Battle of the Horse Lords.

[Symmetry]

This is from Wikipedia:

* Mongols based their forces almost wholly on light cavalry. Light cavalry consists of primarily archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and numerous, light cavalry can choose its battles, retreating from forces it cannot handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacks archers (who can kill at range) and is designed mainly to provide shock - using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement (no one wants to be trampled to death) to break enemy heavy infantry lines.

Thus, when light cavalry meets heavy cavalry, the lighter, more numerous, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry will usually defeat mounted knights - the cream of European military power.

* Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting his vision and movement). Mongols used silken clothes. The silk cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater ranges of movement, better vision and endurance. It still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.

I'd call the Rohirim more medium cavalry than heavy cavalry by this definition. They had lighter lances, they wore much lighter armor, and their horses were lighter and faster than a knights. The rohirim also used archers to shoot the Oliphants, though most didn't seem to have bows, or at least most in the front rank.

[Symmetry]

Except that the Rohirrim do not match the description of the European heavy cavalry. They weild bows, and use the Byzantine style of lance, rather than the English one.

They seem to me to bee closer to Byzantine cataphracts- elite heavy cavalry, trained to combine horseback archery and devastating charges.

The cataphracts are what I would compare the Rohirim to, but I recall that cataphracts had more bows than the Rohan soldiers did. Also, the cataphracts were quite effective at protecting the Byzantines against light cavalry threats, but they couldn't catch the light cavalry if it wanted to run away.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Actually the Rohan are historically Vikings who traveled inland. THeir Capharacts are Huns

[Pablo Sanchez]

Actually the Rohan are historically Vikings who traveled inland.

Rus.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Exactly, they were originally sea farers and very Viking like, but then there was that big event in the First age when they tried to sail to the Elven "True East" and bad things happened....

[Peregrin Toker]

This is from Wikipedia:

* Mongols based their forces almost wholly on light cavalry. Light cavalry consists of primarily archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and numerous, light cavalry can choose its battles, retreating from forces it cannot handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacks archers (who can kill at range) and is designed mainly to provide shock - using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement (no one wants to be trampled to death) to break enemy heavy infantry lines.

Thus, when light cavalry meets heavy cavalry, the lighter, more numerous, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry will usually defeat mounted knights - the cream of European military power.

* Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting his vision and movement). Mongols used silken clothes. The silk cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater ranges of movement, better vision and endurance. It still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.

Okay, the book which told me that the Mongols had heavy cavalry is Knights by Stewart Ross, published 1994, page 20-21.

It says that:

The light cavalry was armed with bows and swords or knives and didn't have other protection than a helmet. Their heavy cavalry wore armour like European knights, and were armed with lances.

Emphasis mine. The illustration shows two Mongol archers on horsehack and one on a barded horse, wearing armour similar to that of Japanese samurai.

(It's not getting the Mongols and Japanese mixed up - as the book also has a section on the samurai)[/quote]

[Darth Gojira]

This is from Wikipedia:

* Mongols based their forces almost wholly on light cavalry. Light cavalry consists of primarily archers and light swordsman mounted on horseback. Mobile and numerous, light cavalry can choose its battles, retreating from forces it cannot handle, such as heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry lacks archers (who can kill at range) and is designed mainly to provide shock - using weight, speed, and fear of their massed movement (no one wants to be trampled to death) to break enemy heavy infantry lines.

Thus, when light cavalry meets heavy cavalry, the lighter, more numerous, faster moving, bow using, well-articulated light cavalry will usually defeat mounted knights - the cream of European military power.

* Their conception of armor was markedly different. European knights used heavy plate armour (sheets of loops of chain and pieces of metal plate to protect the wearer, restricting his vision and movement). Mongols used silken clothes. The silk cloth allowed Mongol warriors greater ranges of movement, better vision and endurance. It still provided resistance to projectile weapons. It thus gave them a qualitative advantage over their opponents.

Okay, the book which told me that the Mongols had heavy cavalry is Knights by Stewart Ross, published 1994, page 20-21.

It says that:

The light cavalry was armed with bows and swords or knives and didn't have other protection than a helmet. Their heavy cavalry wore armour like European knights, and were armed with lances.

Emphasis mine. The illustration shows two Mongol archers on horsehack and one on a barded horse, wearing armour similar to that of Japanese samurai.

(It's not getting the Mongols and Japanese mixed up - as the book also has a section on the samurai)

I remember reading a basic book on the Mongols, and saw a similar illustration, in the Kublai section. I also read how a camel-mounted drummer kept pace, and supervised the attack speed of the heavy cavalry.

[HemlockGrey]

Well, the Dothraki are basically Mongols; I recall reading about extremely powerful composite bows and very swift horses. If they simply dance around the Rohirrim and shoot them full of arrows they should be able to deplete their numbers sufficiently to break their charge.

[Morat]

The rohirim also used archers to shoot the Oliphants, though most didn't seem to have bows, or at least most in the front rank.

If we go by the movies, we also see a small detachment or Rohirrim (led by Eomer) using horse archery to take down the band of Uruk-Hai that had Merry and Pippin.

[Crazedwraith]

Well, the Dothraki are basically Mongols; I recall reading about extremely powerful composite bows and very swift horses. If they simply dance around the Rohirrim and shoot them full of arrows they should be able to deplete their numbers sufficiently to break their charge.

Theres no doubt that they could do that but if they would do that. IMHO thye seem the klingon type who'd just drop their bows and charge in screaming.

[HemlockGrey]

Theres no doubt that they could do that but if they would do that. IMHO thye seem the klingon type who'd just drop their bows and charge in screaming.

I don't seem to recall anything like that. Could you maybe cite something?

[Stormbringer]

Well, the Dothraki are basically Mongols; I recall reading about extremely powerful composite bows and very swift horses. If they simply dance around the Rohirrim and shoot them full of arrows they should be able to deplete their numbers sufficiently to break their charge.

But do these Dothraki guys actually have those composite bows? From what I've seen it seems they have a pretty average wooden bow. And the Rohirrim are likely to have horses just as good as these Dothraki, maybe better.

[Pablo Sanchez]

But do these Dothraki guys actually have those composite bows? From what I've seen it seems they have a pretty average wooden bow. And the Rohirrim are likely to have horses just as good as these Dothraki, maybe better.

If the Dothraki follow traditional steppe horseman form, they'll be riding steppe horses. Those are smaller than the horses that the Rohirrim ride and carry less weight, but they are often faster and have greater endurance (and can survive on grazing alone, whereas 'civilized' horses needed grain to supplement the grazing). Even if the Rohan horses were as fast as the Dothraki, the Rohirrim are carrying probably more than a hundred pounds of extra weight (bigger rider, armor, more weapons, possible barding).

I don't think the Dothraki will be able to match Mongol performance, because they are using wooden shortbows and don't seem to have the same command and control structure as the Mongols, who were the best organized army of medieval times and had the best cavalry generals in history. The reason that the Mongols were able to inflict defeats upon more numerous and better-equipped enemies was because they were so much more organized than their rivals.

[Symmetry]

But do these Dothraki guys actually have those composite bows? From what I've seen it seems they have a pretty average wooden bow. And the Rohirrim are likely to have horses just as good as these Dothraki, maybe better.

If the Dothraki follow traditional steppe horseman form, they'll be riding steppe horses. Those are smaller than the horses that the Rohirrim ride and carry less weight, but they are often faster and have greater endurance (and can survive on grazing alone, whereas 'civilized' horses needed grain to supplement the grazing). Even if the Rohan horses were as fast as the Dothraki, the Rohirrim are carrying probably more than a hundred pounds of extra weight (bigger rider, armor, more weapons, possible barding).

I don't think anybody is going to argue that the Dothraki don't have greater strategic mobility, but theirs a big difference between that and the tactical mobility needed to close with archers. The more muscular Rohirrim horses might very well be faster over the short (~3km) distances needed to run down archers trying for a hit and run, but much slower over the sort of distances they'd need to cross in a campaign (~300km). Overall, I'd say the Dthraki have better mobility, but the scenario completly discounts the strategic, so I'm not sure we can say which is faster.

[Vympel]

The Rohirrim are not to be equated with Kataphraktoi- there's nothing in the books, and certainly nothing in the films, that describes the Rohhirm as being remotely as heavily armored as your average Byzantine Kataphrakt- run an internet search, and see how heavily their horses were protected to dispel that notion. To stretch the analogy somewhat (and for those who have played Medieval Total War hehehe), Allagion perhaps, their horses and riders weren't as massively armored.



Definitely not a Rider of Rohan.