Print Page | Close Window

Steppe Battle Tactics

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc...
Moderators: Constantine XI, Byzantine Emperor, Knights, Sparten, Temujin
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21253
Printed Date: 16-Sep-2014 at 08:22


Topic: Steppe Battle Tactics
Posted By: Seko
Subject: Steppe Battle Tactics
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 11:43

Throughout military history both Asian and European armies were to face warriors from the Steppes. The tactics these warriors brought with them would have a profound influence on the armies they had contact with. This post will highlight not so much the impact as the actual tactics used by the Central Asian Steppe warriors themselves.

 

The Central Asian Steppe covers a wide area. Plains of short grass interspersed with mountainous regions, lakes, rivers and desert. Living off the lands were numerous tribes of nomadic herders and city dwellers. This wide expanse provided a lifestyle of mobility thanks to the extensive use of the horse, ox, camel and pony. In this landscape were people whose lifestyle fit this terrain. The lifestyle bred not only seasonal migrations but swift communications and transportation. Most of all livelihoods, on the steppe, fostered hunting skills conducive to their own brand of military training. It is this skill that enabled the Steppe residents to become some of the most fluid and aggressive warriors of their time.

 

Since the history of this region is immense there would be too much to cover in one post.  The multitude of tribes and empires that the Steppe had fostered would need separate threads of their own. Instead, Ill jump right into the battle tactics that some of the most famous Steppe warriors used.

 

Steppe climate, transport and technology were the basis for a unique brand of military tradition. Eventually weapons were manufactured to suit these warriors. Such weapons regularly consisted of composite reflex bows with numerous varieties of arrows. Curved sabers, daggers, spears, mace, lassos and straight double edged sword were also weapons of choice.

 

Battle tactics evolved with the times. From the ancient use of the stirrup to medieval use of long range Ottoman and Mughal bow the use of steppe weapons fostered a tactical style that needs further discussion. Some of the most successful tactics are mentioned.

 

The main tactics revolved around the light horse and her mobile archery. By remaining at long range from an adversary the Steppe warriors used various hit and run tactics in waves while showering the enemy with arrows. After a sufficient barrage of fire the warriors often went into close combat mode in order to reap a decisive outcome. At times they would naturally weave out of a battle and retreat. This would appear appetizing to any foe yet more often than not this was a safe and effective defensive maneuver, as well as, a ploy to entrap an enemy.

 

What were some of the detailed tactics used by Steppe warriors? Ill present a small list and description of each (note siege weapons not included).

 

 

Parthian Shot

 

This was a method of retreating while still shooting arrows at a foe. The warrior would shoot over their shoulder, turn their hips or bend over backwards.

 

Arrow Barrage

 

While surrounding and enveloping an enemy they would shoot a hail of arrows from about 100 to 300 yards out. This tactic would have anticipated consequence of disrupting enemy formations. The arrows would be fired at an angle towards the sky. This high trajectory rate enabled long distance and diminished enemy morale, while killing a few in the process.

 

Harassing Tactics

 

By combining an arrow barrage with hit and run tactics the Steppe armies would send out small waves of attackers to first fire arrows. The waves would gallop as close to the enemy as possible without hand-to-hand fighting. After zeroing in on the enemy sharp shooters would deliver arrows then wheel back to the safety of their own waiting comrades. Horses would be changed and the remounted warrior would maintain this barrage again. By running around and shooting at the enemy the Steppe warrior avoided high casualties. When pursued by the enemy the attacking waves would retreat into friendly lines of heavy cavalry at which point close combat would occur. Examples of this sort of formation was used in the Battles of Carrhae (Parthians vs. Romans -this tactic and feigned retreat), Malazgirt and many Mongol battles.

 

Feigned Retreat

 

This tactic could cover the short distance of moderately sized battles to long distances of carefully planned engagements. At the spur of a moment or a prearranged location the Steppe middle, after engaging the enemy, would flee. When a pursuit followed the Steppers would intentionally wheel around and reface the enemy. This time they would not be alone since help was often waiting on the flanks. Once an enemy was surrounded a decisive moment in the battle would often favor the Steppe warrior. Close combat wound ensue. A classic example of this tactic was at the Battle of the Kalka River.

 

Flanking and Double Envelopment

 

Encircling a foe was the hallmark here. By attacking from several directions and feinting and reforming during a battle the Steppers would often confuse an enemy. This made it look like the Steppe armies were larger than they actually were. They would also leave a gap (Mongols at Mohi) in the encirclement. Instead of feeling surrounded the foe would escape to seemingly fortunate territory. Instead this trap would lead to their ruin.

 

Fabian tactics

 

Picture a pack of wolves or harassing plains Indians and you get the picture. By dividing into small groups the Steppe warrior would surprise an enemy with new points of attack. However, the key was to avoid hand-to-hand combat. Close quarters would have to wait.

 
Classic Medieval Style
 

Often large Steppe armies would face each other in a style not all too foreign to European armies. By lining up in a center, left and right flank with reserves such armies would be ready for defensive andoffensive orders. The front lines would include irregulars of infantry. In the middle would be the Sultan flanked by reserves of heavy horse or skilled infantry. Three classic examples of this is traditional setup were used at the Battles of Kosovo, Nikopol and Angora.

 

Not only were basic Steppe tactics used in any given battle but extensive planning was made beforehand. Spies would be sent to gather Intel. Intensive training and hunting were often called upon. Adherence to protocol was enforced. The most successful Steppe armies consisted of highly trained and intensively disciplined soldiers. Every person had a significant role to play in order for the Steppe armies to succeed. They were tactics born out of a lifestyle over two millennium in the plains of Central Asia.



-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko



Replies:
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 12:30
Very nice overview Seko, that was a fun read!

-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 13:06
Originally posted by Seko

 

Often large Steppe armies would face each other in a style not all too foreign to European armies. By lining up in a center, left and right flank with reserves such armies would be ready for defensive and offensive orders. The front lines would include irregulars of infantry. In the middle would be the Sultan flanked by reserves of heavy horse or skilled infantry. Three classic examples of this is traditional setup were used at the Battles of Kosovo, Nikopol and Angora.


In my opinion Ottoman empire armies weren't steppe armies. Infantry was quite important for them.
Genuine steppe army would have only mounted forces and come from steppe region (North west Anatolia doesn't look like steppe)


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 14:03
 Seemingly untraditional the Ottomans carried over many facets of Steppes tactics. The use of horsetail standards was a Steppe tradition carried over from the Gok Turks. The use of infantry was often used by Mongols such as in the assault of Samakand. The Khans ritinue of bodyguards were not only composed of heavy horse but infantry. The use of cavalry flanking maneuvers were a consistant pattern of steppe warfare (Scythian, Parthian, Hun, Avar, Got Turk, Magyar, Seljuk, Chagatai and Ottoman).  
 
Ottoman raids started out with Akinjis as scouts. They would use the same harrassing tactics as a Hun (Hu) would while raiding Chinese or European villages. Though the Ottomans apparently seemed cumbersome and had more diverse branches of military duty than a typical Steppe army they utilized the benefits of sturdy infantry with Steppe tactical cavalry. 
 
Steppe tactics were not necessarily used only on the plains. As long as there was enough room for implementation the tactics could be used anywhere. In the Battle of Mohi you could see that these tactics were carried into Europe.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:13
Improve the descriptions of the tactics... Please?

-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:38
I asume you want more details within each tactic. I new you would send me to the books. Will do soon enough.

-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 15:59
Lol.. if you knew... why didn't you do so in the beginning?

Oh, and could you please also write a description of battle where it was used with success? Thanks,


-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 16:17
Dude. I'm going to stick some bubblegum in your mouth to keep you from yapping too many demands.
 
My post was made so as to introduce some tactics. I did include a few examples of battles within the paragraphs if you had noticed. Being the swell guy that I can be I will provide some more info though. Now go back to bed.Smile


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 22:50
See if you can identify a tactic in this battle. 
 
The Battle of Kunduzcha (east of the Volga river in what is now the Republic of Tatarstan)
 
- Timur and his Jagatais versus Tokhtamish and the Kipchaks
 
 
The following is a report on Timur's tactic. After a game of cat and mouse the Jagatai warriors (Chagatai) "moved forward in precise battle formations based on the traditional plan of a center and two wings, but with the additions of a vanguard to each wing and a vanguard  and reserve for the center." Justin Marozzi, 'Tamerlane'. Timur took charge of the rearguard. After a prayer and the thunder of drums the battle began with a charge from the King's (Timur could not take the designation of Khan. He was not a bloodline of the royal Jagatai stemming back to Cengiz' Khakan's son) right wing against the Kipchak's left. "HOrses careered wildly at each other, their riders unleashing vicious volleys of arrows at their adversaries. At closer quarters the sabers and scimitars were unsheathed, and steel blades rained down from the sky, slashing through anything that opposed them."
 
After this melee Timur attacked the enemy's right and center flanks. Tokhtamish directed his right wing against the Jagatai left which detached it from the main body and seemed to engulf it completely. That is until a fate of fortune. The Kipchaks were gripped in confusion since they couldn't see the horned standard of Tokhtamish. Thinking he had vanished from the field and a sign that he may have been killed, the Kipchaks panicked. When in fact Timur's horse tail standard bore down on him. Tokhtamish wasn't dead. He fled the battlefield. "For forty leagues" the beaten enemy was chased down. Tokhtamish escaped to fight another day.
 
In this battle there can be found the classic medieval style formations. "moved forward in precise battle formations based on the traditional plan of a center and two wings, but with the additions of a vanguard to each wing and a vanguard  and reserve for the center."
 
Though the details are lacking one can correctly assume the descriptions are about light and heavy cavalry styles of fighting. "HOrses careered wildly at each other, their riders unleashing vicious volleys of arrows'...and 'At closer quarters the sabers and scimitars were unsheathed".
 
Another interesting note. Steppe armies had a knack for chasing down their enemies. Like prey in the hunt  "For forty leagues" the beaten enemy was chased down.
 
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 23:15
While I'm on Timur a small blurb on the Battle of Delhi brings home another tactic.
 
While guarding his hill Timur dug a ditch and had captured water buffalo, with oil-soaked straw on their backs, ahead of his lines. Aside from this wierdness he detached his elite cavalry to the flanks. The Indians came forth with elephants. They were met by the scared buffalo and eventually, while seperated from the adjoining infantry, fell into the mess of a trap. But the thing that got them lured in was the usual steppe tactic of attack with an accompanying feigned flight. The flanking elite horseman took care Indian cavalry and foot soildiers.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 02:47
The Flanking/Double + Classical Medieval would be the first one.

Though I can't really know if they fit when I don't know more about the tactics...


-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 16:04
Regarding the Parthians .... they were certainly familiar with steppe tactics, as the battle of Carrhae demonstrates, but how on earth did settled Persians learn nomadic Turkic/Scythian/Hunnic warfare?


Posted By: Tar Szernd
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 19:31
They learned it in the past:-)
 
-612 BC, siege of Ninive(or Babilon?) with scythian units in the attacking forces
-cc. 500 BC : persian-scythian war by the Danube
-scythian archers in the persian army probably between the 6. and 4. Century BC.
-connections with the Kao k, Kushan (and generally with the heavy armoured middle and late sarmatian tribes)
 
etc.:-)


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 27-Sep-2007 at 19:44
Originally posted by kurt

Regarding the Parthians .... they were certainly familiar with steppe tactics, as the battle of Carrhae demonstrates, but how on earth did settled Persians learn nomadic Turkic/Scythian/Hunnic warfare?


Parthians were just another Saka (scythian) tribe. so Persians learned from the steppe people. in the Achaemenid empire, the persian army was mostly infantry archers, while the Sassanian army were mostly horse archers.


-------------


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 06:03
Did Sassanian horse archers employ steppe tactics?


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 16:03
The Sassanian armies resembled that of Byzantium instead of the traditional Steppe style of warfare. The Byzantine Strategicon gives details on warring methods which were similar to those that the Sassanians used. Sassanians relied on heavy cavalry more than traditional steppe cavalry. They tended to come from nobility and had hard professional training as well. Since the Sassanians did not create a wing of light horse cavalry they tended to buy them as mercenaries from other tribes.
 
The infantry was used in seige warfare and had consisted of archers and regular hand to hand combative arms.
 
Archers, both horse mercenaries and foot soldiers, would be used for defensive purposes and for cover for other troops. The Heavy horse cavalry would be lined up in the front ranks and often use the lance as the weapon of choice.
 
The heavy cavalry based Sassanians were good and strong shock and awe troops but they lacked mobility. When encountered by Arab or Asiatic skirmishers, the Sassanian heavies were generally no match for the fast maneuverability and nimble light horse of her enemies. 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 02-Oct-2007 at 17:08

Learning tactics are not difficult. Creating new effective tactic is a different story.

Quite honestly, the most effective way that I know of to deploy inexperienced but ambitious hordes is to simply pick their axes, mount on the horse and scream "Hussar!!!!" and charge. Brutally simple, and moral rise as well. Planning and executing tactic by using inexperienced armies is among the common mistake in war,


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: kurt
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 15:08
One last query: when crusader armies met turkic armies in anatolia, who which side had more victories? The reason I ask is because im aware of the extensive metal armour that Europeon knights would wear, and it would be interesting to learn how steppe tactics coped with this.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 18:43
at the times of the Crusades, european soldiers were only clad in chainmail, if at all...

-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 19:28
Originally posted by kurt

One last query: when crusader armies met turkic armies in anatolia, who which side had more victories? The reason I ask is because im aware of the extensive metal armour that Europeon knights would wear, and it would be interesting to learn how steppe tactics coped with this.
 
True. Chainmail was the latest and greatest of the day.
 
Tactics rarely changed for the Asiatics. They still peppered from a distance and waited for opportune moments or they left the field of battle. However, the Crusaders figured out a way to handle the harrassing tactics. Richard the Lionheart, for instance, on his way to Jaffa (?) made a few columns of diverse troops during his march. He had the crossbowman on the outer side facing the Turks, Arabs, and Kurds. Wagons of seige weapons and cargo on the inner seaside column and heavy knights in the middle. The idea was to keep the Muslims at bay with the crossbow. If the Saracens got too close then the Knights would charge. This would disperse the crowd of attackers just enough times to continue with the quest.
 
The one adjustment the Saracens did do is try to seperate the rear guards from th epack by attacking with long range horse archers. This usually killed the horse, thus making the rider (knights) an infantry soldier.


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 12-Oct-2007 at 23:11

Seko bear in mind that Timurids and other Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare. Steppe warfare revolves around cavalry and cavalry only! In the steppe, and infantryman was a cripple or a child, and footmen were only employed for guarding the jurtas. Even during the Mongol Conquest the Mongols did not use infantry, or even if they did it played almost no role. The only infantry used by the Mongols, was the Hashar, or the hordes of captives used as living shields...Confused

The Middleeastern Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare, as infantry played an important role in their armies.
 
In typical Steppe warfare, the Mongols tended to use "conventional" tactics, similar to that of Medieval Europe. In steppe warfare, the vanguard played a very important role. Normally it consisted of the best warriors, whereas the rear guard would be composed of "looters" who were responsible for plunder and slave capture. Only later did this change, when Mongols fought non-steppe people. The vanguard would with time be the weakest part of the army.


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 06:03

If you read my initial post closely you would see that I wrote: The main tactics revolved around the light horse and her mobile archery.

Regarding the Classic Medieval style I also wrote that there were infantries made up of irregulars. Looking at the Mongol seige of Samarkand and Buhkara, the invading forces used irregulars made up of prisoners of war. Though this was not the typical battle style in the open steppe.
 
The tactics I provided should not be denied whether used in the Steppes of Asia, in Anatolia or the Battle of Ain Jalut.
Mamluk tactics, organisation and weaponry were for the most part derived from those of the Mongols. http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274 - http://www.ospreypublishing.com/content2.php/cid=274
 
Tactics of flanking,  feigned retreats, and encirclements were used at Manzikert, Ain Jalut, Kalkha river and Mohi i.e.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 17:24
Originally posted by Saber

Seko bear in mind that Timurids and other Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare.



Timurids, at least Tamerlanes army, was 100% in the tradition of Steppe warfare. i think even Baburs army had hardly if any infantry.


-------------


Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 19:49
So, you still have some things to add I believe...

-------------
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 20:01
Originally posted by Saber

Seko bear in mind that Timurids and other Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare. Steppe warfare revolves around cavalry and cavalry only! In the steppe, and infantryman was a cripple or a child, and footmen were only employed for guarding the jurtas. Even during the Mongol Conquest the Mongols did not use infantry, or even if they did it played almost no role. The only infantry used by the Mongols, was the Hashar, or the hordes of captives used as living shields...Confused

The Middleeastern Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare, as infantry played an important role in their armies.
 
 
Steppe battle tactics were the main tactics of combat in the Central Asia very well until the end of the 19th century.
 
Moreover, typical steppe warfare techniques were employed by Russian Cossacks as "late" as WWI.
 
Below is the picture by the famous Russian painter Vereshagin.
 
It's basically, an episode from the Russian conquest of Central Asia, depicting the surprise attack of the Bokhar Khanate cavalry (main fighting force of khanate which mainly consisted of Nomades) on the Russian infantry unit in some 1870th.
 
The name of the picture is "Attacking surpsingly" "Нападают врасплох" in Russian.
 
This kind of attack style is know as lava, in Cossack steppe warfare.
 
 
 
 


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 14-Oct-2007 at 22:07

Another interesting picture, called "The battle of Cossacks with Kyrgyzs (Kazakhs)" by the Russian painter Osipov, year 1826



-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 19:15
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Saber

Seko bear in mind that Timurids and other Turkic states no longer employed steppe warfare.



Timurids, at least Tamerlanes army, was 100% in the tradition of Steppe warfare. i think even Baburs army had hardly if any infantry.
 
no, neither Timurids, nor even Genghisids still used steppe warfare. I doubt Babur fighting in the jungles of India could use steppe warfare
 
Steppe warfare, is not also a set of tactical manuevres but also logistics, aims, and effects.
 
It was fought not to conquer but to undermine the enemy's forces in terms of manpower. It was purely based around cavalry(Timurids were known for some parts of professional infantry). Further steppe warfare does not recognise sieges, at which both Mongols and Timurids were adept at.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 19:27
Originally posted by Saber



no, neither Timurids, nor even Genghisids still used steppe warfare. I doubt Babur fighting in the jungles of India could use steppe warfare
 
Steppe warfare, is not also a set of tactical manuevres but also logistics, aims, and effects.
 
It was fought not to conquer but to undermine the enemy's forces in terms of manpower. It was purely based around cavalry(Timurids were known for some parts of professional infantry). Further steppe warfare does not recognise sieges, at which both Mongols and Timurids were adept at.


thats not true, Temurs army was 100% cavalry, read as reference the rise and rule fo tamerlane by beatriz forbes-manz. second, Babur never penetrated as deep as the jungle area of india. his army was mostly Turko-Mongol cavalry and Afgan cavalry.

also, siege warfare is not alien to Steppe warfare, see the Avars introduction of the trebuchet to europe.


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 19:58
Originally posted by Saber


 
no, neither Timurids, nor even Genghisids still used steppe warfare. I doubt Babur fighting in the jungles of India could use steppe warfare
 
Steppe warfare, is not also a set of tactical manuevres but also logistics, aims, and effects.
 
 
 
Saber, an appendix in The Secret Hitory of the Mongols: The Life and Times of Chinggis Khan by Urunge Onon contradicts your position.
Being a pastoral nomdic economy they relied on warcraft passed on down by military traditions and the the art of hunting. High discipline, unity, fine leadership and welfare of the soldiers was of primary importance.
 
Genghiz's art of war was based on 5 elements. Speed, ferocity, variety of tactics, suddenness and iron discipline. I already mentioned a few of the major ones.
 
Here are some examples of the author's 16:
 
Chisel Attack - Cavalry charging the enemy line. Second and third waves would continue to press. Large groups of enemies would not withstand the ferocity of such a charge.
 
When enemies were in strongholds or forts the Mongols would uses oxen and wild horses to cause confusion.
 
Amubush - feigned retreat is one example if this. When encountering numerically superior forces the Mongols would lure the enemy into a pursuit. This was used against the Jin army at the Chabchiyal pass. Also in 1222 at the Kala river.
 
Crescent (arc) formations. Used by most steppe warriors up to the Cossacks.
 
Encirclement aned Outflanking - circle and enemies rear and flanks to attack on many sides. 1221 against Jalaldn. This was usually after the use of captured irregulars at a main site as an illusion. Crossing the Kizil Kum to outflank the Kwarizmians at Bukhara.
 
Open ended tactics - leaving a gap in the ranks to allow an enemy to flee. Then slaughter as if on the hunt. At Mohi. Followed by Hot pursuit.
 
Probably the safest and most heavily used tactic was At-a-distance, Arrow Barrage . Before hand to hand combat the Steppers would most always fire arrows first and foremost. Then swords, maces, lances and axes to finish the job at close quarters.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 


-------------
Copyright 2004 Seko


Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2007 at 21:13
Originally posted by Saber

 
no, neither Timurids, nor even Genghisids still used steppe warfare. I doubt Babur fighting in the jungles of India could use steppe warfare
 
Steppe warfare, is not also a set of tactical manuevres but also logistics, aims, and effects.
 
It was fought not to conquer but to undermine the enemy's forces in terms of manpower. It was purely based around cavalry(Timurids were known for some parts of professional infantry). Further steppe warfare does not recognise sieges, at which both Mongols and Timurids were adept at.
 
Absolutely doesn't make sense to me.
 
Chinghizids and Timurids armies as well as the armies of Central Asian rulers up until 19th century consisted 90% from nomadic tribesmen, whose only military training was in the Steppe warfare.
 
Moreover, some wars in the region like for example Kazakh-Dzhungar conflicts of 17-18th centuries in fact don't differ that much from the typical steppe style conflict of the 13th century.
 
Dhzungars even introduced artillery through the captured Swede officer to their warfare, but it didn't change their essense of Steppe mounted warriors.


-------------
Σαυρομάτης


Posted By: Saber
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2007 at 16:45
Temujin, Timur like possibly every mongol princeling(whether turkicized or not, we don't care), had to rely on a tribal following during their rise. Timur as leader of the barlas clan, had initially relied only on his steppe raised, clansmen, as reliance on persian city militia and alikes would be rather foolhardy.
 
I agree also that during campagins against the Golden Horde and the Chagatai remnants, armies of full horsemen had to be employed, as both foes used the same initial tactics.
 
Yet during his later reign, i.e after consolidating transaxonia and expanding, he had to include infantry troopers, among them Armenians, Persians at times Syrians, Kurds and Turks. All states in that region employed infantry, from Aq Koyonlu and Qara Koyonlu to the Ottomans.
 
Seko, your absolutely right, yet I said what I said, in order to define what I understand through steppe warfare, and upon this I expanded my arguments.
 
Sarmat12, I'm not sure I understand your point. I said, that the Genghisids and successors not used steppe warfare, the warfare which I defined above according to my opinion. I never said they did not use steppe tactics(there's a difference between type of warfare, and tactics). My point is that, Genghisid and successor warfare expanded from steppe warfare(the typical horsemen struggle), to a more, if one could say so, conventional medieval warfare.
 
 



Print Page | Close Window