How to beat horse archers in real life?

Horse archers avoid infantry, tire troops, have great mobility, shoot the enemies from behind, flanks, etc...

What would be the best tactic in real life, in ancient times, to deal with these warriors?
Foot archers in loose formation protected by some spearmen? Testudo? Use horse archers too, suported by heavy cavalry? Use natural defenses like mountains, rivers, to stop theyr advance and raids against cities?
How different nations fought against the heavy horse archers from the steppes?
Different tactics in different terrains, like the steppes from asia, forests from europe, mountains from greece?
Does these tactics could also be applyed in EB?
post your oppinion here.
thanks for any help or information.

I believe the Byzantine (and possibly the Baktrian) response was to hire HA mercs of their own, also to train indigenous HA's, as well as foot archers backed by regular inf.

I believe the Ottoman Empire succesfully resisted/subdued HA's from the steppe using similar tactics.

Of course the Byzantines eventually succumbed to Turkic nomad armies, notably at Manzikert, and the Bactrians were swept into India by the Saka.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

...Of course the Byzantines eventually succumbed to Turkic nomad armies, notably at Manzikert, and the Bactrians were swept into India by the Saka.

---

Hahaa. Yeah, you can't beat horse archers.

Though you can go behind big stone walls and hope they bore themselves to death running around outside

I third the opinion, and fourth it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clovis

Though you can go behind big stone walls and hope they bore themselves to death running around outside

---

Pfft! Horse archers can easily charge through the walls of Babylon!!!!

In real life; rocky, broken, and mountainous terrain is a very good start. Never fight them on their terms, force them to fight on the ground of your choosing. If one does not, ones head may windup, tossed as a prop in a play.

RTW is rather limited in this regard, but I believe the pavise was a good start to defeating horse-archers. I recall the Persians actually made formations where one man wielded a bow and hid behind another man holding a shield. That is the single best tactic to deal with horse-archers: fortify and shoot. If you have equal or better bows, position archers directly behind shield-bearers. If you have inferior archers, have the infantry fortify themselves as solidly as possible, form an orb around siege weapons and have those weapons take care of it. If you lack siege weapons and archers, the most you can do is slowly retreat to a forest and wait for them to come to you.

cmacq however got it right with terrain. Also, forests really help.

good foot archers behind a wall of well armored spears. of course the foot archers needs to outrange the HAs, other wise this would not work. some will tell you to use light cavalry, but HA eats them alive as they have no armor vs the arrows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone and Blood

Horse archers avoid infantry, tire troops, have great mobility, shoot the enemies from behind, flanks, etc...

What would be the best tactic in real life, in ancient times, to deal with these warriors?
Foot archers in loose formation protected by some spearmen? Testudo? Use horse archers too, suported by heavy cavalry? Use natural defenses like mountains, rivers, to stop theyr advance and raids against cities?
How different nations fought against the heavy horse archers from the steppes?
Different tactics in different terrains, like the steppes from asia, forests from europe, mountains from greece?
Does these tactics could also be applyed in EB?
post your oppinion here.
thanks for any help or information.

---

For defensive: crossbowmen, armoured and/or with other troops to protect them. You could use foot archers - but settled people don't have access to numerous elite archers like the nomads do, and poorly-trained levy archers (like those in ancient greek) are useless against nomadic HAs. Crossbow is the only weapon you can train people to use in a very short time and still outranges the nomadic bows, and it's proved very devastating if the HAs don't/can't avoid it.

For offensive: you need your own horse archers. Nothing else would work unless you play tricks (works but not reliable).

Real life, craziii, real life.

In RTW for some reason HA is faster than light cavalry I don't know why. Neither has armor, but HA has to turn his body around and try to shoot, distracting him a bit. And the way-too-high percentage casualties means light cavalry get chewed alive.

Not true in real life. Of course the light cavalry when chasing HA often run into nomadic heavy cavalry (who were also HA) and get their ass kicked.

I think to beat them on open plain one use a combination of barriers (carts, chariots, carriages, pavise shield and the such) surrounding your formation, archer/crossbow behind shooting, artillery also shooting, and spearmen for support against a charge.

Of course until gunpowder, no culture could readily beat the nomads. All the empires would push them back and even invade the steppes at their height of power, only to be conquered by the nomads when weak.

I was at a Hun exhibit in a museum near Heidelberg Germany and they had a short film running which recreated a fight between a lone roman cavalryman and a lone horse archer. The cavalryman pursued and the hun just turned and loosed an arrow into his chest. It has to be pretty close to how it was. It reminded me of a type of non-aerial dog-fight. Horse archers are just downright nasty. By the way, not sure if anyone else has seen a hun exhibit but it's a great thing to visit. The way they tied their top knots elongating their skulls must have made them freakin scary to behold.

the chinese used crossbows both mounted and dismounted to counter the xiongnu, the latter they formed a line behind their wagons and carts and fire behind cover.

In real life the Chinese built a really big wall during the EB period :wall:

I know very little about it but in checking the dates, Wikipedia says they also went offensive with a big cavalry based army & chased some of them to the Ukraine only to have the nomads come creeping back after the Chinese withdrew to more sensible borders :skull:

Two ways of countering horse archers I can think off. Archers with spears and/or a fortified or elevated position or light cavalry. If we can draw an analogy to the appearance of the Peltasts. When peltasts appeared in greater numbers and highlighted the vulnerability of the slow phalanx, what did the Greeks counter that with? Ekdromoi Hoplites, who had lighter gear and thus should be able to catch up to peltasts who most likely had similar gear and who in addition had to stop to throw a javelin if they wished accuracy and well doing a dismounted Parthian shot with a javelin throw isn't that easy.
Ofc the RTW engine can be sucky sometimes, but I know playing as Saka or Pahlava that light cavalry can really mess up my HA tactics.

Here is the Prodromoi description.

Prodromoi
Prodromoi are the lightest of the Diadochoi melee cavalry and can be counted upon as superb flanking, raiding, and screening cavalry. They are well trained for light cavalry, but are still lightly armed and armored. They are not meant to be used as shock cavalry and will not roll up an enemy battle line in a thunderous charge, but instead make viable flanking cavalry which can quickly provide support where it is needed and be used to counter light missile troops of both the foot and mounted varieties. Their spears, shields, and linen armor give them some staying power, but they should not be used to in protracted melee for any great amount of time.

Historically, the Seleukidai and Makedones used the smaller and weaker members of the nobility to form a quick and powerful light cavalry force that could decide an engagement on its own. Since these men are nobles, they have good staying power, as was evidenced by their widespread use in many battles. They are quick, and can be used to chase down missile cavalry when there is a need, due to the fact that they ride fast Thessalian horses and are relatively slight statured men. The Seleukidai use them as an effective counter to the Parthoi horse archers, much like the Hungarians of a later era did against the Turks.

There is a severe flaw however in relying a counter-tactic against mounted archers to light horse. It's a mixed bet, and upon wiser deployment of mounted archers in combination with heavy horse, armed to the teeth, the light cavalry is basically dead meat, as was proven at Carrhae. On the other hand, armed light horse could severely disrupt horse-archers, as a screening force to prevent the dreaded envelopment tactic; In coordination with foot-archers firing behind rudimentary fortifications and a reliable line of shields, this could put a screeching halt to mounted archers.

The Romans, for a start deployed slingers for this purpose, until they began to more extensively draft archer auxiliaries for the purpose. Horse-archery relies exclusively upon two axioms to its success: Mobility and space. A third axiom, amplifying the two basics, stock, is a form of insurance for sustaining the paradigm.

In RTW terms, light horse deployed against my mounted archers, amounts to a suicide mission and a sure way to ensure victory; All fire is directed against them, and in less than two full volleys, they have been dispatched. Enemy elements beyond the attention are taken care of by the swift deployment of heavy horse. Enemy heavy cavalry however is a very different deal and will rely majorly on superior numbers of heavy horse to carry the day.

In my games I rely on heavy infantry armored to the teeth such as the elite hoplites or the Roman legionnaires. I order these heavy infantry to stand in front and form a shield wall (or in the legionnaires' case, testudo), while at the same time keeping the flanks checked. I let the horse archers waste their arrows on the sturdy shields of the infantry. After the horse archers used all their arrows they are forced to engage in melee, and thats where I rush in and slaughter them.

Alternatively whenever I invade a nomadic faction I made sure to only engage them in their settlements. They got nowhere to run in those confined spaces. If they chose to run to the outside, that's fine with me. I just capture the town center and hold it until the timer runs out.

Anyway, I was wondering about my first option. Is it a plausible tactic, historically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slim_Ghost

In my games I rely on heavy infantry armored to the teeth such as the elite hoplites or the Roman legionnaires. I order these heavy infantry to stand in front and form a shield wall (or in the legionnaires' case, testudo), while at the same time keeping the flanks checked. I let the horse archers waste their arrows on the sturdy shields of the infantry. After the horse archers used all their arrows they are forced to engage in melee, and thats where I rush in and slaughter them.

Alternatively whenever I invade a nomadic faction I made sure to only engage them in their settlements. They got nowhere to run in those confined spaces. If they chose to run to the outside, that's fine with me. I just capture the town center and hold it until the timer runs out.

Anyway, I was wondering about my first option. Is it a plausible tactic, historically?

---

I don't think your first option is historically acurate, real humans are much smarter thatn AI, and will not waste theyr arrows against shields. And will not wait your heavy infantry atack them.
They would try to shoot you from all directions, hitting your men from behind, and after the arrows are over, they would just retreat and atack your troops other day, with theyr morale decreased by the casualties.

But, anyway, If you were a mad king fomr antiguity, and want to, above all coasts, conquests the steppes, how would you do that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone and Blood

I don't think your first option is historically acurate, real humans are much smarter thatn AI, and will not waste theyr arrows against shields. And will not wait your heavy infantry atack them.
They would try to shoot you from all directions, hitting your men from behind, and after the arrows are over, they would just retreat and atack your troops other day, with theyr morale decreased by the casualties.

But, anyway, If you were a mad king fomr antiguity, and want to, above all coasts, conquests the steppes, how would you do that?

---

Burn the ground and destroy the pasture :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parallel Pain

I think to beat them on open plain one use a combination of barriers (carts, chariots, carriages, pavise shield and the such) surrounding your formation, archer/crossbow behind shooting, artillery also shooting, and spearmen for support against a charge.

---

In real world, you rarely have any opportunity to do that. The nomads are much more mobile and usually it's them who choose where and when and how to fight, not you. That's why it's so hard to fight them even with superior weapons and armours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoom

In real life the Chinese built a really big wall during the EB period :wall:

---

And they were not the only ones with the same idea. The Hyrkanian Wall is very similar: build a wall that'll stop 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone and Blood

I don't think your first option is historically acurate, real humans are much smarter thatn AI, and will not waste theyr arrows against shields. And will not wait your heavy infantry atack them.
They would try to shoot you from all directions, hitting your men from behind, and after the arrows are over, they would just retreat and atack your troops other day, with theyr morale decreased by the casualties.

But, anyway, If you were a mad king fomr antiguity, and want to, above all coasts, conquests the steppes, how would you do that?

---

I second this; The application of RTW tactics and the usage of serried shield-wall ranks begs to differ from history, where heavier and longer arrows (Which were made possible due to the longer and more powerful draw available to composite bows) could eventually break down shield structures given that a short-ranged and concentrated shot was made possible. Given that mounted archery is often mentioned to penetrate heavy armour, or even pinning feet to the ground, or even wounding hands all the way through the centre of the shield... Archery of this kind would have been sheer terror and an efficient way of butchering enemies. This is why Eastern armies, if ever using shields, made use of wicker (Light-weight and easy to handle even in pavise sizes; Thanks to multiple layering, it turned into an excellent way of defending against archery), leather and oxen-hides for strengthening, and finally for the elites strong, circular metal bosses (Usually on cavalry bucklers). Wicker is rather useless against a concentrated melee, but against archery, it is a definite choice.

Sadly, we have limited means of modifying shield types in this manner. For instance, as we have it right now, Parthian spearmen are extremely vulnerable against archery, when they au contraire should be the shield for their cousins, the Iranian archer-spearmen. In combination, the two of them should be an excellent combination against any light horse and enemy archery. In contrast to duels between phalangite contingents where the longer, sturdier pikes and soldiers with most discipline carry the day, duels between archers comes down to cohesion, rate of fire, bow-types, range, application of company/datâbam-tactics and discipline of the shield-wall for casualty control. Archery, in tandem to equestrian sports is really what sums up the success of the Iranian military machine. Out in the middle of the steppes, foot-archers are fresh meat; Foot-archers with a stout formation of pavise-bearers to their front turn horse-archers into fresh kabob. The same goes with the previously mentioned application of light cavalry; It's always a mixed bet, and the player has to decide, for the better or the worse, which tactic to make use of.

This is why especially the Iranian empires fared so well against northern and eastern nomads; The application of a Maginot-line strategic defenses, where a little territory is sacrificed, they basically suck in nomadic tribes like a sponge... Until the counter-attack is unleashed, leading to nothing but utter devastation. This sums up the success of Darius I The Great against the Eastern Scythians, as well as it sums up Partho-Sassanian successes against Indo-Scythians, Kushans, Hephtalites and finally the Gök-Turks. It doesn't even begin with Darius I the Great, even back in Medean age Cyaxares had annihilated a significant portion of the Scythian nobility, ending the Scythian occupation of the dominion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

And they were not the only ones with the same idea. The Hyrkanian Wall is very similar: build a wall that'll stop 'em.

---

There is a huge debate to this, because the so-called "Wall of Alexander" (A very misleading title) is such a very poorly documented aspect of Iranian fortification works; Some claim that it was a building project commenced by Darius I The Great, to seal the Atrek river, and to mark a definite defense-line. Some say that to the contrary of the popular academical assessment (Which I will elaborate later) it was a part of the Sassanian uprise against the Hephtalites during the rule of Chosroës I "The Immortal Soul" (Which also saw the conception of Derbent or "Darband"/The Gate, otherwise incorrectly called "Gates of Alexander").

However the established opinion is that the Hyrcanian defense wall indeed was built during Parthian period and formally began when Arsaces had built his "impregnable fortress" at Darâ; At the mount Apaurtenon or Apartvartikene. Certainly the area must have had prior fortification works dating to the Achaemenid period (We do not hear that much of Seleucid activities in the area; The coins of Andragoras or Pherecles accordingly to other [later] sources are extremely rare shows that the area was in a particular turmoil, and considering how the area fluctuated in loyalty, Seleucid intervention must have been modest until the reconquista of Antiochos III Megas), but it was really the Parthians who turned that wall into what it was; A gigantic barrier crowned with fourty castles. The Parthians were no amateurs in fortifications, in fact the Sassanians completely owed their mastery in building fortresses and castles to the Parthian model. So by the mod's start, it is a bit of a stretch to have the fortifications there, but the construction of it would commence and probably finish within the mod's frame of time. In fact, it is likely, because the Parthians did past the first century CE no longer show any particular interest in the steppes.

A similar undertaking was prepared in the fringes of Gedrosia, where the fertile coast was guarded by a huge citadel (At Bam, now demolished); The desert was not an option, so the only way to get past Gedrosia to coastal Carmania was to cross this citadel. The Parthian fortress at Bam, the "Desert Emerald" as called by the natives today, was known as the largest adobe fortifications in the world, and a mark of the Parthians turning the dominion of the Ichtyophagoi into more than a desert. It lead to the Sassanian refoundation of Poura/Pura, as Panj-Gûr. The concentrated efforts in this area would eventually lead to the power-base of the later Saffarid dynasty of Iran (861 - 1003 CE).

Oh no! This is another topic in which you play role without rolling a dice! :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Persian Cataphract

There is a huge debate to this, because the so-called "Wall of Alexander" (A very misleading title) is such a very poorly documented aspect of Iranian fortification works; Some claim that it was a building project commenced by Darius I The Great, to seal the Atrek river, and to mark a definite defense-line. Some say that to the contrary of the popular academical assessment (Which I will elaborate later) it was a part of the Sassanian uprise against the Hephtalites during the rule of Chosroës I "The Immortal Soul" (Which also saw the conception of Derbent or "Darband"/The Gate, otherwise incorrectly called "Gates of Alexander").

However the established opinion is that the Hyrcanian defense wall indeed was built during Parthian period and formally began when Arsaces had built his "impregnable fortress" at Darâ; At the mount Apaurtenon or Apartvartikene. Certainly the area must have had prior fortification works dating to the Achaemenid period (We do not hear that much of Seleucid activities in the area; The coins of Andragoras or Pherecles accordingly to other [later] sources are extremely rare shows that the area was in a particular turmoil, and considering how the area fluctuated in loyalty, Seleucid intervention must have been modest until the reconquista of Antiochos III Megas), but it was really the Parthians who turned that wall into what it was; A gigantic barrier crowned with fourty castles. The Parthians were no amateurs in fortifications, in fact the Sassanians completely owed their mastery in building fortresses and castles to the Parthian model. So by the mod's start, it is a bit of a stretch to have the fortifications there, but the construction of it would commence and probably finish within the mod's frame of time. In fact, it is likely, because the Parthians did past the first century CE no longer show any particular interest in the steppes.

A similar undertaking was prepared in the fringes of Gedrosia, where the fertile coast was guarded by a huge citadel (At Bam, now demolished); The desert was not an option, so the only way to get past Gedrosia to coastal Carmania was to cross this citadel. The Parthian fortress at Bam, the "Desert Emerald" as called by the natives today, was known as the largest adobe fortifications in the world, and a mark of the Parthians turning the dominion of the Ichtyophagoi into more than a desert. It lead to the Sassanian refoundation of Poura/Pura, as Panj-Gûr. The concentrated efforts in this area would eventually lead to the power-base of the later Saffarid dynasty of Iran (861 - 1003 CE).

---

Though I mostly mentioned it for a comparable undertaking to that of the (various) Chinese walls built.

In fact the wall built by the Qin was also a bit of an offensive/pre-emptive measure as it also meant the acquisition of a sizeable chunk of the pastures & trade routes formerly under Nomadic control.

But regardless: walls seem to have been the typical 'settled empire's' response to frequent raiding. The main problem with combating Nomads doesn't lie in their horse archers; it lies in the fact that at times they will go one way, and at other times they will choose the other. You can't give an accurate long-term prediction of where they will strike; and to guard all your open stretches where they might invade with sizeable armies is practically impossible to keep up.

Walls are a cost-effective; long-term; efficient solution. It also has the added benefit of 'chanelling' any nomadic invasion to more advantagous locations.

@ the OP: heres what i do:
RUN AWAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jk lol....

the best way is to choose your battle location if you are poor,or,raise a bigger army of HA if you are rich
thats what i would do

And if, some mad king wanted to conquest the steppes, what would be the best way to do that?
How his army would conquest a vast place, with thousands of horseman raiding his army all the time, burning farms, following all his movements, and still keep his kingdom protected against pillage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AqD

In real world, you rarely have any opportunity to do that. The nomads are much more mobile and usually it's them who choose where and when and how to fight, not you. That's why it's so hard to fight them even with superior weapons and armours.

---

All you do is tell you men to carry all those stuff (which is part of their combat equipment anyway) and when your scouts inform you of an incoming attack, deploy them and fight.

That's how they did it. It was done, so I know in the real world it could be done.

In the real world you wouldn't want to try and defeat nomadic horse archers tactically. The real way to defeat them is strategically. You do this by killing their horses or destroying their food supply. Unfortunately this is exactly how the US defeated the plains Indians, its sad but it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xurr

In the real world you wouldn't want to try and defeat nomadic horse archers tactically. The real way to defeat them is strategically. You do this by killing their horses or destroying their food supply. Unfortunately this is exactly how the US defeated the plains Indians, its sad but it works.

---

If I was the leader of a nomadic people, I would send many scouts through all my territory, specialy in the bords. So that if some anti-echologic guys try to burn my pasture or kill my beloved horses, I would imediately send some troops to slay them. Yes, the steppes are realy huge places, but my enemies wouldn't destroy a significant part of its pasture without my knolodge.
Of course that is a good idea to kill horses or destroy their food supply once you enter the territory of your enemy, but I don't belive that this factor alone could destroy entirely a whole people. The leader of the nomadic people would not just watch their territory getting burned and horses killed.
Are you sure of your information?

I know there was a type of bow used in the crusades, by the turks against the christians, that was fired with the feet and could rain arrows down upon a target from an incredible range. Something like this may be feasible. Aside from that, screening your main force with light cavalry, light missle cavalry ideally, is really your only option to keep mobile missle armed horse off of your army.

Combating a nomadic society with no major settlements that possess a mounted warfare culture is going to be difficult unless you adopt their tactics. Using heavy infantry against light, fast, mounted archers is going to be futile. If I were a general tasked with invading such lands I would ally myself with various tribes, buying them with whatever they found valuable and using them against my enemy. I would also hire local mercenaries to fight in their fashion. I would attempt to strike at their food supply as well, forcing them to migrate or seek out and attempt to destroy their villages and massacre their women and children until they relented. If you attack something they are forced to defend eventually they'll have to stand and fight and stop the hit and run tactics.

I would only do this if there was something really worth gaining from the lands, and I'd want to be sure I could hold the territory without dealing constantly with marauding nomadic horsemen. Something like a river barrier would work, otherwise I'd have to build some kind of fortification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

I know there was a type of bow used in the crusades, by the turks against the christians, that was fired with the feet and could rain arrows down upon a target from an incredible range. Something like this may be feasible. Aside from that, screening your main force with light cavalry, light missle cavalry ideally, is really your only option to keep mobile missle armed horse off of your army.

Combating a nomadic society with no major settlements that possess a mounted warfare culture is going to be difficult unless you adopt their tactics. Using heavy infantry against light, fast, mounted archers is going to be futile. If I were a general tasked with invading such lands I would ally myself with various tribes, buying them with whatever they found valuable and using them against my enemy. I would also hire local mercenaries to fight in their fashion. I would attempt to strike at their food supply as well, forcing them to migrate or seek out and attempt to destroy their villages and massacre their women and children until they relented. If you attack something they are forced to defend eventually they'll have to stand and fight and stop the hit and run tactics.

I would only do this if there was something really worth gaining from the lands, and I'd want to be sure I could hold the territory without dealing constantly with marauding nomadic horsemen. Something like a river barrier would work, otherwise I'd have to build some kind of fortification.

---

I agree with you. But still, about trying to get to their villages or food supply to make them choose a defensive tactic, I belive that these locations are far away from the borders, so that would exists a great space with nothing but grass betwen the villages and the borders, full of scouts in order to intercept the enemy's movement and atack any army that reach these areas.
So, still the nomadic people will have the agressive behavior, terrain advantage, and will choose once again when the fight will start.

An interesting discussion. Clearly there is an effective counter to the HA and the vast stretches of the steppes, b/c otherwise we would be speaking in Hunnish, Mongolian, or _____ (fill in the blank).

RTW, and EB by default, offers a somewhat skewed vision of HAs sweeping out of the steppes to establish vast empires. A better vision of empire that included HA and other Steppe warriors might be the Byzantine and Perisan Empires. We should look at these as models of HAs used in a successful manner - in real life.

The silver bullet mytholgy that lingers in military circles is just that, a myth. HAs are not a silver bullet. We should instead look at units (ie., HAs) in more of a Rock, Paper, Scissors fashion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Africanvs

I know there was a type of bow used in the crusades, by the turks against the christians, that was fired with the feet and could rain arrows down upon a target from an incredible range.

---

@ Africanus: I can't quote sources, but I believe you are speaking of a bow first used by the Greeks during seige warfare. Perhaps some of the Greek Historians know better? Does this sound familiar to you, TPC? It is possible the Greeks invented it, but I would not be suprised if it had more Eastern origins.

The counter must be that leaving the steppes the HA would lose theyr terrain advantage, could not atack fortified positions like a fortress very sucefuly, as heavy infantry is better for those situations, would not fight very well when they get under siege, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stone and Blood

I agree with you. But still, about trying to get to their villages or food supply to make them choose a defensive tactic, I belive that these locations are far away from the borders, so that would exists a great space with nothing but grass betwen the villages and the borders, full of scouts in order to intercept the enemy's movement and atack any army that reach these areas.
So, still the nomadic people will have the agressive behavior, terrain advantage, and will choose once again when the fight will start.

---

Indeed, that's why it's so difficult to have success against them in their own back yard. Like fighting the swiss in the mountiains. :)

Furthermore, attcking food supply and villages was only part of my strategy, you'd have to use allies and mercenaries who were skilled in the use of the enemy's tactics. The Romans did this often such as in the Jewish Rebellion in which Cestius Gallus participated in 66.

Rome

3rd Legion (4 cohorts, c. 2000)

7th Legion (8 cohorts, c. 2000)

22nd Legion (4 cohorts, c. 2000)

4 cavalry wings (2000)

6 auxiliary cohorts (4800)

Allies

Antiochus of Commagene: 2000 horse archers, 3000 bowmen

Agrippa of Judaea: 1500 horse archers, 3000 bowmen

Soaemus of Emesa: 1200 horse archers, 1500 bowmen, 1000 javelin men

Source: http://orbat.com/site/history/before...evolt66ad.html


Not sure about the credibility of the actual troop numbers but one must assume allied troops and Auxiliaries were used in many other situations by the Romans. For example their alliance with Massinissa and the use of Numidian horse was a key element in their success in the Punic Wars. You can observe the struggle they had when they attempted to fight Jugurtha later on, and suffered defeat due to their inability to adapt to the tactics of a missle cavalry force, against which they used a lot of heavy infantry, (with no success) until Marius came along with some reforms. With his reformed and well-trained force he was able to achieve success, yet the real victory must be credited to Sulla, who made the deal that ended the war, seeing Jugurtha handed over to the Romans. Anyway, that's not really the point. :)

Quick source for the Jugurthine War: http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/r...7JugurthaW.htm

I read this a while back, the chinese vs the huns(not sure if this is the right name), systematically herd them away from their pastures and salt the ground as you move on. never fight an offensive battle, just invade their lands and ruin them for future grazing. guarantee you a peace of mind.

I was looking around for examples of the Romans fighting a predominately "horse-archer" based army, and I stumbled upon this wonderful source. It's a preview of a book relating directly to this subject. I highly recommend reading it if you're interested in this thread. It talks about battles involving horse archers from the battle of Carrhae onward and discusses how the Byzantines were able to adapt they're army to be so successful against them among other things.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RTq...hl=en#PPA20,M1

Well the US gave hunters free gun and ammo and paid them for bison pelts and skulls. At the same time they build the railway so more people can go west. Then they send in their cavalry to protect the hunters. Needless to day the plain indians got hell.

I remember Wudi building a fortified city right on the steppes and encourage (even force) people to move there. Well once the people start to settle down and farm the damn place, the plains are no more. Plus the troops are there to protect the settlers (like in the US-Indian war) so the XiongNu couldn't choose their battleground and could do little but watch as a large piece of their pasture got taken over by farmland.