Horse archers - the unbeatable troops?

What was the battlefield role of the horse archer? Many people have written that the horse archer was the single dominant all-defeating type of soldier in the ancient world, citing the Parthians, Mongols, and Huns as examples.

If your enemy has no places that he needs to defend, no cities, no ports, no mines, nothing of that kind, if he is truly nomadic, then the horse archer is a very effective type of soldier to be, but as soon as he conquers anything and tries to settle, and hold onto his gains, he may find that horse archery isn't that great after all.

▼ Follow me...

Horse archers

[adrenjones]

Horse Achers are exceptionaly bad at exploring Dungeons too.

[facu]

"Why would they be frightened of horsemen getting close to the walls? Hit it with his sword?" Have you ever played Age of Empires? Haha.

[ImGazu]

What I learned from LindyBeige so far:
Everything except for the spear+shield combo sort of sucked.

[goanywhere]

The greatest tactical skill that the Mongols employed was their use of time. They either surprised you with lightning attacks that caught you off guard, or they just out waited you and refused to join battle until you were sick and tired of standing there in the sun or the rain, and attacked from nowhere as you began to dissassemble. Or they feinted an attack, then fled, drawing you into the pursuit, and ambushed your pursuers.

Their horse archers were the best in the world at the time, but it was their tactics that won most often.

[karlbudde]

werent horse archers so succesful because they were typically used by nomadic tribes. If its a nomadic culture it doesnt really need to hold a position so they can just do what the Russians did to Napolian and over extend the supply line while harassing them until they decide to leave

[notribadsvault]

"Why didn't everyone use roman-style legions if they were so good?"

Lindy, as always, has a point. However the biggest issue with hill situation is the fact that the steppe archers biggest disadvantage is the commander who wants them to hold a goddamn hill.

[Rawkwilder]

My father who's not a historian said the slopes had the purpose of making it more difficult to put a ladder against the wall... and when you think about it makes sense.

[lancerd]

All good points, but... I submit that one very good reason for not everyone using large numbers of horse archers is the difficulty producing them. Horse archers tended to be used to the greatest extent by nomadic people for whom horses and bows were a necessary part of life in order to hunt and gather food, but for sedentary people horses are an absolute luxury because the resources that go into a horse that is only good for war or recreation could have gone into a dairy cow or several sheep, so there is a high opportunity cost involved in keeping horses. In addition, the training required to get really good with a bow (or any martial weapon) represents unproductive time for workers in agricultural economies that don't rely on hunting for the majority of food, relegating those skills to a minority warrior class, which is why we see Samurai as the major source of horse archers in feudal Japan and equites, knights etc as the main source of cavalry in settled European cultures until the rise of the middle class.

[erikrussi]

Only thing I know is that fighting Khergit Khanate is very time consuming.

[anthonychojvang]

Dual wielding flaming bow and arrow berserker horse archer with dual katanas

[thehellyousay]

Lindybeige: archery wasn't that effective.
Henry V: hold my ale...

[unpopularopinionguy]

But the real question is, how can I defeat horse archers in a Total War game if I only have infantry?

[jasv]

"Horse archers - the unbeatable troops?" Well, if controlled by the Age of Empires AI... pretty much yes.

[concretehippogaming]

Why would horse archers want to defend a hill? That defeats the whole purpose of mobile warfare.

[unwinsis]

I was always under the impression that the success of the Hunnic and Parthian horse archers was due to their ability to launch surprise attacks on relatively undefended settlements, and then make off before being engaged by any trained and organized fighting force.

[dean]

[Total war Attila flashbacks intensify]

[brett]

Im disappointed that you didnt mention the famed and feared tactic that only the greatest war machine used:

Man archers: Men rode on the backs of other fearsome and hardy men, this gave them agility and maneuverability above all other units on the battlefield. They could trample lesser men underfoot, and the man below always held a large supply of arrows. This is fact, and every battle this tactic has been used in has always ended in victory for those who commanded a regiment of man archers. This is historical fact, you cannot deny this infallible and infinitely reliable tactic!

[mmccarthy]

Horse archers were used as skirmish units to break up formations so that keshiks and heavy cavalry could come in fast and take advantage of the chaos and the gaps flanking and then arrowing stragglers as they fled. Lindy is right horse archers were rubbish against fortified heavy footsoldiers on a hill.

[kevinnelson]

Let's hope the Mongolian really need that hill 😂😂

[olivernorton]

I remember reading somewhere that the slope at the bottom of fortress walls were there because it allowed defenders to drop stones so that they would bounce outwards towards attackers.