Questions about steppe cultures

**WindGuru** · February 05, 2015, 01:18 PM

Hi everyone

I'm doing research at the moment for my first fantasy novel, dealing with the troubles a large empire faces in dealing with nomadic warriors on its borders. For the nomads I've mostly been inspired by the Sarmatians/Sakas. I've done a good bit of independent reading already, but I'm interested in having some specific questions answered.

1) Historically, what was the best season to campaign in? Summer might seem more obvious, but settled communities might not be expecting trouble in the winter.

2) How were nomads able to get scale/lamellar armour for their warriors and horses? I've seen references to travelling armouries and a lot of trading with settled neighbours, but are there any references in history to how nomadic horsemen got their tools?

**Caligula's_Horse** · February 05, 2015, 02:05 PM

Seasonally speaking, steppe nomads had a much easier time fighting year round then their civilized opponents, for several reasons.
Most historical civilized armies relied on conscripting/levying large numbers of commoners (which may or may not have been part of a militia in peacetime), and with some 90% or more of pre-industrial commoners being farmers, recruiting too many of them during planting or harvesting season may well lead to a famine. Steppe nomads, relying on herding for their dietary needs, could fight year round with much greater ease. As a side effect, steppe nomads always had smaller relative population sizes, and a completely disproportionate number of horses available.
The Eurasian steppe is also a great deal colder then many of the places the nomads raided, meaning they tended to operate better at winter warfare then anyone else. The Mongols, for example, were actually known to fight through the winter, and retreat during the hot season (largely to avoid disease), pretty much the opposite of what was common in the civilized world.
Probably worth noting that a sustained military campaign like the Mongols pulled was the exception rather then the rule before Genghis Khan came along; tribal societies tend to bicker among themselves to sustain military organization for long (or at all), which Genghis Khan got around by uprooting the entire tribal structure. Before the Mongols, on/off raiding and trading was the norm, with proper invasions only occurring when there emerged a steppe warlord dominant enough to gather multiple tribes under one banner, with such coalitions usually being shaky affairs of questionable military organization (think right hand vs. left hand) that fell apart the moment the warlord died or fell from grace.

As for armor, it was less common then you'd think. Armor is expensive, especially the metal variety, beyond the reach of your common nomad. Richers sections of the populace would often armor both themselves and their horses, though not very heavily--with the primary means of warfare being horse archery, speed was just as important as protection. Where multiple horses per rider were common place, the horse may be armored only minimally or not at all even if the rider is fully kitted, as the horse can be replaced mid battle if injured. Lancers would usually kit themselves with heavier armor (and heavier horses, usually only the one per man), but again, the majority of horsemen would serve as mounted cavalry.
In terms of the material of choice, silk was popular in the east (where it was cheaper). It won't do much against a sword or spear, but stops arrows remarkably well due to the arrow's spin causing the silk to wrap around its head; its a no brainer for a horse archer looking to skimp on weight and whose primary concern is enemy arrow fire. Wealthier men would rely on scale or mail (often with silk underneath it), though with the exception of lancers, being lightly armored was the norm.

As a final note, any lamellar or leather construction would only be used by those too poor to afford metal. In terms of weight per protection, they've got nothing even on bronze, never mind steel.
On the other hand, as metal was as already mentioned beyond the reach of your average nomad, leather (in form of either scales or something more solid), lamellar or even linen were the norm, not metallic armor. You get the opposite impression in your average archeological dig, though, due to metal preserving much better.

**Chernish** · February 05, 2015, 02:37 PM

Caligula, do not talk nonsense. Nomads attacked the sedentary neighbors in autumn after harvest. Sedentary people made marches the steppe in the spring, when the nomads horses were weak. We Russian 1000 years doing this, and we know what we say

**conon394** · February 05, 2015, 02:49 PM

You might also consider even the highly organized forces of Genghis were slowed by their sheep unless you are talking about a very narrowly defined raid. Also of course all those horses need to eat and drink. Which is why the Mamluks won at Ain Jalut, and after because steppe warfare collapses rather quickly when you cannot feed and water the 4 -9 horses every man needs to make it fearsome.

**Caligula's_Horse** · February 05, 2015, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chernish

Caligula, do not talk nonsense. Nomads attacked the sedentary neighbors in autumn after harvest. Sedentary people made marches the steppe in the spring, when the nomads horses were weak. We Russian 1000 years doing this, and we know what we say

I can understand raiding after the harvest (as that's when the grain stores you want to loot are full), but why on earth would anyone march into the steppe?
The nomads have no cities to defend and the entire steppe to maneuver, and their civilians move faster then a civilized army, allowing them to simply give ground endlessly, savage supply lines, and choose exactly when and where to fight their battles, meaning they'd almost always eventually win unless their leader was a complete moron. They'd even stop their usual tribal in-fighting to unite against a foreign invader. Alexander himself knew he couldn't conquer the steppe; its impossible with an army containing any major infantry component.

Massing forces along the border ready to react to incursions is one thing; counterattacking an impossible objective is quite another.
Unless the marches you're talking about involve nothing but cavalry elements conducting preemptive raids to disrupt the nomad presence along the border. Not sure I'd call that marching though. And since cavalry elements of civilized armies tend to be either professional soldiers or landed nobility whose presence isn't necessary for seasonal farming, they tended to be able to operate year round anyway (though they still often wouldn't).

**conon394** · February 05, 2015, 04:08 PM

I can understand raiding after the harvest (as that's when the grain stores you want to loot are full), but why on earth would anyone march into the steppe?

Kill the sheep. As I said with Mongols, all that fearsome mobility require a lot of horses and you can bet slaves, sheep and women did not have 7 remounts.

**Cyclops** · February 05, 2015, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by WindGuru

1) Historically, what was the best season to campaign in? Summer might seem more obvious, but settled communities might not be expecting trouble in the winter.

I think nomads required fodder for their mounts, which is available from the middle of spring through to autumn. IIRC Genghis Khan seems to have followed the usual practice of marshalling forces in spring, campaigning through summer and autumn and then choosing suitable spot to winter (with a few notable exceptions). The Avars and Magyars tribes typically began raiding from the Hungarian plain into western Europe each spring (until they were subdued by Big Karl and Otto respectively).

This is the rhythm of warfare across most of the ancient world, and indeed until the 18th century. Warmer climates might allow variations, but only very brilliantly lead and well organised steppe forces would be able to campaign in winter (eg when the Mongols took Kiev in December 1240).

Originally Posted by WindGuru

2) How were nomads able to get scale/lamellar armour for their warriors and horses? I've seen references to travelling armouries and a lot of trading with settled neighbours, but are there any references in history to how nomadic horsemen got their tools?

Most of the steppe cultures included settled as well as nomad tribes. This is true of the Bedouin as well as mongols, Skythians etc. These more settled groups provided the skills and services nomad clans could not provide for themselves (eg mining, extensive metalworking as well as agriculture).

IIRC there are records of Skythian "nobles" acculturating to Hellenic identity while resident in Greek Black Sea colonies, participating in Hellenic culture and language (and presumably with access to Hellenic trade). Steppe nomads were not aliens who appeared on the horizon bent on destruction, at least not all the time. Steppe people engaged with adjacent cultures like all human societies do.

Steppe peoples actively engaged in far-ranging trade as attested by the Polo families adventures under the protection of the Great Khan.

**G-Megas-Doux** · February 05, 2015, 08:43 PM

Nomad armour could easily have been leather lamellar or laminar as leather was easy to get hold of for them. Metal could be traded for but unless they had a traveling forge they are more likely to have traded for a completed piece of armour or raided an enemy and fixed it. The nomads did trade if there was something they wanted and they also accepted tribute either in kind or in precious metals they could trade with.

**NikeBG** · February 06, 2015, 03:26 AM

Besides leather, horn/bone lamellae were occasionally used as well, IIRC.

**ArmoredCore** · February 06, 2015, 08:17 AM

Like someone else said the seasons they campaigned in largely depended on their leadership. However, they were not limited by their environment as they inhabited harsh environments 24x7. The fact that they lived a nomadic lifestyle was largely a development for survival in such harsh environments. So weather was not as much of a factor in determining when to attack, unless it had a strategic advantage.

As for armor, you are talking about multiple different ethnic groups and cultures spanning a vast area from modern Kazakhstan in the West, Siberia in the North and China in the West. There were many different ethnic groups and cultures within those regions who had distinct styles of dress, armor and adornment. As part of their survival strategy for living in harsh climates they made use of everything available including cloth, silk, fur, wool and leather along with metal armor in some places, most notably among the Kipchaks, Cumans and Saka. Therefore among these groups you had different types of armor developed in different areas at different times. And remember as well that much of these developments of armor and horse warfare were the basis of later patterns of horse warfare elsewhere. For example, the Saka or Scythians were well known to have worn lamellar armor which was influential on the development of the Persian Cataphract. And similar traditions also existed in other areas and in China as well, as seen in the terracotta army. Likewise, among those groups who inhabited colder environments, they would have worn layers of heavy cloth armor, including fur and leather. In the eastern areas nomadic mongols influenced and were influenced by a lot of the armor traditions of China and Persia, including various forms of lamellar, scale, chain mail, metal and leather armor. And these groups inhabited areas along the silk road which meant they were part of the trading system and exchanges of ideas among various kingdoms and cultures between the Eastern and Western boundaries of the Steppe areas. This played a key role in the transmission of cataphract traditions between eastern and western regions. Likewise, the Yuan Dynasty was established by the Mongols after they conquered the Song Dynasty. So it isn't a simple case of a 'single culture' with a single set of traditions. You are speaking of multiple cultures and subcultures, traditions and styles over time and space.

A lot of times the West speaks of the Mongols or the Turks as a whole but in reality they are only talking of those they encountered during the Crusades. That was only a small part of the overall mongol empire, which actually fragmented and became a bunch of smaller competing factions after the death of Genghis Khan. The western factions eventually adopted Islam and became identified by more familiar names like the Uzbeks, Ilkanids, Savafids, Kipchaks, Golden horde and Mughals. Separately the Oghuz Turks who also spread into the Levant also fragmented into the various Turkic dynasties like the Seljuks and later the Ottomans, who had significant encounters with Western forces.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: