are unbeatable when steppe style armies have been beaten many times by sedintary armies?


Ever try running rings around the enemy while shooting a bow on foot?

Or how'd you like to try and chase a horse archer while under fire and lugging around over fifty pounds of armor and supplies?
Crusader3943
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 15:38
Originally posted by Crusader3943

Originally posted by stung

Why do some people on this forum believe that those who employed horse archers(huns,turks,mongols,ect.) are unbeatable when steppe style armies have been beaten many times by sedintary armies?


Ever try running rings around the enemy while shooting a bow on foot?

Or how'd you like to try and chase a horse archer while under fire and lugging around over fifty pounds of armor and supplies?


LOLClap
Clap
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 10:08
They had nothing to lose than their lifes. In the age of grand immigration from Siberia and Turkistan(Central Asia), there used to be a lot earthquakes, and starvation. So, they had to conquer somewhere to live on..
Back to Top
xi_tujue View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Atabeg

Joined: 19-May-2006
Location: Belgium
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1919 		  Quote xi_tujue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2007 at 10:43
Originally posted by Kipcak

They had nothing to lose than their lifes. In the age of grand immigration from Siberia and Turkistan(Central Asia), there used to be a lot earthquakes, and starvation. So, they had to conquer somewhere to live on..


how the hell do earthquakes effect people who live in tents?
I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Apr-2007 at 07:25
As it has been previously stated, no army is invincible. But up onto the time that the the gun and heavy artillery (in the forms of cannons, missles, etc.) horse archers were capable of manuevering around the field faster then the opponents infantry, allowing them to strike and retreat quickly to methodically defeat the opposing force or to give them the ability to readjust their positions to have a more favorable strategic troop placement. Also it allowed the soldiers to attack from a distance and not worry about being assaulted as badly as if they were artillery, such as catapults. This was due to the fact that the artillery took a long time to move out of enemy fire and when the enemy charged they were pretty much useless, But the horseback archers were capable of attacking and if repulsed quickly regroup and preform another attack.
Back to Top
Belisarius57 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 21-Apr-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Belisarius57 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Apr-2007 at 12:12
The thing to realise is that steppe style horse archers are invincible while they remain as steppe nomads. Once they settle, they have locations to defend which reduces their mobility.

Every steppe nomad culture that has "settled down" has been defeated sooner or later by their more sedentary neighbours.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.