Musket-Era Army vs. Horse Archers

[Yama]

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.

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...)

 

On the other hand, Napoleonic cavalry would be unfamiliar with such tactics, and I think they would fall for it (at least for first time). Certainly, modern era cavalry was capable of doing stupid things...examples abound But as a whole, I agree, modern era cavalry would be much tougher opponent than Medieval knights, despite latters obvious superiority in melee weapons and equipment. Mongols, whilst disciplined, did not have "parade-field discipline" and as such likely had less tactical discipline than professional European cavalry would have. Notably, Mamluks seem to have generally got better of the Mongols in close quarters combat.

 

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).

 

Mongols met plenty of such armies when they conquered Southern Song. Admittably, conquest took almost 40 years.

 

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

 

Dunno...Mongols met wagonburgs in several occasions, most (in)famously at Kalka River and Mohi...result was a total disaster for defenders.

[SALADIN]

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

 

May not have been at Homs(no Jannisaries there) but in the Ottoman conquest of Egypt in 1517(?).The Ottoman artillery devastated the Mamluke cavalry and horse archers.The Ottomans IIRC also used a chain of wagons as a sort of shelter for their cannons and musket wielding Jannisaries at the Battle of Caldiran which i had posted about earlier.

 

In India, at Panipat, Babur sheltered his artillery behind oxen which had been tied together and demolished an opponent stated variously to be between 5 to 10 times his number.Unique also in that it is the only battle i know of where war elephants faced cannons.They got frightened and turned back on their own troops IIRC.

[Redbeard]

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...

 

I think you seriously underestimate Napoleonic troops (i.e not only French, but troops from the period), incl the cavalry. Here we saw very large bodies of trained, formed and disciplined troops fighting with a basis of conscious doctrine. They would not (apart from the English cavalry ) fall to a trick like charging yourself to death, but carefully coordinate with other services. The firearms of Napoleonic cavalry were mainly for use as centries or when scouting. It was well known at the time, that cavalry trying to repel a cavalry charge with pistol or carbine fire generally would be run over. So a Mongol unit trying to take a Napoleonic charge would be unlikely to hit significantly more than with carbines (but with less effect - no bangs and less serious wounds). Charging cavalry is a much harder target than a mass of medival infantry, and the composite bows used by the Bashkirs did not impress the French with their effect when hitting. If the Mongol unit has a portion of heavy cavalry it will mainly mean slowing it down, and could/would anyway be countered by Napoleonic heavy cavalry. A Cuirrassier had quite an amount of armour, and much more important were big men on big horses being very tough to stop if the charge is brought home.

 

In short Napoleonic cavalry would rarely resort to a small arms firefight, but ideally engage first with fire from cavalry artillery and/or a unit engaging from the front while another moves to outflank (engaging not necessarily meaning charging but merely by its presence and potential keeping the enemy engaged in that direction). In Napoleonic wars this often led to outflanking upon outflanking as each side committed its flank guard, and in reality rested on the armies of the time being able to field and command a yet unseen large number of men/units. That alone would bring the Mongols in serious trouble as they now will fight armies much bigger than they were used to, and much better coordinated, not just inside the cavalry but with artillery and infantry.

 

Besides the Napoleonic armies to a very large degree lived off the the land, especially the French, and by the Armycorps system could keep very large forces in the field (march separately and strike united). The Mongols (or anyone else) had never met anything being both so flexible and so powerful.

 

I haven't checked your claim on the advance rate, but I'm sure I can find rivals...

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Guest aevans]

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.

 

Funny, in my experience, most of what is written about the Mongols overemphasizes their organization and discipline. Much is made of the decimalized heirarchy of the Mongol forces, as if that wasn't the standard barbarian practice all over Northern Asia, going back to the Scythians. Same same with their discipline -- barbarians tend to be, well, barbaric in their methods of social control. Certainly the Mongols were better at it than most, but they weren't the major innovators that a lot of people make them out to be.

 

Also, in a very important sense they were just a horde. They may have had better organization than a lot of previous hordes, but they also relied on an individual and tribal profit motive. For example, writers often make a big deal out of the use of client or allied infantry and siege engineers, as if it proved some kind of enlightenment. All it proves is that Mongols weren't going to die in large numbers storming walls -- they were going to wait for the breach opened by inconsequential subjects of well paid stooges, then swarm in for the sack.

 

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.

 

First you claim that the major Mongol advantage over Napoleonic cavalry would be their horse archery, but then you claim that the Mongols would abandon that advantage for firearms. How does that work?

[Jim Martin]

Funny, in my experience, most of what is written about the Mongols overemphasizes their organization and discipline. Much is made of the decimalized heirarchy of the Mongol forces, as if that wasn't the standard barbarian practice all over Northern Asia, going back to the Scythians. Same same with their discipline -- barbarians tend to be, well, barbaric in their methods of social control. Certainly the Mongols were better at it than most, but they weren't the major innovators that a lot of people make them out to be.

 

Also, in a very important sense they were just a horde. They may have had better organization than a lot of previous hordes, but they also relied on an individual and tribal profit motive. For example, writers often make a big deal out of the use of client or allied infantry and siege engineers, as if it proved some kind of enlightenment. All it proves is that Mongols weren't going to die in large numbers storming walls -- they were going to wait for the breach opened by inconsequential subjects of well paid stooges, then swarm in for the sack.

First you claim that the major Mongol advantage over Napoleonic cavalry would be their horse archery, but then you claim that the Mongols would abandon that advantage for firearms. How does that work?

 

 

And it begs the question, did the Mongols have adequate metallurgical skills to replicate lightweight western horse artillery (lighter weight means less metal, which requires stronger metals), and practical individual firearms?

[thekirk]

I think you seriously underestimate Napoleonic troops (i.e not only French, but troops from the period), incl the cavalry. Here we saw very large bodies of trained, formed and disciplined troops fighting with a basis of conscious doctrine. They would not (apart from the English cavalry ) fall to a trick like charging yourself to death, but carefully coordinate with other services. The firearms of Napoleonic cavalry were mainly for use as centries or when scouting. It was well known at the time, that cavalry trying to repel a cavalry charge with pistol or carbine fire generally would be run over. So a Mongol unit trying to take a Napoleonic charge would be unlikely to hit significantly more than with carbines (but with less effect - no bangs and less serious wounds). Charging cavalry is a much harder target than a mass of medival infantry, and the composite bows used by the Bashkirs did not impress the French with their effect when hitting. If the Mongol unit has a portion of heavy cavalry it will mainly mean slowing it down, and could/would anyway be countered by Napoleonic heavy cavalry. A Cuirrassier had quite an amount of armour, and much more important were big men on big horses being very tough to stop if the charge is brought home.

 

Steffen, what precisely, are our Napoleonic cavalry going to be bringing a charge home against? We're talking about a cloud of light cavalry, who are going to be firing arrows at them the entire time they're in range, who are riding on a bunch of very hardy steppe ponies. The Mongols are going to treat a charge of French cavalry pretty much the same way they treated the horsed knights. They already had an abundance of experience dealing with such forces. The other question here is what the effect is going to be of saber and spear vs. bow and arrow. Napoleonic-war cavalry wouldn't have had an answer to accurate arrow fire from horseback, plus there's the added joy (for the Mongols) that only the heavys had anything like armor. In cavalry-on-cavalry action, the musket-era forces didn't have projectile weapons that worked, worth a damn, from horseback. The Mongols had projectile weapons which were quite handy, and had a truly depressing rate of fire. I think a charge of French cavalry would have wound up looking like pincushions.

 

In short Napoleonic cavalry would rarely resort to a small arms firefight, but ideally engage first with fire from cavalry artillery and/or a unit engaging from the front while another moves to outflank (engaging not necessarily meaning charging but merely by its presence and potential keeping the enemy engaged in that direction). In Napoleonic wars this often led to outflanking upon outflanking as each side committed its flank guard, and in reality rested on the armies of the time being able to field and command a yet unseen large number of men/units. That alone would bring the Mongols in serious trouble as they now will fight armies much bigger than they were used to, and much better coordinated, not just inside the cavalry but with artillery and infantry.

 

I think you're underestimating the size and sophistication of the opposition that the Mongols had faced already, in China. The Napoleonic Europeans would have provided a far tougher nut to crack than the Europeans of the Mongol era, but the nut was still crackable. And, as far as communications go, until the development of things like the telegraph, they were playing on a level field--and the Mongols were a hell of a lot more sophisticated at it than we like to think. They very much operated by way of getting inside their opponent's OODA loops, and were damn good at it. Mongol scouts were very effective at keeping their bosses informed of what was going on around them. Usually without ever letting any opponents know they were in the area.

 

Those combined arms would probably never have had a chance to come into play, after the first Mongol experience facing them. Once they figured out what they were dealing with, they'd have spent their time ravaging the countryside and any attendant foraging parties, and waited for those formations to break apart under the pressure of hunger and starvation. Once that happened, the cannon and muskets aren't that much use to the Europeans.

 

Besides the Napoleonic armies to a very large degree lived off the the land, especially the French, and by the Armycorps system could keep very large forces in the field (march separately and strike united). The Mongols (or anyone else) had never met anything being both so flexible and so powerful.

 

There's a lot of lip service paid to this idea, but when push came to shove, the French really weren't very good at "living off the land", were they? They relied on looting the fruits of civilization, and when those fruits weren't available, they starved. One of the advantages that the French had had over the other Napoleonic-era forces was that they had reverted to a pre-gunpowder supply system. One not so different from the Mongols, who were a lot more ruthless about putting it into practice. Any Mongol vs. French campaign is going to resemble Napoleon in Russia writ large, and likely, with worse results for the French.

 

It's enlightening to learn that the Mongols were quite familiar with the concept of converging columns. You could almost say they invented the strategy... Because they did. From what I remember reading, Napoleon himself had supposedly studied the Mongols, and read Sun Tzu, before anyone else in the west was really paying attention to that sort of thing. I don't know if that's more than apocryphal, but it's been written.

 

I haven't checked your claim on the advance rate, but I'm sure I can find rivals...

 

Good luck, on that. I had the same view before I started reading more about the Mongols than is provided in a classical Euro-focused education. It was eye-opening.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be an eighteenth-century Mike Sparks. What I'm saying is that the whole bow-cavalry vs. musket question isn't as cut and dried as we might like it to be. I don't know who would have come out on top, but it would have been fascinating to watch, in a morbid sort of "scorpions under glass" sort of way. One thing I'm trying to do here, pitting Mongol against Napoleonic musket is that I think we should match the best example of each school of warfare against the other. Saying that the musket was superior to the horsebow because Napoleon kicked ass in Egypt isn't saying much--by that time, the bow was hardly at it's peak. Similarly, if you match Mongol ordu against early musket-era forces, they just wouldn't have lasted very long, given the enormous depth and sophistication of the Mongol war machine, comparatively.

 

Ironically, Napoleon won his campaigns by reverting to a much less rule-bound and less civilized way of making war than the usual manner of other Europeans of that era. A very Mongolian approach, I might point out. One without the advantage of having hardy Mongol steppe nomads to conduct it with, which showed in the Russian winter. In similar conditions, the Mongols would have dispersed, and survived quite nicely, thank you, until the next campaign season. When they'd have emerged untouched by winter to continue campaigning.

 

I still contend that when you're talking pre-railway, telegraph, and rifled musket, the way to bet on this question is on the Mongols. Until communications were better than man-on-horseback courier speeds, and the response times faster than horse mounted, any forces were going to have issues facing the Mongol way of making war. And, an unrifled musket isn't that much better than bow-and-arrow, aside from the loud bang it makes. When you compare the rate of fire of a bow vs. a musket, along with the accuracy, you have to wonder why they ever became popular. The thing we forget at our peril is that the main advantage of the musket was that it allowed you to take non-warrior peasants, and make them cheap and effective soldiers. The Mongols were already trained on the bow, and didn't need to worry about that particular advantage. In short, the bow, in the hands of a trained bowman, is a hell of a lot more effective than a flintlock musket. How else did the American Indian manage to hold off the settlement of the western US for so long? Without the decimation provided by smallpox and the like, it's very unlikely that Europeans would have ever gained a foothold on the continental US.

 

Although, come to think of it, western lack of sanitation might have been more lethal than it's armies. I wonder how the Mongols stacked up, immunization-wise?

[Yama]

I think you seriously underestimate Napoleonic troops (i.e not only French, but troops from the period), incl the cavalry. Here we saw very large bodies of trained, formed and disciplined troops fighting with a basis of conscious doctrine. They would not (apart from the English cavalry ) fall to a trick like charging yourself to death, but carefully coordinate with other services. The firearms of Napoleonic cavalry were mainly for use as centries or when scouting. It was well known at the time, that cavalry trying to repel a cavalry charge with pistol or carbine fire generally would be run over. So a Mongol unit trying to take a Napoleonic charge would be unlikely to hit significantly more than with carbines (but with less effect - no bangs and less serious wounds). Charging cavalry is a much harder target than a mass of medival infantry, and the composite bows used by the Bashkirs did not impress the French with their effect when hitting. If the Mongol unit has a portion of heavy cavalry it will mainly mean slowing it down, and could/would anyway be countered by Napoleonic heavy cavalry. A Cuirrassier had quite an amount of armour, and much more important were big men on big horses being very tough to stop if the charge is brought home.

 

Mongols, of course, also knew that charging cavalry could not be stopped with firepower they had in their disposal. If Mongol light cavalry was charged by enemy cavalry, they simply retreated. Mongols would sometimes retreat for days, wearing down the enemy and waiting for opportunity encircle them or bring their own shock cavalry to bear.

 

Napoleonic era armies seldom had opportunity to perform this kind of operational or strategic level retreats. Defending armies were usually defending their home country, and as such, had to make a stand at some point. (Russian campaign is of course a notable exception). Mongols seldom operated in their home country and as such, could not care less if they had to destroy local livestock and grain (and peasantry...) to slow down the enemy. Mongols usually had much more space to perform their famous strategic maneuvers than Napoleonic era armies. Only theatre where they met population density and urbanisation anywhere close to 19th Century Europe was China, and there they had to radically change their usual methodology and composition of their armies. It is a testament for their adaptability that they were able to pull it off.

 

Perhaps, in a similar but reverse fashion, Napoleon could have also eventually solved his Russian dilemma. Alas, he did not have several decades he would have needed...

 

This all is supposed to illustrate how difficult it is to compare military systems which adapted to radically different geostrategic and cultural circumstances. Which one is "better"? Question is pointless; it is like asking which car is "better": WW2 era Willys Jeep or modern Toyota Camry?

 

In short Napoleonic cavalry would rarely resort to a small arms firefight, but ideally engage first with fire from cavalry artillery and/or a unit engaging from the front while another moves to outflank (engaging not necessarily meaning charging but merely by its presence and potential keeping the enemy engaged in that direction). In Napoleonic wars this often led to outflanking upon outflanking as each side committed its flank guard, and in reality rested on the armies of the time being able to field and command a yet unseen large number of men/units. That alone would bring the Mongols in serious trouble as they now will fight armies much bigger than they were used to, and much better coordinated, not just inside the cavalry but with artillery and infantry.

 

Well, obviously so, compared to their typical feudal opponents. That said, Mongols themselves were pretty adept at tactical dispositions. This scan shows a typical battle formation of Timurid army:

 

 

According to Timur, main body would hold about 40% of the forces, and "usually, attacks of the [wings and centre] were enough... to rout the enemy"...

[Yama]

And it begs the question, did the Mongols have adequate metallurgical skills to replicate lightweight western horse artillery (lighter weight means less metal, which requires stronger metals), and practical individual firearms?

 

Of course not. It took centuries to develope necessary advances, even in Europe.

 

Mongols would have loved Napoleonic era horse artillery, though. They themselves used plenty of artillery in form of catapults, not only for sieges but also as field artillery.

[Redbeard]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be an eighteenth-century Mike Sparks. What I'm saying is that the whole bow-cavalry vs. musket question isn't as cut and dried as we might like it to be. I don't know who would have come out on top, but it would have been fascinating to watch, in a morbid sort of "scorpions under glass" sort of way. One thing I'm trying to do here, pitting Mongol against Napoleonic musket is that I think we should match the best example of each school of warfare against the other. Saying that the musket was superior to the horsebow because Napoleon kicked ass in Egypt isn't saying much--by that time, the bow was hardly at it's peak. Similarly, if you match Mongol ordu against early musket-era forces, they just wouldn't have lasted very long, given the enormous depth and sophistication of the Mongol war machine, comparatively.

 

Ironically, Napoleon won his campaigns by reverting to a much less rule-bound and less civilized way of making war than the usual manner of other Europeans of that era. A very Mongolian approach, I might point out. One without the advantage of having hardy Mongol steppe nomads to conduct it with, which showed in the Russian winter. In similar conditions, the Mongols would have dispersed, and survived quite nicely, thank you, until the next campaign season. When they'd have emerged untouched by winter to continue campaigning.

 

I still contend that when you're talking pre-railway, telegraph, and rifled musket, the way to bet on this question is on the Mongols. Until communications were better than man-on-horseback courier speeds, and the response times faster than horse mounted, any forces were going to have issues facing the Mongol way of making war. And, an unrifled musket isn't that much better than bow-and-arrow, aside from the loud bang it makes. When you compare the rate of fire of a bow vs. a musket, along with the accuracy, you have to wonder why they ever became popular. The thing we forget at our peril is that the main advantage of the musket was that it allowed you to take non-warrior peasants, and make them cheap and effective soldiers. The Mongols were already trained on the bow, and didn't need to worry about that particular advantage. In short, the bow, in the hands of a trained bowman, is a hell of a lot more effective than a flintlock musket. How else did the American Indian manage to hold off the settlement of the western US for so long? Without the decimation provided by smallpox and the like, it's very unlikely that Europeans would have ever gained a foothold on the continental US.

 

Although, come to think of it, western lack of sanitation might have been more lethal than it's armies. I wonder how the Mongols stacked up, immunization-wise?

 

Don't worry - I have no intention to "Spark" you, but we might still not necessarily agree on everything

 

First of all I think we should not put too great emphasis on weapons. IMO a unit of well trained Napoleonic infantry with spears (but not bows if no spears) would in most situations prevail over recruits with muskets - the main point is the degree to which the unit/army can act under orders stemming in well defined doctrines/tactics, and with an ability to adopt to the situation. Here the Mongols surely were way beyond their contemporaries, but those contemporaries also IMO were unambitious benchmarks - incl. the Chinese - although they are not my speciality (I'm not impressed with Sun Tsu's collection of banalities).

 

In contrast the Napoleonic armies marked a high mark in all those aspects, and I see no signs of the Mongols matching that. Another way to say it, is that the part who can combine most arms will win. Here the Mongols certainly were better than their contemporaries, but would only have the fraction of options of a Napoleonic commander.

 

If we on top start to discuss the weaponry I'm not that impressed with the bow. A high rate of fire is a poor comfort when you only can get into really effective range inside the distance where a musket volley would be devastating, or you have to close up and be vulnerable to both fire and counterchárges. Napoleonic cavalry was quite another thing than medieval knights. Firing arrows from a marginally effective distance might be effective vs. troops who really hasn't anything to fire/fight back with, but not vs. a determined opponent with a lot of options.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Yama]

Funny, in my experience, most of what is written about the Mongols overemphasizes their organization and discipline. Much is made of the decimalized heirarchy of the Mongol forces, as if that wasn't the standard barbarian practice all over Northern Asia, going back to the Scythians. Same same with their discipline -- barbarians tend to be, well, barbaric in their methods of social control. Certainly the Mongols were better at it than most, but they weren't the major innovators that a lot of people make them out to be.

 

"Social control" was in fact biggest factor for Mongol success and Genghiz Khan's greatest single contribution. Mongols were extraordinaly good at convincing other people to join them. Methods were, of course, as you say, often 'barbaric' ("You build us a new siege engine and operate it in our conquests, or we will kill you. Got it?"). But this rough meritocracy worked and brought manpower reserve and wide range of skills to Khagan's disposal, which he would have never got had he stuck with only his own people. And ultimately, it was this flexibility which enabled them to conquer civilizations which were much bigger, wealthier and technologically more advanced.

[Yama]

First of all I think we should not put too great emphasis on weapons. IMO a unit of well trained Napoleonic infantry with spears (but not bows if no spears) would in most situations prevail over recruits with muskets

 

Perhaps...but they'd take heavy losses. Frederick the Great experimented with pikes, but considered it a failure. And his infantry was much better trained than vast majority of the Napoleonic era infantry. In fact, most of the Napoleonic era infantry was not all that well trained compared to 18th Century professional armies.

 

- the main point is the degree to which the unit/army can act under orders stemming in well defined doctrines/tactics, and with an ability to adopt to the situation. Here the Mongols surely were way beyond their contemporaries, but those contemporaries also IMO were unambitious benchmarks - incl. the Chinese - although they are not my speciality (I'm not impressed with Sun Tsu's collection of banalities).

 

Tsk tsk!

 

Chinese were pretty much only ones at the time who could afford regular armies. Song armies were highly organized, well equipped and warfare was studied as a science. Core of the army was combination of regular infantry and crossbowmen, much in similar fashion as 16th Century Europeans would combine pikemen and arqebusiers. Apparently, massed use of crossbows was considered effective counter against cavalry charge. Chinese had (since times of Sun Tzu) quite sophisticated tactical signaling system including banners, horns, signaling arrows etc. and I suspect that's where from Mongols got theirs too.

 

Despite all this, Song armies do not seem to have been terribly effective. They had to pay tribute to nominally weaker Jin Dynasty as a guarantee against invasion. They also invariably lost major engagements against the Mongols. I'm inclined to make comparison to Byzantine Empire, which was also much more advanced and richer than any of their neighbours, and yet constantly lost territory to "barbarians". Chinese viewed military as something of "necessary evil" and had cultural disdain for warfare, which they considered uncivilized.

 

But perhaps seeming lack of success only reflects quality of their opponents. Souther Song did not have much horses and their cavalry arm was weak. Jin, by contrast, were originally nomadic and had enormous amount of cavalry and had also wealth & power to field large infantry army. Mongols, of course, were most formidable conquerors of their time. I don't have any sources describing pitched battles between Song and Mongol forces (sadly, this important campaign is very much neglected in Western literature) but I suspect Mongols usually simply outmaneuvered Song forces into untenable position. I'm sure a Song army would have easily beaten any contemporary European army. In sieges, with their copious amount of war machines, crossbows and archers, they proved to be very formidable opponents for Mongols.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Yama

[Redbeard]

Perhaps...but they'd take heavy losses. Frederick the Great experimented with pikes, but considered it a failure. And his infantry was much better trained than vast majority of the Napoleonic era infantry. In fact, most of the Napoleonic era infantry was not all that well trained compared to 18th Century professional armies.

Tsk tsk!

 

Chinese were pretty much only ones at the time who could afford regular armies. Song armies were highly organized, well equipped and warfare was studied as a science. Core of the army was combination of regular infantry and crossbowmen, much in similar fashion as 16th Century Europeans would combine pikemen and arqebusiers. Apparently, massed use of crossbows was considered effective counter against cavalry charge. Chinese had (since times of Sun Tzu) quite sophisticated tactical signaling system including banners, horns, signaling arrows etc. and I suspect that's where from Mongols got theirs too.

 

Despite all this, Song armies do not seem to have been terribly effective. They had to pay tribute to nominally weaker Jin Dynasty as a guarantee against invasion. They also invariably lost major engagements against the Mongols. I'm inclined to make comparison to Byzantine Empire, which was also much more advanced and richer than any of their neighbours, and yet constantly lost territory to "barbarians". Chinese viewed military as something of "necessary evil" and had cultural disdain for warfare, which they considered uncivilized.

 

But perhaps seeming lack of success only reflects quality of their opponents. Souther Song did not have much horses and their cavalry arm was weak. Jin, by contrast, were originally nomadic and had enormous amount of cavalry and had also wealth & power to field large infantry army. Mongols, of course, were most formidable conquerors of their time. I don't have any sources describing pitched battles between Song and Mongol forces (sadly, this important campaign is very much neglected in Western literature) but I suspect Mongols usually simply outmaneuvered Song forces into untenable position. I'm sure a Song army would have easily beaten any contemporary European army. In sieges, with their copious amount of war machines, crossbows and archers, they proved to be very formidable opponents for Mongols.

 

Interesting notes on the Chinese. I googled Song Empire and found out they apparently were in place from 960-1279 AC - and then I'll have to agree that ought to have been able to defeat any contemporary European Army - who couldn't? An army with 10.000 men would be big, and even then most be relatively untrained peasants and the rest rather uncontrollable nobles - fighting not as an army - but as a bunch of nobles.

 

Concerning spears vs. muskets casualties on the spear side certainly would have been high if the musket side could actually use their muskets, but my impression is that even well trained "musketeers" could rarely count on stopping a determined infantry charge with musket fire alone, and even they usually finished the case with a bayonet (counter)charge in line. Untrained infantry would often break well before a determined attacking enemy got into melee contact.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[Junior FO]

...

Edited September 20, 2024 by Junior FO

[DougRichards]

Apart from moving away from the original topic, that is, did horse archers ever face musket armed infantry, the talk of Mongols versus early 18th century European armies neglects the fact that Europe in the early 18th century was very different to the 'Europe' that the Mongols devastated some centuries before.

 

In the early 18th century there was at least a strong concept of Europe, if not on European unity, that would take another 180 years, but the Mongols conquered medieval style armies which at most comprised loose confederations of principalities, knightly orders, city states with infantry levies which were not even half trained and had nothing more than some idea of the church to give loyalty to.

 

In the 13th century the Mongol horde represented something that the people Europe had never seen before, and they were not met in a united manner: by the 16th century at least some concept of the nation state had begun to emerge, as were treaty systems, which lead to, amongst other things, the defeat of the Ottoman Turks by armies drawn from wider areas than the Mongols had to face. One hundred years later and if a force like the Mongols had appeared from the east heading towards Europe it is likely that the energies of the nation states, with the potential for greater focus of resources, better communications, substantial naval forces on the European flanks and the oncoming industrial revolution would have meant that the Mongols would not have had a chance.

 

The idea of a Europe had also emerged, and was colonising the world.

[Jonathan Chin]

I am not so sure that the Mongols would have much of a chance against a good Renaissance army, let alone Napoleonic. A horse people, with warengine or no, could not beat their way into a sixteenth century European fortress designed to withstand heavy cannon fire. The Russians exterminated their own horse peoples in Siberia by a policy of steadily moving forward into nomad territory well-garisoned fortresses stocked with supplies and defended by firearms equipped troops.

 

And before anyone starts talking about Mongol expertise in mobile operations against a static enemy, warfare in Renaisance Europe had been extremely intense and protracted. Lutherans fought with the Holy Roman Empire and Spain for thirty years. The Dutch fought an eighty years war against the Spainards. Judging from the amount of time the Mongols had to spend on besieging a fortified city, I don't think their performance in that department had been as superb as in mobile battle, if they proved suprisingly adapt for a barbarian army.

 

I would also caution against using the Song Dynasty as representative of a disciplined army using sophisticated tactics. That empire is notoriously unwarlike. Their record at ground warfare was nothing less than miserable and pathetic. They have already lost by the time of the Mongol invasion half of their empire to the Jurchens.

Edited April 1, 2008 by Jonathan Chin

[Matt L.]

I agree with Jonathan. A Renaissance army would give the Mongols a run for their money, and a Napoleanic army would slaughter them. In either case their invasions would fail since they required lopsided victories to continue.

 

The big mistake in judging the effectiveness of the Mongols is overestimating the effectiveness of bowfire. The Renaissance armies with their munition plate armors and buff coats would be well protected. The halberd or pike blocks would be unassailable to the Mongols with their heavy cavalry. They could probably use their superior mobility to avoid losing - it would depend on the terrain.

 

The Napoleanic army, while relatively more vulnerable to the arrows, would deal crippling blows to the Mongols at every engagement. Their long range arrow volleys would be answered with cannon fire. Any approach would be overwhelmed by musket fire. A horse is a fat target and their silk shirts would offer them no protection against the musket balls. In this case, open terrain that would favor cavalry is also good for cannon balls. An enterprising commander may even fire his muskets at long range. A musket can shoot much further than a bow - not very accurately, but a large formation of horsemen makes a juicy target and only a few hits will make quite an impression.

 

Bowfire was just not a big casualty producing weapon. It was a means to wear down the enemy or gain positional advantage, but battles were always decided by a clash of arms. The gaudy rates of fire have their limits as these are muscle powered weapons and people get tired. Arrows are expensive compared to ball and powder as well.

 

The horse bow doesn't even compare that favorably to the English longbow. In spite of the high draw weights, the distance that force is applied is shorter and the arrow is smaller. Considering that most bowfire would be pluging fire at long range the arrow size is the most important factor in it's hitting power. Mongols used special footbows for seiges - a testament to the limitations of shooting arrows from horseback.

 

It's really not that mysterious why bows were banished from the battlefield. If you were there, it would have been a "no-brainer".

[toysoldier]

Curiosity assails me... how were the late XVIII european horses compared to classic mongol steppe ponies? And not just regarding animals per se, their physical characteristics, but also the systems for raising the horses, feeding them, training them, healing them, equipping them and such. Seen that this ends as a cavalry v.s cavalry confrontation, methinks the horse as a "plataform" is very important.

[Marek Tucan]

Onr thing that comes to my mind immediately is that European milit'ry horses would be trained for gunfire.

[Yama]

Curiosity assails me... how were the late XVIII european horses compared to classic mongol steppe ponies? And not just regarding animals per se, their physical characteristics, but also the systems for raising the horses, feeding them, training them, healing them, equipping them and such. Seen that this ends as a cavalry v.s cavalry confrontation, methinks the horse as a "plataform" is very important.

 

They were larger, obviously, and it would be advantage in close quarters fighting. But it is not necessarily such a big deal. European knights had bigger horses than Mongols, and they were throughly slaughtered by them. Similarly, 30YW era Swedish and Finnish cavalry had mostly quite small horses, but they beat the Imperial cavalry, who had much bigger horses and much better equipment, each and every time...

[Yama]

The Napoleanic army, while relatively more vulnerable to the arrows, would deal crippling blows to the Mongols at every engagement. Their long range arrow volleys would be answered with cannon fire. Any approach would be overwhelmed by musket fire. A horse is a fat target and their silk shirts would offer them no protection against the musket balls. In this case, open terrain that would favor cavalry is also good for cannon balls. An enterprising commander may even fire his muskets at long range. A musket can shoot much further than a bow - not very accurately, but a large formation of horsemen makes a juicy target and only a few hits will make quite an impression.

 

Bowfire was just not a big casualty producing weapon. It was a means to wear down the enemy or gain positional advantage, but battles were always decided by a clash of arms. The gaudy rates of fire have their limits as these are muscle powered weapons and people get tired. Arrows are expensive compared to ball and powder as well.

 

I think you are underestimating the bow somewhat here - arrows usually did not cause huge direct casualties in medieval battles, but medieval armies were equipped with shields and/or armour to deal against arrow damage. Napoleonic infantry would have neither - also, I'm pretty confident that a skilled archer could hit a mass of men even at muskets' maximum effective range with fair probability. Of course, archers would take losses in the process, which, if nothing else, would cumulate in long term, reducing their campaign effectiveness.

 

But I agree that in the end it would be meaningless, as Napoleonic army would never be composed only of musket infantry, making such theoretical coffee table comparisons moot. In real life, they'd be supported by cannons, cavalry and skirmishers. We can debate whether musketeer line could outshoot archers, but skirmish line most certainly could. And obviously, firearms would be huge advantage in sieges.

 

It's really not that mysterious why bows were banished from the battlefield. If you were there, it would have been a "no-brainer".

 

It is noteworthy that Turks and Japanese - who both had long tradition of effective archery - adopted firearms as their primary weapon as soon as they had practical models available.

[Yama]

I would also caution against using the Song Dynasty as representative of a disciplined army using sophisticated tactics. That empire is notoriously unwarlike. Their record at ground warfare was nothing less than miserable and pathetic. They have already lost by the time of the Mongol invasion half of their empire to the Jurchens.

 

True that, but they also had formidable opponents to deal with. Their leaders do not seem to have been particularly capable, no doubt owing to their general disdain for "barbaric" warfare, but army was loyal, large and well-equipped, and they had largest navy in the world by very large margin. We do note that nations and empires with much more "martial" reputation than Song China were defeated by Mongols in matter of months, or couple of years most, yet Song Empire resisted for nearly 40 years.

[Jonathan Chin]

True that, but they also had formidable opponents to deal with. Their leaders do not seem to have been particularly capable, no doubt owing to their general disdain for "barbaric" warfare, but army was loyal, large and well-equipped, and they had largest navy in the world by very large margin. We do note that nations and empires with much more "martial" reputation than Song China were defeated by Mongols in matter of months, or couple of years most, yet Song Empire resisted for nearly 40 years.

 

I agree to an extend. In so far as the Song dynasty was a push-over in land battle, their fleet was top-notch. Trying to dislodge the Song navy fighting from the Yangze was possibly the toughest campaign the Mongols had ever fought.

 

This was probably the result of geography and overall strategy. The empire's primary line of defense since 12th century was the Yangze River and internally Southern China's terrain was prohibitive to horse armies. It would not make sense to spend too much on ground troops.

 

As to the topic of the thread--it seems to me that whether a composite bow could outshoot an arquebus (or musket) is less substantial than the question of numbers. An arquebus is technically an inferior weapon but, as John Guilmartin noted, a huge army of aquebassiers could be raised quickly and cheaply and fight effectively with massed fire that could match the volume of the bow and arrow yet far superior in lethality.

 

Against an early gunpowder army the stepp horseman faces a tactical delemma. If the horse archer army stay out of arquebus range it would be attrited to death by artillery fire. If the horse archers closed to charge they would be vulneranble to withering small-arms fire and the push of pike. A Napoleonic army would add in addition to superior battlefield efficiency the abilty to absorb and replace casualties by levee en masse.

Edited April 3, 2008 by Jonathan Chin

[KingSargent]

It is noteworthy that Turks and Japanese - who both had long tradition of effective archery - adopted firearms as their primary weapon as soon as they had practical models available.

Not quite. They adopted matchlocks for peasant levies, for the usual reason of ease of training. Like lots of people they then became uneasy with an armed peasantry so they took the guns away and restricted the carrying of weapons to the samurai class. Some samurai retainers used guns, but the archers were considered "higher class."

[Marek Tucan]

Some samurai retainers used guns, but the archers were considered "higher class."

 

Until you evul USians broke their utopia

[Matt L.]

Not quite. They adopted matchlocks for peasant levies, for the usual reason of ease of training. Like lots of people they then became uneasy with an armed peasantry so they took the guns away and restricted the carrying of weapons to the samurai class. Some samurai retainers used guns, but the archers were considered "higher class."

 

The first part is a military decision and the second a political one. The gun, which allowed great battlefield success is a threat to any monarchy when held by the common people in peacetime. It destroys the monopoly on military power that nobility traditionally held. Archers had to train their whole lives and were more or less professional soldiers while gunners could have a few drills on the weekends and be more effective while tending to their farms during the week.

 

This was hardly unique in Japan. It was basically the same deal in Europe. Commoners were not allowed to own firearms. This lead to the "right to bear arms" in America, etc.

 

The Japanese were just able to take it to the nth degree and completely banish them. It helps to be an island country with a populace that moves in lockstep with government decrees.

 

Matt