View Full Version : Why the horse archers are so underpowered?
We all know that the open battle fields ware ruled by the horse archers, e.g. Huns, Tatars, Turks, etc.
I had couple of thoughts why the horse archers are so underpowered.
- The stamina is bad. They should have 5 to 10 times better stamina than the light infantry.
- The cruising speed is low. The cruising speed should be 2 better than the light infantry.
- The ammo is not enough. 28 arrows is a joke. Historically the horse archers maintained a rain of arrows for long periods of time. The horse can carry much more, 100 to 200 arrows will be more accurate.
- The composite bow is underpowered. When weapons experts compare the composite bow to the long bow, some say that they are approximately equal, when others say that the long bow is more powerful, but not by much.
[This message has been edited by todorp (edited 11-02-2002).]
Orda Khan
11-02-2002, 07:57
I totally agree http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
But the composite bow was a far superior weapon
........Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
MizuKokami
11-02-2002, 08:26
maybe in a future expansioon you can give your archers the command to conserve arrows by only having the front ranks fire.
cart6566
11-02-2002, 09:35
Because they are low-tech cheap units. Files are modable. Nice walk-throughs in the Mods forum.
[This message has been edited by cart6566 (edited 11-02-2002).]
muffinman14
11-02-2002, 09:51
yes i agree that archers are really underpowered im the game
Actually Horse archers are next to useless if the army or unit remains together and cohesive. You should read battle accounts written by Seljuk Turks and the Byzantines. Or the Arabs.
One account, horse archers and their bows could never effect the Byzantine army as it moved to battle in anatolia under Alexis I circia ~1112AD cannot remember the battle name..
The Turks knowing this always choose to stay out of harms way. And when they did engage they where seen off with large losses.
Horse archer never ever won when an army held itself together. Even the Mongols knew that, hence their heavier cavalry and auxilliary units to break up formations. Once broken though any and all men became prey to all light and medium horse.
The same came about with the Archer, as in they could not effect an advantage over the enemy, hence the development of the Longbow and Crossbow and ultimately the arbalester.
And here is a comparision done by the western Domestic? (Papadopoulos) for Byzantine Emporer John II (KOMNHNHS) or Manuel I (KOMNHNHS), not sure which.
The Crossbow was powerful, more than the Composite bow of the Byzantines and Turks. Of which the Composite bow could not effect peneration of the Armour where as the Crossbow could at short range.
But at close range a Composite bow would penerate a shield.
I do not know what close range means, or the distance it implies.
Circia ~ 1140's
We also know from the 18th,19th century that the above is true, that when a army unit held it's cohesion they could not be effected by cavalry. (see Waterloo or the pennisular wars).
In closing,
Horse archers are only, harrassing troops they have never been known to win a battle by themselves, the crusades will teach you that. And they where not known to carry 100 to 200 arrows. I would like to see the accounts of where that was found.
Even the Byzantine heavy cavalry Klivanarioi(the heaviest horse archer) did not carry anywhere near 100 arrows 60 or 70 I think from memory, same as the Mongols.
Just some facts http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
It's kind of logial, because if horse archers where so great, everyone would have had only horse archers. But we know for a fact, no army ever won with horse archers.
fenir
Orda Khan
11-02-2002, 23:40
The point that is being overlooked by everyone is the idea of armour. This was a very expensive aquisition that only the wealthy could indulge in, the majority of the armies were poorly armoured. Not every knight owned 'full' armour either, so to imply that horse archers were not effective against these is wrong. Yes the Mongols used units of heavy cavalry but the damage and confusion was generally applied by the mounted archer, smoke and most conclusively speed. All this talk of armour piercing makes it sound like the battlefields were full of men clad head to toe in plate steel. This just is not true
........Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Orda Khan
11-02-2002, 23:46
Nice to see you around Kokami http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
Hope you are keeping well http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
......Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
ShaiHulud
11-03-2002, 00:18
My surmise is that 'short range' is that area in which an arrow is still rising.
------------------
O stranger, Go tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their will.....
fenir please read Chapter 3 “Flesh” of "A History of Warfare” by Sir John Keegan, who is considered the most respected living historian of warfare. There are a lot of references at the back of the chapter.
I agree that the Byzantines had arguably the best European army at their time, but Byzantine was on the defense and retreat since created and suffered defeats first by the Arabs and finally by the Turks. All these ware predominately light horse archer armies and nowhere was said that these ware only horse archers.
Mongolians ware predominately light horse archer armies as well. Today Mongolia is less then 2 million. Just look at the globe where Mongolia is, which is the country they started and where Hungaria is, which is the country they ware stopped, it is half of the civilized world! They overrun most of the big empires at the time.
Orda Khan is right that only the rich had amour and rarely full suit. A full suit of amour cost as much as a village with the land and 200 serf families.
The tide started reversing in the 16th century, when the European technology, science and industry started overtaking the horse people.
[This message has been edited by todorp (edited 11-02-2002).]
MonkeyMan
11-03-2002, 06:03
My problem with archers in general is their inability to hit a target moving towards them up a hill, they seemingly aim for the unit as it is when they fire a shot and disregard the speed of the unit. I've seen repeated occasions where horse based units have moved towards me with no problems, stopped and been decimated. Granted your entitled to make this mistake a few times but to kepp doing it and not adjusting is just plain dumb. Anyway, i feel i have got off subject, i hate horse archers and i always will, never found them useful in shoggy or mtw.
MonkeyMan, you are right, the archer’s inability to hit a moving target in MTW is hard to comprehend. The steppe horse people successfully hunted with a bow birds and small game from the saddle. There should be some parameter to adjust it.
You've gotto understand that many horse archer armies did in fact do devastating damage to many armies throughout history but it's NOT just in the battle that their advantages play out, it's scouting, logistics, speed, foraging, outnumbering opposing cavalry, ambushes, harassing etc. Lots of these things can't be demonstrated in a game like this because it's scope is just a single battle, not the entire progress of an army through a province.
The AI's horse archers often fool me into chasing them down, breaking my formations, and considering the AI seems to have unlimited fatigue, it probably does better than me with them.
But I guess more arrows would help.
Orda Khan, Todorp,
Actually a Mail Suit of Armour will set you back about ~4 to 6 pounds sterling for a 6 peice mail armour set. 8 peice cost more.
That is about the same as selling the wool from 120 to 180 sheep for a year, eg: a small-medium flock. Will take about 30 to 50 acres for those sheep to live on.
~circia 1180AD. England.
NOTE http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gifefine Full armour? For what period? For which people/Kingdom etc...
So if we take this logical course....
151,167 Sq Km of England alone that is 37.8 million acres. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
say 4 sheep per acre (we get 7 at presant in some palces). =151.2 million sheep.
Thats about 1.2 million mail armour sets made possible. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif one for all the population.
And the law at the time Required all freemen to own atleast, said armour. Along with associated weapons. Example, those who earn over 15 Pounds sterling per year(was 10 pounds, later 20), where required by law to own a mail armour set and selected weapons.
Whereas a full plate armour and mail will set you back anywhere between 40 to 180 Pounds depending on quality and time period.
In 1664 the Prince of Wales armour cost 340 Pounds, that was also gilt and graven.
Not to mention that it will also depend on whether you are a retainer, in which case your lord would/could provide you with armour from his own armourers. Which was the case with my family, in that we provided armour and weapons for own on men, from our own armourers, training included free :P
But to arbitrialy state it is the preserve of the rich to own armour, is in itself a bit rich.
Also remember armour was, well recycled to put it nicely, (looted from the Dead).
The Byzantines also provided armour for troops out of state money. And their armour was the best, and the most expensive, espeically in the early period.
As for Sir John Keegan, yes he is a respected Historian in areas, but I consider "The Authority", that title would go to "David Nicolle" (still, it is subjective), who has done more work with his group than any other in historical research to date. Espeically arms and armour.
They are perhaps a true research group, and the real first one of international note.
Also most work done on Byzantine history is based upon the Byzantinisch Waffen written by an author who at present escapes me.
This as we have known, is a very flawed work.
Work now being done by Treadgold, Dawson and Nicolles and Company is far more conclusive and is now considered the authority.
However most teaching is based on or around the Byzantinisch Waffen. Which they still use it as an authority. Therefore repeating ~30 year old mistakes.
To give valuable examples, the Norman Kite Shield is not Norman, we now know that it was Persian, then Byzantine, then Norman.
We also thought that Byzantine lamellar armour was the same as eastern lamellar, we now know that is not true. ~circia 1994 Dawson.
Also articles written as close as 1991 have not shown that stirups were a 3rd century AD developement From Khorsan, (Persian/Iran today).
Byzantines had stirups in the 6th and 7th Centuries. Some people still believe they didn't exist until the mongols arrived in Europe.
Note, Byzantine empire was on the Defesive since created?? What for 1500 years?
They where technically created with the orginal Roman Empire, Hence the Emporer of the Byzantine Empire was known as the Roman Emporer and the Empire was called the Roman Empire.
And with any Empire, there is always a struggle to Keep it.
The Turks only managed to Obtain an advantage with the creation of the Janissary Corps in 1331AD. They then used that to great effect in 1361AD when taking Adrianopolis. Hence the true modern era of the Ottoman Turks. But they where on the defensive within ~240years, hence the Hapsburg rise. Ottomans only lasting 556years. and on the defensive for 300 of those.
But they wouldn't even have got that far without the Venitians and the fleet to transport them across the Straits, but that is another story.
You also over looked the periods of the KOMNHNHS, and Basil I (Slayer of the Buglars) and others. Byzantine Empire actually Captured a Great amount of the Territory back in the 1100's/12th Century. Not to mention the fight back against the Arabs in the 10th Century, when the arabs where kicked back out of Anatolia and asia minor.
Though the destoryer of the Byzantine Empire was in effect the Venitians, and the Crusades, not the Turks and the Horse Archers.
In Conclusion.
The horse archer remains, only a component of an army, in this case a skirmisher. Not an assualt troop. Assualt troops are needed to break formations to effect an advantage, as it is with a modern army.
The other point you bring up is the Mongols and their size today, which in reality holds no comparsion to the past, as there is 800 years between it. It's like comparing Bread of the 12th Century with today, it still bread, but is no where near the same.
Not to mention the migrations that the mongols made, perhaps you are missing the point at which they migrated in large numbers? And that they incorporated large numbers of other peoples into their armies.
The turkic Tribes being one. Persians and Chinese being some others and even christians.
fenir
Orda Khan
11-04-2002, 06:03
I still think you will find that the battlefields had plenty of poorly armoured soldiers and as for all those sheep I can not comment
......Orda
------------------
" Send us your ambassadors and thus we shall judge whether you wish to be at peace with us or at war..if you make war on us the Everlasting God, who makes easy what was difficult and makes near what was far, knows that we know what our power is."
Hakonarson
11-04-2002, 06:40
gota laugh at the sheep comment!! lol
Bravo for temerity to suggest that the whole of England is suitable for raising sheep (or any decent agriculture at all really!!)!
Of course much of England is very poor farming land, and in teh middle ages much of it was still virgin forest.
And then there's the consideration that people had to use some of theland to live - even at subsistance level.
A 9th century Frankish assessment of arm and armour in terms of cows makes interesting reading - A helmet was worth 6 cows, a Brunia (mail corselet) 12 cows, a sword and scabard 7 cows, greaves 6 cows, a spear and shield 2 cows, and a horse 12 cows.
So a fully armed and armourd cavalryman can be reckoned to have 45 cows worth of gear, an infantryman with spear and shield has 2.
And remember that having bought the euipment the soldier needs to have enough wealth left over to go on living!!
I'm glad you mentioned the earnings required for a full set of armour - 10, 15 or 20 pounds income per year.
An longbowman some years lateer received 6 pence per day = approximately 9 pounds per year, an that was considered very good pay at the time.
The income figures given are real, but your analysis of how many people earned that much is deeply flawed.
Rich states such as the low countries could often afford complete metal armour for their infantry, and the French certainly up-armoured after Crecy!
Scots spearmen were never required to have moer than padded cloth armour, and English longbowmen were not required to supply themselves with any armour at all.
Metal srmour was always the preserve of the rich - the sheer cost of working iron in the days before blast furnaces saw to that!!
MizuKokami
11-04-2002, 08:41
this conversation seems to have digressed from the usefulness of the horse archer. imo, it's ability to kill would not be it's usefullness. but rather, it's phsycological effect of being able to shoot at an enemy's flank while they are fighting men in front of them, and to chase down people who have dropped their weapons in favor of speed. i could imagine that those generals that favored horse archers, would command and train them so as make their presscence known at all times. to showoff so to speak, and tear down the enemy morale. in fact, i doubt they seldom engaged until the end of any given battle. maybe pop off a few shots here and there to get the attention of the enemy troops, but not as a substitute for any other fieldable unit. which brings me back to my original suggestion. a conservation command to conserve ammo to the end.
Hakonarson
11-04-2002, 09:13
Much of the horse archer's ability to defeat seemingly better foes is outside eth realms of MTW to simulate, and have been alluded to already - especially strategic mobility (typically with several horses riding in turn to avoid exhausting them).
However it's also true they sem to have carried many more arrows than most foot archers, sometimes having resupply available in some form on the field. IIRC a horse archer might carry as many as 120 arrows to a foot soldiers 20-30 - making full use of the horse to carry the extra weight.
As has been mentioned, their main effect was a constant dribble of casualties sometimes causing rash charges by small numbers of men that would be surrounded and annihilated by archery.
They also shot at the horses of knights, but their range was relatively short and they hated longer ranged foot-crossbows and artillery.
Their typical tactics are nothing like what you see in MTW. A body of archers would form up out of easy charge range of the enemy (or out of effective bow range if the enemy were bow armed) and then smal groups would ride in at a fast gallop, fire a few shots at shrt range, and then gallop away.
By repeating this ad nauseum individual horses were not tired out but the enemy was forced to suffer a constant barrage. This could go on for DAYS in extreme cases, and teh morale effects weer considerable.
The answers to horse archers were invariably infantry with ranged weapons - these invariably had longer range and were cheaper than cavalry that could chase (but not catch!!) the horse archers.
In 50BC Mark Anthony invaded Parthia with thousands of allied slingers and javelinmen in addition to the legions - their casualties were considerable but they kept the horse archers at by quiet effectively. 1200 years later Crusader crossbowmen did thet same.
In 39 and 38 BC Parthian invasions of Roman Asia weer defeated by forces that included many light infantry, and at least partially because the Parthians had emphasised their heavy cavalry and didn't have enough horse archers - so the few that were there were easier to neutralise.
In 320-ish BC Alexander the Great used artillery on a river bank, and rafts with slingers and archers on them in teh middle of the river, to cross against Skythian archers.
His initial force was surrounded and in trouble but the Skythians were so busy shooting at it they didn't nottice teh reinforcements coming up and many were trapped.
Skythians inflicted several defeats on the Macedonians in smaller actions.
The Mongols weer sytmied by Hungarian and Rus (Muscovite) infantry in defensive formations - eventually getting them to rout or surrender by subtlety ratehr than brute force.
Chinese armies fighting the horse archers of the Mongol plains for 1500 years before the Mongols tried to emphasis infantry crossbows shielded by spearmen.
Gringoleader
11-04-2002, 10:01
I think horse archers are great. They generally don't cost too much, they'll normally shoot several enemy from the flanks in the battle, and most importantly if you win and rout the enemy they are often good to take several hundred extra prisoners. That, in my opinion, is a pretty good strategic advantage.
Orda Khan,
I agree totally, there where lots of un-armoured and even un-armed troops, (usually waiting for the deads equipment).
As for the Sheep, well it was only an illustration that the cost was such, as not to be outside the reach of the average freeman, to buy their required armour.
It was still, a great expense borne out by the lower gentry.
It can also be said that not all Freemen owned land, or retained land in there lords name. And, not all freemen earned over 5 pounds, even in the 13th century. Some held other professions, carters, etc..
Hakonarson,
Well the sheep thing as I explained above, simply an illustration of a point, taken maybe a little extreme, but funny I thought.
I also didn't include how many people earned 10/15/20 pounds per year.
As that is also subjective, (actually a very hot topic of debate to which I will not go). But ultimately if you are interested have a look at the rolls, or those called up for service so to speak.
In the late 1200's/13th century most agree that there where over ~30,000 men available in the English lands, with most having had combat experiance from the French wars. I just cannot find the information that it relates to, So i shall go no further with this part of the topic. But least to say there where over 10,000 that we know of for the battles that did take place in the early periods, but the exact number no one knows.
However my example was not how many where avaliable, only giving a extended funny way of looking at how armour was accessible.
Also remember it depends greatly, (all of this) on the time period.
As one thing developed, another came about. Full plate armour wasn't avaliable until about the mid-late 13th century at the earliest. As I said haven't got the information at hand to comment further though.
In your second posting, you mention some excellence points. Along with Ceasar.
And I agree fully, apart from the arrows peice, as this is a little contenious. It depends not on what they carry, but what they enter battle with.
Then we have to consider how many, and what types where used?
And,where they able to access the remainer of their arrows if needed?
But as you point out, it is in at least, the tactics and the result of combined forces in use, that effect a favourable outcome.
In game.
I personally have a lot of fun with my Horse archers, they aren't battle winners, but you sure can enjoy them.
I speicfically use them for drawing out the enemy.
fenir
[This message has been edited by fenir (edited 11-04-2002).]
[This message has been edited by fenir (edited 11-04-2002).]
MizuKokami
11-04-2002, 13:28
alas...let us not forget the evils of man. let us not forget that if peasants were required to have armor, there was also some armorer that was busy selling "cheap, quality" armor. as for any demands the kings would have on these armorers, i would think the king would be more concerned that troops showed up. after all, a 1000 peasants with rocks would be better then a hundred nights with swords.
Maelstrom
11-04-2002, 14:53
What's all the fuss about?
In my latest campaign I have been able to field horse archers for the first time. They are dirt cheap and fantastic! - I use them to flank the enemy and pull them out of position.
I have found that the formation they are in seems to make a big difference to their effectiveness. String them out in long skirmish lines, and they cut poorly armoured units to pieces...
Well, the AI reacts to the HA in the right way, as it was supposed to, but we will not. We know they lack the ability to fight and they do not hit hard enough with the arrows, so we can ignore them and fight the main army.
That is what makes them weak.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Lord Romulous
11-05-2002, 07:40
what i find most annoying is that spanish jinettes almost never fire unless the enemy is stopped. if the enemy does stop and they fire a javlin or two and then the enemy charges u most of the time the jinettes do not retreat quick enough and get caught by the enemy. this while on skirmish command.
what should be really awesome troops are just slightly above average due this gamey glitch.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
You don't use them right Romulous. The distance is too short for you to be able to use the javelins on an enemy engaging the Jinettes.
Let them sit at your flanks and let the enemy advance. Then begin to move them away from the main line, normally the AI won't follow. Then you might be able to go quite close and throw the javelins into the flank of the advancing enemies.
Should that fail, wait for the clash of arms and hurry the Jinettes up and throw the javelins at the heaviest or most dangerous enemy. It doesn't matter if they are in a melee or trying to get into one (that is actually better).
The target takes a massive penalty when under fire from javelins I think, and they will kill a lot of enemies.
I had a unit of Jinettes kill some 40 Nubians with the javelins alone (then captured the rest when they fled).
If you really have to use the javelins on an enemy advacing on the jinettes, then turn off the Skirmish, but don't try and do this against cavalry.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
MonkeyMan
11-05-2002, 19:40
one other thing i want - sorry if someone else mentioed it but i think harse archers shoud be able to fire on the move. i.e. fire at will, and run them past a unit. This is surely one of hte great advantages of horse archers
Lord Romulous
11-05-2002, 21:11
why am i dp so much today ..sigh
[This message has been edited by Lord Romulous (edited 11-05-2002).]
Lord Romulous
11-05-2002, 21:15
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
You don't use them right Romulous. The distance is too short for you to be able to use the javelins on an enemy engaging the Jinettes.
Let them sit at your flanks and let the enemy advance. Then begin to move them away .........................
.......... javelins on an enemy advacing on the jinettes, then turn off the Skirmish, but don't try and do this against cavalry.
[/QUOTE]
good points.. thanks for the tips http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
im still a bit disapointed that i cant make jinetes skirmish effectivly to get the ai to advance towards my spear line.
They can also throw the jav over the heads of your own men, but this is a bit risky as they might hit your men.
You can use the head on tactic by having them throw once or twice, then hit the Skirmish button and they will retreat away. Just beware, sometimes if the enemy is too close they won't force a retreat.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
The horse archers ware nomadic people who had far superior training for war compared to the settled people, which come from the nature of their life. All nomadic boys from early age started riding, hunting with a bow and killing in their daily routine. When only the small warrior elite of the settled people had the opportunity to train, but was not pressed to do so to get the next meal. The mass of the settled people had to work the land.
In tests real old composite bows reached 300 yards. The force measured was 150 pounds. That is not bad. The crossbow has longer range, but much lower rate of fire.
The horse people tactic as Hakonarson wrote was using their mobility advantage to attack the soft underbelly of the enemy, the foraging parties, the food caravans, the troops which can't retaliate, kill their horses and draft animals and generally wear down the enemy. All of this cannot be modeled in MTW, but stamina, speed, ammo, range and better armor penetration can.
[This message has been edited by todorp (edited 11-05-2002).]
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.