Horse archers are overrated

[Picard]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

 

[cyclops]

I was literally watching The Last Samurai a moment ago and then saw this post.

 

[Azaad]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

Mounted archery vs. regular archery

Friggin' tradition, amirite?Watch the full episode here: https://youtu.be/6lf9q6OQse0Merch, magic, and more only at https://scamstuff.com#prank #stunt #educa...

youtube.com

 

[Kcirtap]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

If any of you read alternate history this horse archer shit is a lot common and prevalent there as if horse archers are roving bands of machine gunners. If in any battle one of the two groups has horse archers they magically win even if the other side have a lot more sophisticated army and command simply because -- horse archers.

 

[Picard]

Mounted archery vs. regular archery

Friggin' tradition, amirite?Watch the full episode here: https://youtu.be/6lf9q6OQse0Merch, magic, and more only at https://scamstuff.com#prank #stunt #educa...

youtube.com

Yes, Turkish bow could shoot further. But it also used much lighter arrow, which meant it couldn't penetrate armor anywhere as well.

If any of you read alternate history this horse archer shit is a lot common and prevalent there as if horse archers are roving bands of machine gunners. If in any battle one of the two groups has horse archers they magically win even if the other side have a lot more sophisticated army and command simply because -- horse archers.

Agreed.

 

[karn]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

This is a great article . After reading this I think more than just the horse archer it was the experience that stepp nomads had in coordinating their movements in horseback while armies they faced were defeated by tricking them into breaking formation .As well as the fact that every nomad is a herder, archer and horse rider at the same time ... A readymade army basically.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Horse Archers Are Overrated

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Doth…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Horse archers often have a memetic status in military history and military fantasy alike. Mongols are said to have conquered most of Eurasia simply because they were awesome horse archers, and Dothraki are considered unbeatable by many in the A Song of Ice and Fire fandom because they are a horse archer stereotype. Most of the books discussing the Mongols focus on their composite bow as if it were some sort of a medieval nuke. Essentially, horse archers are considered the ultimate weapon, capable of devastating any premodern military nearly alone, or at least with minimal support.

But there are many problems with these ideas, stemming first from the nature of horse archers.

I think apart from bow and arrow they also carry sword for close combat. Make the enemy tired and out of shape then finish them off is their tactic.

 

[Picard]

This is a great article . After reading this I think more than just the horse archer it was the experience that stepp nomads had in coordinating their movements in horseback while armies they faced were defeated by tricking them into breaking formation .As well as the fact that every nomad is a herder, archer and horse rider at the same time ... A readymade army basically.

Yes.

I think apart from bow and arrow they also carry sword for close combat. Make the enemy tired and out of shape then finish them off is their tactic.

IIRC, Mongols also carried maces and actually had rather heavy armor.

As for Martin's Dothraki, they carry arakh which is a sabre. It is not a weapon designed to deal with armored opponents, made worse by the fact that Dothraki themselves don't use armor.