Why were horse archers so OP? How tf did you counter them?

Get yourself an armour.

If you're stuck behind your walls and can't come out, is that not de facto a siege?

>hiding behind a castle does nothing for you in an open field
That's why you create a fort in the open field. It's like you idiots never read about a Roman battle before. Fortify! Fortify! Fortify! If there is an open space, build a fort there.

If they're besieging you then they aren't attacking your holdings. Also, how do you besiege someone with a skirmisher army? You just ride along in front of their walls and get plinked by arrows? Your only options are to withdraw or dismount, either one gives the defender the advantage.

armored knights

This. I put more arrows down range than you. Being highly mobile and fast and loosing arrows leaves your horse archers vulnerable to missiles themselves

They aren't OP, the Romans and Chinese figured how to deal with the Parthians and Xiongnu a long time ago. Keep in mind that most of the civilizations that the Mongols fought east of Persia were also horse archers and they got curbstomped too.

It was everything else the Mongols had (like have an actual intelligence network, virtually no supply line, and incorporating superior technology and specialists from other nations) that made them so effective. Horse Archers are overrated but Mongols are underrated.

Do what the successful Chinese dynasties did

> create alliances with some of the steppeniggers, play them against each other so they never band together.

> Use your own larger population and resource base to create a bigger horse archer army of your own

> sneak up on the nomad's tent cities, then kill every man, woman, and children that you find.

That and also a metric fuckton of crossbows.

> rides my horse around your fort. Now what?

Now you are in the enemy territory, surrounded by fortifications, without any supply lines. In that case if you are crushed, whole force will be annihilated.
Reminder, that OP asked about horse archers, not Tatars, not Mongols, not similar.
Or he thinks, that Mongols armies were pure horse archers. In that case he is just retarded.

>Also, how do you besiege someone with a skirmisher army?

What's a "skirmisher army?" They aren't units in Age of Empires, they are people. Horse archers are a TACTIC that they would use in the open field. Having secured the field, they can assault fortifications using the same tactics as anyone else, at their leisure, since nobody can rescue the fags hiding behind the walls.

>surrounded by fortifications,

wut

A skirmisher army means one that is very mobile, carrying their supplies on saddle bags without a supply train. That's an army that can't lay siege to anyone.

They aren't. Just use your scorpions and shoot them when the unit stands still to shoot at you. Christ have you never played Total War before?

Usually they're steppe nomads, which means that they have no fields to toil, no peasants, and no lands to defend.
Which in turn means they can mobilize a huge proportion of their population and outnumber you 10:1.

Yes, usually the steppes aren't fertile enough to support a big population, and they're usually divided between themselves. But once in a while favourable weather conditions persist, one dude unites them and they roll over you.

Caltrops?
Area denial could work. Horse archers rely on mobility so take that away from them.

Forgot image

>Caltrops?
You'd need a fuckload of caltrops. Go and make your army some crossbows instead.

>That's an army that can't lay siege to anyone.

So how did the Mongols conquer hundreds of fortifications?

Why are minefields placed around military installations when the soldier have guns?
The enemy's movement becomes restricted and more predictable. No shit you can't scatter caltrop all over a country but you can around castles.

>Why are minefields placed around military installations when the soldier have guns?
Because mines can exploit weaknesses people with guns can't, like weaker floor armor in tanks.
>The enemy's movement becomes restricted and more predictable. No shit you can't scatter caltrop all over a country but you can around castles.
Ah yes, congratulations on limiting the distance from "literally anywhere" to "literally anywhere except for a bit of space outside the castle."
It's not like even horse archers would be dumb enough to ride horses at the walls anyway.

They used the Chinese to do it for them.

chinese engineers

keep in mind though that mongols were really the only famous horse archers to use siege weapons

It's really not all that hard
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lechfeld_(955)

I didn't mean within pissing distance of the castle walls lol. Areas which might be appealing for a besieging army to set up camps etc are prime targets. This isn't exactly a crazy idea. Caltrops exist because they have been used successfully in the past.

>Areas which might be appealing for a besieging army to set up camps etc are prime targets
What the fuck are they going to do when their scouts run into caltrops in their campsite, just spontaneously die until the whole horde/clan just slowly and silently extinguishes themselves? They're going to turn around and ride to somewhere else to camp.

They're nomadic, user, they can set camps anywhere there's some grass and some access to water. What are you going to do, put caltrops all the way along the river?

Who attacks a castle with cavalry?

Easy. Give them tribute, prostrate myself to their leader, marry off a few of my daughters and point them toward my enemies.

Exactly, they won't camp where they wanted to. It could give better opportunities to raid them. When did I say cover the entire area with caltrops?

How are you going to bring supplies to maintain a siege? Horses!

>Exactly, they won't camp where they wanted to
Yeah I'm sure it will be incredibly time consuming and difficult for an entirely equestrian army to move to a similar spot.
>It could give better opportunities to raid them
If you're smart enough to determine what the optimal camping spot for an army of Horse Archers is, you're better off NOT putting caltrops on that spot and raiding them, instead of alerting them to the fact that you are aware of their approach and what they prioritize.

It's almost like the horse and the warrior riding are two separate beings and the warrior can just... hop off... woah

This
The counter to horse archers is and always was foot archers

Crusaders had a method that sometimes worked:

(1) Hide your own heavily armored (slow-moving) cavalry in the middle of a lot of infantry with shields who can take the punch from arrows, plus some foot archers of your own.

(2) Let the horse archers tire out their horses riding around you.

(3) At the right moment, your infantry opens up a path, and your heavy cavalry, with relatively fresh horses that haven't been maneuvering all this time, charge out and catch the horse archers in hand-to-hand.

Easy:

>King Béla IV took note of this, and spent the next few decades reforming Hungary in preparation for possible future invasions. He used a variety of methods to do this. In 1247 he concluded a feudal agreement with the Knights of St. John, giving them the southeastern borderland in exchange for their help in creating more armored cavalry and fortifications. In 1248, he declared the country's middle strata could enter a baron's service, on the condition that the barons lead the men on his land properly equipped (in armor) into the king's army. Documents from the time state that "the nobles of our country can enter into military service of bishops in the same way in which they can serve other nobles". After 1250, free owners of small or middle sized estates serving directly under the king were included (along with barons) in the nobility. Finally, new settlers were given "conditional" nobility in exchange for the requirement of fighting mounted and armored at the king's request.[10] In 1259, he requested that the Pope put him into contact with Venice, as he wanted to hire at least 1,000 crossbowmen (crossbows having also proven a very effective weapon against the Mongols, despite the relatively small numbers of them actually deployed by the Hungarians in 1241).[11]

>To cement his new defense doctrine, the king offered grants and rewards to cities and nobles in exchange for the building of stone fortifications. The reforms ultimately paid off. By the end of his reign, Béla IV had overseen the building of nearly 100 new fortresses.[12] Of these 100, 66 were made of stone.[13] This was a major upgrade from 1241, when the kingdom only possessed 10 stone castles, half of which were placed along the border with the Duchy of Austria.[14]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary#Military_reforms

>heavily armored (slow-moving) cavalry
I actually wonder whether that was historically the case. Are there any sources which mention that knightly cavalry was slower than horse archers? Europeans had access to larger horses, much stronger breeds. Naturally one would assume them to be faster, even with an armoured man on top. At least for the charge.

How many castles you build broke many castles per square mile. Given it's less them 1 I'll just raid your villages and take all the food. Plus if you won't leave your forts who cares how many you have

build wall

Steppe nomads never had a bigger (total) force than any big settled nation, unless they were using auxiliaries from another culture as the bulk of the army.

Starvation or settled allies.

>they sack you anyways because they see your act as weak
>then they demand more tribute

Settledcucks lmao

How did the seljuk and early ottoman turks conquer so much then?

Have some of your own.
Combined arms.
Guns.

user is wrong.

If anything, the Turkics adapted better to civilization. The Mongs tried but their clannishness and "muh Steppe pride" got in the way.

With combined arms and flair
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes

what up with that guy in the back?

Genocide is hella fun

Officer, keeps the levies in line

its not unheard of for a siege to fail without being broken

Contrary to the beliefs of those who played Rome Total war horse archers were actually not that big of a deal. Usually they rode smaller, weaker horses so large battle steeds usually could catch up to them. Heavy cavalry was quite effective against them. So were foot archers (they were more accurate and generally had better bows with stronger pulls on foot aswell).

>mfw I thought that was medieval dynamite

With regular archers and bare minimum fortifications. A waist high wall will give your archers the edge, and horse archers are almost exclusively light cavalry, so they can't meaningfully charge your position.

To make sure no one retreats. Common tactic. Why do you think the romans put the veterans and only traditional spear armed soldiers at the back?

Well, they mostly just used big ass cannons, so that adds the question into this scenario, is this pre or post gunpowder, if it is pre, then horse archers cannot do sieges, if it is post, then armies using guns can defeat them in open combat.

are you fucking kidding me? The Mongols were the best siegers in the business! inb4 muh Chinese engineers, you have to cut down forests and chop a lot of fucking wood to make the engines

we've been over this the Bela defenses were not against a true Mongol horde, but really the poorest ones living on the outskirts of the Empire and on top of that, those armies were mostly just Kipchaks and varies other mercs that were only lead by a core of Mongols

You know what the Mongols would do? Round up every able bodied person in a fifty mile radius and force them to sweep clear the caltrops and any other obstacles before they lay siege and assault the castle. Your only choice would be to shoot and kill your own people. Congratulations, you just made a ton of caltrops that made not a lick of difference.

This guy hates caltrops

The horse literally has armour

Crossbow archers, heavy cavalry can counter them

Probably had a bad experience with them. Maybe his horse archers got fucked up by a field of caltrops

>be light cavalry tucked behind your lines
>Mongol horse archers are exhausted after trying to wear down your shields and crossbowmen all day
>Grand Prince Sviatoslavopolk Vladimiryodmtryvych finally gives order to charge
>ZA RODINU URAAA!
>the Mongol warriors have 4 horses each
>they jump from an exhausted horse to a fresh one
>as they retreat they take parthian shots, targeting your horses
>the nobles leading the charge have barding but most of your cavalry don't
What now?

Genocide them.

>Capture the exausted horses left behind
>Repeat this 3 more times
> Cuck the horsefuckers forever

They would have beaten any other kind of Mongol just the same.

As I said: it's a larger, stronger horse and therefore it's possible that it's faster even with armour and an armoured man on top. At least during the charge, where it matters.

This. Not to mention crossbowmen who reload and shoot their weapons from behind cover.

The seljuks didn't have "big ass cannons" neither did their successor states for a long time.

All the while they are peppering your horses and captured horses with arrows? Not sure that would work.

>muh horse archers
like half of the mongol forces were heavy cavalry
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_military_tactics_and_organization#Cavalry
>Six of every ten Mongol troopers were light cavalry horse archers; the remaining four were more heavily armored and armed lancers. Mongol light cavalry were extremely light troops compared to contemporary standards, allowing them to execute tactics and maneuvers that would have been impractical for a heavier enemy (such as European knights). Most of the remaining troops were heavier cavalry with lances for close combat after the archers had brought the enemy into disarray.

Not that guy but its difficult to have an entire armies worth of horses nearby for fast swapping. At best they could have units of men constantly getting their fresh horses. Like if the spare horses were close enough to the battle that they can easily be swapped out an enemy army could just run over and take them.

>they cant do sieges
>siege of baghdad
>literally assraped every nation they came across in China, ME, transoxania, eastern europe EVEN IN SIEGES

>30,000 vs 1500
>casualities : heavy

lol

too lazy to cut and paste pictures

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Rus'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Europe

>Six of every ten Mongol troopers were light cavalry horse archers; the remaining four were more heavily armored and armed lancers
>half were heavy calvary

please stop 3:2 ratio isnt half u fucking idiot.

i said "like half" you retarded autist

50% and 40 % are "like the same" to anyone who isn't a braindead RETARD like YOU

neck yourself

what's your point?

Skirmishers at the front line are trained to deal with a charge, they quickly retreat to their comrade holding their spare horse, hop on and ride away firing parthian shots. If your horse has 1 arrow in it, it is unlikely to catch up. Only a bottleneck can slow them down.

Armored infantry with archers.
Alternatively, armored cavalry with bows fighting in organized units.
Walls.
Force them up against a river and then kill them in close combat.

>Pre-gunpowder, it was basically an uncounterable tactic on open ground.
And yet, they lost battles and wars.

>Having secured the field, they can assault fortifications using the same tactics as anyone else
Given their tendency towards lacking armord and not being very good at close combat, no, they generally cannot if the defenders aren't shit.

Chinese troops and willingness to have their own army utterly shattered. Also betrayal. Mongols loved finding traitors in the walls.

Knights did not have armor on their horses until the absolute tail end of the medieval period.

They didn't literally bring the horses with them in battle. They'd be held somewhere in the rear.

People literally did exactly what the other user is describing. Horse archers are not unbeatable, quit fucking fanboying.

Horse archers don't actually cause that many casualties. They are a tool to bait the enemy into action and counter attack, since no one likes getting shot at. The decisive counter-blow is struck by the heavy cavalry, once the enemy is is goaded into a foolish attack.

The counter to horse archers is thus outshooting them so that they can't bait you. Your own horse archers, crossbowmen, or hand gunners are suitable.

>Horse archers don't actually cause that many casualties.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

Did you even read that article or are you just smugly linking it? It took an entire day of shooting at defenseless infantry. It was a cunningly laid trap.

>Why do you think the romans put the veterans and only traditional spear armed soldiers at the back?
to not waste their best men during the part of battle where armies just grind each other down regardless of individual skill

Triarii weren't their best men, the Principes were. Triarii were old and past their prime and were only expected to fight in case of a disaster.

Yes, I did. They were defenseless because they were infantry and light cavalry against horse archers, who BTFO of all of them. The best the Romans could do was turtle up, and that just made them look stupid and waiting to die. Which they were, and which they did.

>allahu ackbar intesifies

Mice

...except the roman cavalry specifically got crushed by the cataphracts, not the horse archers.

>How tf did you counter them?

alternatively spam these and give them spears/pikes for close combat