Musket-Era Army vs. Horse Archers

[Brian Kennedy]

Anybody know if there are any historical examples of a horse-archer-based army duking it out with a European-style mid-18th-to-very-early-19th Century army? I think it would be a pretty interesting matchup.

 

1) Cannon fire = wreaking havoc on horse archers(?) I guess it would depend on formations, availability of grapeshot, etc.

 

2) Horse archers = wreaking havoc on unarmored infantry. I'm imagining a Waterloo-style Square where the enemy cavalry decided to trot out of range and just douse the troops in indirect arrow fire.

 

3) Gunfire noise = wreaking havoc on unprepared horses?

 

4) How would 18th-Century cavalry fare? Faster and more disciplined than medieval knights, but much less armor. Better ability to catch the bad guys outweighing increased vulnerability to arrow fire?

Edited March 24, 2008 by Brian Kennedy

[DougRichards]

Anybody know if there are any historical examples of a horse-archer-based army duking it out with a European-style mid-18th-to-very-early-19th Century army? I think it would be a pretty interesting matchup.

 

1) Cannon fire = wreaking havoc on horse archers(?) I guess it would depend on formations, availability of grapeshot, etc.

 

2) Horse archers = wreaking havoc on unarmored infantry. I'm imagining a Waterloo-style Square where the enemy cavalry decided to trot out of range and just douse the troops in indirect arrow fire.

 

3) Gunfire noise = wreaking havoc on unprepared horses?

 

4) How would 18th-Century cavalry fare? Faster and more disciplined than medieval knights, but much less armor. Better ability to catch the bad guys outweighing increased vulnerability to arrow fire?

Does anyone know how the Indians were armed at the Battle of the Wabash?

[Grant Whitley]

How about the Apaches against the Mexicans and US?

[Redbeard]

The Russian army fielded great numbers of horse archers in the Napoleonic wars - Bashkirs - recruited in Central Asia. At least according to Marbot the French called them "Cupids" and considered them the least dangerous soldiers of the world.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Guest aevans]

I think there's probably a reason horse archers went away at right about the time gunpoweder weapons became relatively widespread and efficient.

[SALADIN]

Anybody know if there are any historical examples of a horse-archer-based army duking it out with a European-style mid-18th-to-very-early-19th Century army? I think it would be a pretty interesting matchup.

 

1) Cannon fire = wreaking havoc on horse archers(?) I guess it would depend on formations, availability of grapeshot, etc.

 

Not entirely on all fours with what you are asking for, but the Ottoman versus Safavid Persian battle at Chaldiran pitted cannons against cavalry and Janissary muskets as well IIRC , comes close. Decisive Ottoman victory which led to a big change in Safavid tactics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran

 

 

At a much earlier age, the Mughal empire was established in India when its founder, Babur used cannons with much effect against cavalry and war elephants at the First battle of Panipat.Babur's army was reckoned at about 10000 and it beat an opponent with close to a hundred thousand men.Horses and elephants frightened by Mughal use of artillery.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Panipat_(1526)

 

Edited to add link.

[Guest aevans]

Not entirely on all fours with what you are asking for, but the Ottoman versus Safavid Persian battle at Chaldiran pitted cannons against cavalry and Janissary muskets as well IIRC , comes close. Decisive Ottoman victory which led to a big change in Safavid tactics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaldiran

At a much earlier age, the Mughal empire was established in India when its founder, Babur used cannons with much effect against cavalry and war elephants at the First battle of Panipat.Babur's army was reckoned at about 10000 and it beat an opponent with close to a hundred thousand men.

 

Thing you could do with artillery and muskets that you couldn't do with pikes and swords is unhorse light cavalry.

[thekirk]

You do have to wonder how the Mongols of Ghengis Khan's era would have coped with a musketry-armed opponent. My guess is that they would have used their greater mobility to flow around the blocks of musket-armed infantry, and gone on to gut the supply trains and surrounding countryside. The sad fact of the matter is that it's not necessarily the weapons you're armed with, it's the attitude and the manner in which you use them.

 

Napoleonic-war era horse archers aren't exactly representative of the best of the horse archer forces, and they're likely not going to have been used in a manner suitable to what their capabilities were. Suvorov wasn't likely an expert on the use of such forces... Ghengis Khan, on the other hand? He'd have likely gotten a lot more out of them.

 

US experience against the various indigenous peoples isn't exactly a fair match, either; we're talking primitive tribesmen vs. fully organized, fully disciplined Mongols with the backing of a complete civilization. The Mongols would likely have washed right over the Apaches without even a realization that they were doing anything more than coping with bandits. Stone arrows against steel? Zero organization above the band level, versus a Tumen? Not even slightly equitable...

 

I think the Mongols would have been impressed by the musket. Then, they would have captured a few, figured out how to use them, and then decided that they weren't as effective as the bow and arrow, from horseback. They might have used captured cannon to break infantry squares, but I don't see them going from a weapon that gave them such effective fire from horseback to something that they couldn't reload from the back of said horse...

[Redbeard]

You do have to wonder how the Mongols of Ghengis Khan's era would have coped with a musketry-armed opponent. My guess is that they would have used their greater mobility to flow around the blocks of musket-armed infantry, and gone on to gut the supply trains and surrounding countryside. The sad fact of the matter is that it's not necessarily the weapons you're armed with, it's the attitude and the manner in which you use them.

 

Napoleonic-war era horse archers aren't exactly representative of the best of the horse archer forces, and they're likely not going to have been used in a manner suitable to what their capabilities were. Suvorov wasn't likely an expert on the use of such forces... Ghengis Khan, on the other hand? He'd have likely gotten a lot more out of them.

 

US experience against the various indigenous peoples isn't exactly a fair match, either; we're talking primitive tribesmen vs. fully organized, fully disciplined Mongols with the backing of a complete civilization. The Mongols would likely have washed right over the Apaches without even a realization that they were doing anything more than coping with bandits. Stone arrows against steel? Zero organization above the band level, versus a Tumen? Not even slightly equitable...

 

I think the Mongols would have been impressed by the musket. Then, they would have captured a few, figured out how to use them, and then decided that they weren't as effective as the bow and arrow, from horseback. They might have used captured cannon to break infantry squares, but I don't see them going from a weapon that gave them such effective fire from horseback to something that they couldn't reload from the back of said horse...

 

 

Peasants with muskets probably would have been routed by Djengiz Khan's Mongols or even by Bashkirs, but Djengiz Khan's problem if meeting Napoleonic troops is that he will be up against formed troops under command with a doctrine etc. Against formed infantry cavalry rarely stood a chance, be they knights, caracole, Mongols or Cuirassiers. But a French light cavalry Division probably would make short work of any Mongol formation.

 

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Brian Kennedy]

Anybody know anything about effective range of Mongol-style composite bows vs. Napoleonic-era musket fire? I can see horse archers' vulnerability to artillery, light cavalry, etc., but can still see them being able to wipe out an infantry square from a distance (all those unarmored guys crammed in together)...

[Guest aevans]

Anybody know anything about effective range of Mongol-style composite bows vs. Napoleonic-era musket fire? I can see horse archers' vulnerability to artillery, light cavalry, etc., but can still see them being able to wipe out an infantry square from a distance (all those unarmored guys crammed in together)...

 

Composite horse bows are supposed to be effective up to a couple of hundred meters -- but only as area fire of decreasing effectiveness in direct proportion to the shooters' dispersion. So the more effectively horse archers disperse at range to avoid musket and artillery effects, the less effective they become against those very troop types. On the other hand, as horse archers bunch up and get closer to improve the effectiveness of their fire, the more and better targets they present.

 

The effectiveness of the horse archer was always based on the inability of the enemy to shoot back. Take that advantage away, and things get pretty dodgy real quick.

Edited March 24, 2008 by aevans

[swerve]

...

I think the Mongols would have been impressed by the musket. Then, they would have captured a few, figured out how to use them, and then decided that they weren't as effective as the bow and arrow, from horseback. They might have used captured cannon to break infantry squares, but I don't see them going from a weapon that gave them such effective fire from horseback to something that they couldn't reload from the back of said horse...

 

The Mongols would have immediately recognised the value of cannon against fortifications, & added them to their (not always taken on campaign) siege train. They might well have added light horse artillery.

[dpapp2]

Caracole tactics is somewhat similar to horse archer tactics. Get into range, fire, wheel back, then reload and repeat.

Was made obsolete with the appearance of better infantry firearms.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracole

 

With carbines and pistols the firepower advantage of the mongol light horse disappeared.

A composite bow won't have much penetrating power remaining beyond 50-100 meters. AFAIK.

[KingSargent]

Anybody know anything about effective range of Mongol-style composite bows vs. Napoleonic-era musket fire? I can see horse archers' vulnerability to artillery, light cavalry, etc., but can still see them being able to wipe out an infantry square from a distance (all those unarmored guys crammed in together)...

Firing against a massed target, 250-300 yards. %age of hits would be low. "Aimed" smoothbore musket fire has possibly less range.

 

The problem is you can convert a peasant into someone capable of marching, standing in line, and shooting in a few weeks of months. Effective horse-archery requires years of dedicated work.

[KingSargent]

But a French light cavalry Division probably would make short work of any Mongol formation.

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

Upon what do you base this assertion?

[SALADIN]

I know however that firearms and other primitive powder weapons were used against the mogols to supposedly good effect at Ain Jalut but that battle isn't necessarily representative of a full mongol calvary force.

 

 

A very thorough account of the Mamluke versus Mongol encounter is in contained in the book by a israeli Professor Rueven Amitai Preiss (sorry dont have the book with me at hand).The title IIRC is "The Mongol Ilkhannid war from 1260 to 1282"" or something along those lines.Worth reading as it shows how the Mongols could be bested repeatedly.

 

Dont recall him saying anything about pyrotechnic weapons.The Mamlukes won because they utilised the Mongols own tactic of a feigned retreat and ambush and superb leadership by Sultan Qutuz who rallied the troops when they were about to break.

 

Yes, Ayn Jalut was not representative of the full might of the Mongols but there were subsequent encounters when large Mongol armies took to the field and were worsted.The other battles where the Mongols were beaten (from memory, apologies again) were the first and second battles of Homs and Abulustayn.In one of them the Mongols deployed 60000 to 80000 men.

[Yama]

The effectiveness of the horse archer was always based on the inability of the enemy to shoot back. Take that advantage away, and things get pretty dodgy real quick.

 

Yes, and there is more to that. Before arrival of effective, (relatively) rapid-firing muskets and field guns ca. 1600, infantry formations had limited ways to deal damage to cavalry. Sure, infantry could be armed with bows, but then they would be quite helpless in hand-to-hand fighting. Crossbows had similar limitations to firearms, namely slow rate of fire and short effective range. Charging cavalry could be counted to cross that range fairly quickly, before suffering crippling losses. It was characteristics for shock action phase that both sides would suffer relatively little actual losses; what was important was to break other sides' discipline and cohesion. Trained cavalry would prevail against undisciplined infantry every time, and then massacre routed footmen at leisure. Firearms did not - at first - change this picture all that much. Arquebus-armed Swedish infantry was wholesally slaughtered by Polish cavalry in 16th and early 17th Century wars.

 

But when firearms got more effective - combined with improved discipline and tactics - infantry would be able to fire effective volleys at charging cavalry. Cavalry could still win the shock action, but it would suffer unavoidable losses in the process. It got worse if defender combined pikemen or cavalry to their formation, meaning that even shock action might not give victory to cavalry. Swedish Thirty Year War system was the ultimate - musketeers protected by pikemen, regimental guns and cavalry squadrons. Unsupported enemy cavalry would be totally toothless against Swedish line.

 

Now how this all relates to Mongols? Well, as said above, muskets would take away much of the ranged combat advantage horse archers traditionally enjoyed over infantry. Of course, horsemen could disperse but that would make them useless in shock action, which was another key part of Mongol tactics. They were masters of estimating when the enemy would not be able to resist cavalry charge, especially as most of their opponents had poorly disciplined feudal levies. Mongols seldom suffered heavy losses in their battles. In fact, some were so one-sided that they are best termed "extermination operations". Trained musketeers would change this picture; even if the Mongols win, they would suffer heavy losses. The point which was brought out about relative training times required for archer vs musketeer would quickly apply. Usually, it was not a big deal for Mongols since they suffered so few losses and their male population did little but trained archery and riding and manufactured arrows. But if they started to take heavy losses in every battle, even minor skirmish, their campaigning ability would quickly fall apart.

 

Napoleonic army would of course be even more formidable than 30YW era Swedish army. They'd have Gribeauval system artillery, refined flintlock muskets with bayonets, divisional organization and so on. Whole comparison becomes ungainly fantasy matchup, similar to "WI Lee had a T-34 tank in Gettysburg?".

 

(I have to note that actual (poor) performance of nomadic horse archers in 19th Century wars is of little consequence regarding this scenario. None of those horse archers had military system anywhere similar to Mongols.)

Edited March 25, 2008 by Yama

[Marek Tucan]

Anybody know anything about effective range of Mongol-style composite bows vs. Napoleonic-era musket fire? I can see horse archers' vulnerability to artillery, light cavalry, etc., but can still see them being able to wipe out an infantry square from a distance (all those unarmored guys crammed in together)...

 

Would the infantry form a tight square to face them? Won't some less densely packed formation be preferred?

[Guest aevans]

Would the infantry form a tight square to face them? Won't some less densely packed formation be preferred?

 

Judging by Napoleon's tactics against the Mamelukes, European infantry would probably form division sized "squares" around their baggage, with artillery at the corners. Or a commander might take a page from the Austrians fighting the Turks and use his wagons as barricades.

[Guest aevans]

(I have to note that actual (poor) performance of nomadic horse archers in 19th Century wars is of little consequence regarding this scenario. None of those horse archers had military system anywhere similar to Mongols.)

 

I'm not so sure that it is all that unrelated. What a lot of people miss about the Mongols is that for all their organization, they weren't a disciplined national army. They were still horse barbarians at the core. There was a lot of tribal and individual profit motive that wouldn't be served by dying in large numbers.

[Redbeard]

Upon what do you base this assertion?

 

Well obviously not on any actual encounters, apart from how formed Napoleonic cavalry genrally was far superior over "eastern"cavalry like Cossacks, Bashkirs, Mameluks etc. More important is however, that the horse archers, no matter how expert they are, probably can't do much vs. light cavalry. They are inferior in a melee and if they try to make a stand their arrow voleey is unlikely to do much damage against the light cavaly, and the horse archers will have an even greater disadvantage taking the charge standing. Cavalry trying to repel a cavalrycharge with a discharge of firearms generally fared very ill.

 

The horse archers might be able to flee the battlefield faster than heavy cavalry can catch them, but hardly faster than light cavalry.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Yama]

I'm not so sure that it is all that unrelated. What a lot of people miss about the Mongols is that for all their organization, they weren't a disciplined national army. They were still horse barbarians at the core. There was a lot of tribal and individual profit motive that wouldn't be served by dying in large numbers.

 

Dying in large numbers was never Mongol modus operandi. But the Mongols were separated from 19th Century horse archers in that they had an Imperial administration which enforced iron discipline. That went beyond traditional horse nomad warfare, which was, as you say, largely concentrated on profit and cultural habit.

 

Well obviously not on any actual encounters, apart from how formed Napoleonic cavalry genrally was far superior over "eastern"cavalry like Cossacks, Bashkirs, Mameluks etc. More important is however, that the horse archers, no matter how expert they are, probably can't do much vs. light cavalry. They are inferior in a melee and if they try to make a stand their arrow voleey is unlikely to do much damage against the light cavaly, and the horse archers will have an even greater disadvantage taking the charge standing. Cavalry trying to repel a cavalrycharge with a discharge of firearms generally fared very ill.

 

About 40% of Mongol cavalry (composition varied) was "heavy", armed with hooked lances, swords, maces and armoured with lamellar (or possibly mail or scale). This time comparison is unfair for Napoleonic era light cavalry, since they would not have any armour, because it was not useful against guns - much bigger threat than melee weapons.

[thekirk]

I'm not sure I agree with Stefan's point about Napoleonic-era light cavalry being markedly superior to something like the Mongols. The Mongols made short work of just about every other cavalry-centric formation they ran into, in their era. The only difference they would have noted between those opponents and the Napoleonic cavalry would have been the lack of armor, and the loud bangs their pistols and carbines produced. The rate of fire produced by composite-bow armed archers on horseback would have been a hell of a lot higher than someone carrying muzzle-loading weapons. If I remember right, the French light cavalry carried one or two pistols, and a carbine. So, three shots, from horseback, in melee vs. the composite bow's rate of fire that's in the neighborhood of twenty to thirty aimed shots per minute? Tell me again how the Napoleonic cavalry is going to come out on top?

 

Let's not forget the Mongols superior ability to live off the land, and prowess at scouting. And, the way Napoleonic cavalry was tied to the depots, with those huge, not-so-sturdy horses that died in huge numbers in Russia. I don't think the match-up of Mongols in their heyday vs. Napoleon in his is so clear-cut in the favor of Napoleon. Short of an ability to play God, with time and space, we'll never know, but I suspect the Mongols would do far better than we want to admit, right up until the development of the rifled musket and the telegraph. Strictly speaking from the seat of the pants, my guess is that until those two technologies were available, the Mongols would have outmaneuvered and swamped anything fielded by the west.

 

The Mongol armies were not the horde of popular imagination. They were a highly organized, highly proficient force that was able to achieve rates of advance nobody else has managed, up until the present day. If I'm not mistaken, the first time anyone in the West managed to exceed Mongol movement rates was in the march up from Kuwait to Baghdad by the coalition forces...

Edited March 25, 2008 by thekirk

[Brian Kennedy]

I didn't quite mean for this to be an "Army X travels back in time and fights Army Y" thread, but hey, whatever works.

 

I'm not sure I agree with Stefan's point about Napoleonic-era light cavalry being markedly superior to something like the Mongols. The Mongols made short work of just about every other cavalry-centric formation they ran into, in their era. The only difference they would have noted between those opponents and the Napoleonic cavalry would have been the lack of armor, and the loud bangs their pistols and carbines produced. The rate of fire produced by composite-bow armed archers on horseback would have been a hell of a lot higher than someone carrying muzzle-loading weapons. If I remember right, the French light cavalry carried one or two pistols, and a carbine. So, three shots, from horseback, in melee vs. the composite bow's rate of fire that's in the neighborhood of twenty to thirty aimed shots per minute? Tell me again how the Napoleonic cavalry is going to come out on top?

 

How about professionalism and discipline? The majority of battles the Mongols fought with Poles/Hungarians/etc. were won by feigned retreats -- the knights showed their propensity to charge willy-nilly at the slightest provocation, got worn out and the Mongols picked them to death. I'd imagine professional cavalry to be a lot less susceptible to that (yeah, yeah, British cav at Waterloo, fine...)

 

I think that professionalism/generalship would make a major difference across the board, really -- I don't think a horse-archer army was some sort of deus ex machina, it's just that the European armies at the time (at least those fighting the Mongols) didn't really display much in the way of sophisticated leadership. I'd like to see what a Mongol Horde could do against a comparably-sized, well-led army of trained pikemen backed with lots of longbows/crossbows (horse archers make bigger targets and shoot less accurately than foot archers), some professional light cav and some early cannon. (Yes, with strategic mobility being the obvious caveat).

 

Saladin (or anyone else), at Homs didn't the Janissaries counter the Mamluk horse-archer tactics by building a chain of wagons for cover?

[thekirk]

Brian, don't forget that the Mongols also did in far better organized and disciplined forces than the knights of Poland and Hungary. They'd already digested most of Central Asia and China by the time they came west.

 

Most of what's written about them fails to acknowledge just how well organized and effective they were. The Mongols weren't just a horde of barbarian herdsmen who decided to try conquering the world, one morning, and managed it because nobody else was looking. They had a very well thought-out and sophisticated approach to making war that hasn't been appreciated, in the west.

 

And, it's just that professionalism and generalship that I'm alluding to--the Mongols under Mongke would have given anyone a run for their money, right up until the mid-nineteenth century. I dare say they would only have been a bow-centric cavalry until the first encounter with the gun, and thereafter would have made use of firearms with frightening rapidity.