Is The Use of Mounted Infantry a Viable Tactic for a Nomadic Empire?

Question

By “Nomadic Empire” I am referring to an expansionist power that resembles the empires created by Eurasian Nomads throughout history ranging from the Scythians, Huns, and of course Mongols. Their power came from the rapid mobility and tactical effectiveness endowed from their nomadic and horseborne lifestyle.

While the use of skilled horse archers and lancers has carried nomadic empires to victory numerous times, in my setting there is one additional type of soldier these nomads use; mounted infantry.

Mounted infantry are soldiers who ride horses to battle, but dismount to fight. They are distinct from cavalry in that they don’t fight on horseback. Mounted infantry in real history was actually very effective at countering nomadic armies, as seen in the Battle of Mobei in which the Han used mounted infantry to counter the Xiongu’s mobility while retaining the power of their infantry and crossbow formations.

The nomadic empire in my setting has numerous vassals that are not nearly as mobile as they are, but are nonetheless have well trained archers and infantry. The Khagan wants to use every advantage he has against a much more powerful foe, but to have his settled vassals accompany his army on foot would lead to an unacceptable decrease in mobility and would further harm logistics. So instead he provides the allied infantry and foot archers with horses so that they may ride with the nomads to the battles. They then dismount and take part in the fighting, with the nomad light cavalry covering their initial formation and the heavy cavalry using them as an anchor point for Hammer and Anvil tactics.

I figure that it’s much faster and easier to teach an infantryman to simply ride a horse than it is to train him as a proper cavalryman, and that his increased mobility would be worth the additional time and resources spent.

So is my logic that mounted infantry would be an effective asset for a nomadic army sound?

Edit: The enemy uses tactics and units similar to the Song Dynasty’s military.

Answer 1

I think that the thought behind this question is sound, but I'd take the advice of the many commenters on this question. To an extent, you are asking 'Why are horses good?' Mounted infantry have a number of benefits, but also a number of disadvantages:

Benefits:

• Speedy movement: your infantry are on horses, horses move faster than most people. Enough said.
• Logistics: speed of your army is important, but so is the speed of the food, tents, and war-machines at getting to a battle-site (if applicable).

Disadvantages:

• Horses are expensive: they eat a lot, they may need their own armour, horseshoes, etc, even if they're not getting into combat. Plus, you'll have to raise them, breed them over generations, etc.
• You'll need a lot of them: For maximum speed, you want a horse for every man, which is very impractical for massive armies, and will become an even bigger problem in the long run. Even having a buddy-system is impractical. The other problems that come as side-effects to this are to do with losses. Horses get lost in battles (either they die or they run away in fear) randomly anyways, and whatever %age of horses disappear is the percentage of your infantry that is stuck where it is, most likely either holding back the entire army on their next move or lagging behind, making them sitting ducks for the enemy.
• Chaos: Horses get freaked out by any and all loud noises unless specifically bred to handle the din of battle. This will not only cause more losses but even if left to the side as your infantry go to fight, they'll need attendants to calm them down and un-spook them. Worst case scenario, it is possible that an enemy infiltrator could free these horses and have them stampede into the battle, hurting you and your enemy equally (in the best case scenario). It's a good idea to manage your variables when in a fight, and having extra horses may not be the best way to do so if they're not being actively used.

Your question: So is my logic that mounted infantry would be an effective asset for a nomadic army sound?

I like the idea, but it's expensive, it's chaotic, and will most likely help you win battles, not wars. Even if you win a war, the upkeep of an entire army like this can't be easy. I understand the Mongol empire of old had a predominantly cavalry army, but these weren't mounted troops, but a very diverse range of cavalry trained from a young age to handle the chaos of war. In fact, even the subspecies of horse used by Mongols were superior in many ways, as they had natural instincts that made them capable survivors (like being able to dig for food, or run relatively slowly for incredibly long periods of time, increasing long-term mobility). But the Mongols based their entire society around horses, so it was doable, but more importantly, they took full advantage of their horsepower. Your horses aren't just taxis for your soldiers - treat them with respect and understand the advantage they provide to you.

I'd argue that it's way too much effort training an entire army to ride horses and then have to maintain said not-a-cavalry forever. Instead, I'd argue for the creation of special forces units instead: small units (overall 1000ish soldiers) of highly trained combatants that specialize in showing up to a battle unannounced and unexpected, with a very high K/D ratio. Genghis Khan used troops like these in many of his campaigns, from his initial fights to unite the tribes of Mongolia till his campaign in Khwarezmia.

Answer 2

While mounted infantry may have some plausible uses, imagine your enemy shows up days or weeks before you expect them because they rode in on horses, you would also face a fair few issues.

Abandon your horse
Dismounting before battle should be done away from the battlefield, and the horses should be tied up sufficiently and tended to during the battle. This takes time and manpower, which could be used elsewhere. Running up to the enemy and hopping of your horse to fight them is pretty much impossible, or at least a very bad idea. First of all a line can't be formed (as quickly) due to the chaotic mix of men and horses. Secondly, there will be no time to properly secure your horse. Thirdly, when battle commences there is often an exchange of arrows. When the battle is won, but the mounted infantry returns to their horses only to find half of them dead or wounded, and the other half fled, them being mounted would be short lived.

costs
Feeding an army is already expensive. Add a horse to feed to every soldier and the costs will spiral out of control. Not only the costs, but the availability of food for such a potentially large army would become an issue as well, if large pastures of grass aren't available in the area.

Unless the tactics used by this force is precisely tailored to counter a specific enemy, or extreme speed of deployment is needed at a moments notice, I don't see any massive advantages to mounting your infantry.

Answer 3

It depends ...

Your tactic is sound if the stirrup hasn't been introduced.

All cavalry used this method, fighting dismounted until the second century B.C. when the stirrup was introduced. Until the stirrup, soldiers had to compensate for any force of an attack by gripping their mount with their thighs and this will only get you so far. I think only mounted archers using short bows could effectively fight from horseback. And you might be able to throw a spear or javelin but not a long-distance -- just at some poor ground pounder in front of you.

Note the absence of stirrups in the 3rd century roman depiction of an equites

But on the other hand, if the stirrup is in wide use for your story, then a mounted fighter can be more powerful on their mount than on the ground. They can use lances and wield weapons from with greater impact and height advantage.

But, horses are easy targets for the enemy. So getting in and getting out fast has always been a hallmark of cavalry attacks. This leaves room for troops riding in, and dismounting and fighting on foot.

During the US Civil War, cavalry armed with rifles rode into battle but dismounted to fight. So the tactic lasted for nearly two millennia after the stirrup changed how fighting on horseback was conducted which suggests its not a bad plan when used in the appropriate situation.

Answer 4

Use of mounted infantry is a viable tactic for sedentary societies and nomads alike. There were some cases where an army was majority cavalry - such as Black Army of Hungary, Byzantine Tagma and a couple of others. In other cases, army was cavalry with mounted infantry - I believe Belisarius had used that combination, and English armies of 100 years war were often entirely mounted, but longbowmen and such would dismount before battle. Combination could also be used in impromptu situations; Byzantine Emperor Basil II mounted infantry on mules when he had to relieve Aleppo in hurry. Journey which should have taken 60 days he completed in quarter that time, but out of 40 000 men, only 17 000 made it. It should be noted that this was travel through very mountainous terrain. You can find more on logistics here: https://books.google.hr/books?id=ntMeWddadwAC&pg=PA144&lpg=PA144&dq=Byzantine+Emperor+Basil+II+mounted+infantry+on+mules&source=bl&ots=1m3yQT7S5s&sig=ACfU3U0riL8ufDoEyu-Jzigg42pSAJH9Gw&hl=hr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwid3snPsfLnAhXPwosKHbcTBGQQ6AEwFHoECA0QAQ#v=onepage&q=Byzantine%20Emperor%20Basil%20II%20mounted%20infantry%20on%20mules&f=false

I do not think however that nomads would have mounted infantry by default. Nomads had very sophisticated tactics, which included heavy cavalry, light lancer cavalry and light missile cavalry (mounted archers). These were all highly trained, and could be used as infantry if situation required it. Sedentary societies also sometimes pulled that off: Byzantine kataphraktoi were trained to fight as infantry if necessary (at least those of Belisarius were), English men-at-arms also occasionally fought as infantry, and so did Polish Winged Hussars. As such, having strictly mounted infantry is not really necessary if you already have cavalry. But more to the point, in open, flat terrain, cavalry reigns supreme. I had spent some time researching infantry-vs-cavalry clashes for my blog, but long story short: 1) heavy cavalry beats all infantry 2) missile cavalry beats heavy cavalry 3) missile infantry beats missile cavalry

Main reason why pike squares could stand against heavy cavalry was the general lack of discipline and training of the latter, what with them being composed of nobles. But well-disciplined heavy cavalry - such as French Compagnies d'Ordonnance and, later, Polish Winged Hussars - was capable of disciplined mass charges. As such it could, and did, break infantry pike squares, especially if you combined heavy cavalry with missile troops (e.g. horse archers). Disadvantage of cavalry was that its effectiveness is highly dependant on terrain. As I already stated, cavalry reigns supreme in open plains. But send them into mountains, canyons, forrests, riverbeds? They lose their advantage. That is what happened to Mongols: they beat Hungarian-Croatian army stupid at open plains, but they achieved absolutely nothing once they came to rather mountainous Southern Croatia.

This, of course, assumes that nomads have stirrups - which, if they had managed to build an empire, they probably do. Cavalry without stirrups is rather less effective in fighting from horseback, either with melee or missile weapons, though high-backed saddles, or four-horned saddles, do help somewhat. It should be noted that it was precisely nomads - Sarmatians - who introduced stirrups to Romans. Before that, cavalry usually dismounted to fight, or else fought with missile weapons (e.g. cavalry at Hastings used throwing spears, I think). Melee combat was not exactly out of the question, but couched lance technique was straight out - "charge" of pre-stirrup heavy cavalry consisted of trotting up to the enemy, slamming into them with their horses, and then using spear for stabbing, or else other melee weapons. For example, Byzantine kataphraktoi - which may or may not have stirrups - were shock cavalry... which fought with maces. Cataphracts with lances were positioned on flanks and used to guard from enemy cavalry, not to engage enemy infantry. Attack on infantry was done by a mix of mace-wielding melee cataphracts, and bow-wielding cataphracts behind them. If you want details, you can read Eric McGeer - Sowing Dragon's Teeth. Byzantines often fought nomads, and it is not out of question to think that some of their cavalry tactics were adapted from nomads. Further, The Byzantine Art of War, from the same author, gives details on tactics and organization of some of Byzantium's enemies, as well as Byzantine responses to the same. This also includes nomadic groups, though he does not go into detail of particular groups.

Answer 5

Mounted infantry makes sense, as you yourself say in the question they have really existed in history and have been effective.

An important thing to consider is "Has the Stirrup been invented yet?".

Before stirrups were invented fighting from horseback was really difficult. It required you to have more-or-less grown up on horseback to master the skill. It also wasn't very good. If you wanted to hit someone with your sword you had to intentionally hit with less than your full strength, because if you hit as hard as you could you could dismount yourself from the recoil.

So cavalry "pre-stirrup" cannot hit as hard as a human on foot, and being able to do it at all is a rare skill. This is why people used chariots, they gave you the speed of a horse but a fighting platform where you could fight with the superior strength of a footsoldier. Once the stirrup turned up chariots became obsolete. With stirrups, not only can a cavalryman hit with his/her full human strength, they can use a spear or lance to hit with a horses strength!

So, in a pre-stirrup world, riding a horse to the battlefield, then fighting on foot, makes perfect good sense. This is exactly what some of the English soldiers fighting in the battle of Hastings would have done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup

Answer 6

Use wagons

Two horses per wagon means you can carry 8-10 infantry or supplies, and use them as a modern APC would. If you want to get fancy, make the wood reinforced and use the wagons as part of the tactic besides carring troops.

Answer 7

Infantry should use very small horses.

http://ferrandtriplekfarms.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-are-miniature-horses-good-for.html

Your infantry personnel will be happy they don't have to walk. But neither will they be charging into battle. Therefore the horse should be the minimum necessary to move the soldier. Economical small horses eat less chow and but are sturdy and strong. This horse is so small that it is pulling a one infantrywoman cart and is enthusiastic to do so; this is how it will be for your nomad infantry too. I will point out that a cart which can be pulled by a small horse could also be pulled by a goat or donkey, or a team of dogs, or even an ostrich. If there were not enough small horses to meet your needs you could diversify as available draft animals allow.

Considering practicalities - I am thinking the depicted cart might be uncomfortable for long trips. It would be hard to take a nap. I envision something more like a couch or loveseat on wheels. If you had a dog-pulled couch, you could be pretty sure where the dogs will be when you come back from your fighting on foot.

Answer 8

Who (what) is the enemy?

Mounted infantry is limited in the length of spear/pike they can carry. You might be able to get a Roman legion onto horses, but not a Macedon phalanx or a Swiss pike block or a Spanish Tercio. So if the mounted infantry comes up against leg infantry, it has an advantage in mobility and a disadvantage in combat power.

Mounting and dismounting takes time. So the mounted infantry could not catch other light horse, it would be hard-pressed to fight heavy horse because of the relatively short spears they can carry, and it would be problematic against heavy infantry. That leaves it as skirmishers.