Maybe the classical era too, I don’t know where the start year should be. It ends in the early modern period when bordering agriculturalists like the Russians start expanding.
In other places and times agriculturalists tend to displace nomads on arable land, probably because crop farming can support a lot more people (and therefore fighters) per area.
Any explanation needs to be valid across the whole period and rely on things the nomads had that the farmers didn’t. Horse archery was not new by this period.
You’re right that horse archery wasn’t new but the bow used by the Mongols was more advanced than it’s contemporaries. It was much smaller and allowed for better freedom of movement for the archer without sacrificing power. There are a lot of other reasons why they were able to dominate the known world the way they did and I believe John Green has a whole Crash Course episode devoted to them and explaining why they are the exception to so many historical trends which is worth checking out
It’s been a hot minute(15+ years probably) since I studied the Mongolian empire at all so anyone feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken but that was my understanding
It’s not just the Mongols, though. The Golden Horde was a thing a full century later, and even when the nomads were too busy with infighting to expand into Europe, China or Persia they kept the farmers out of their home steppe.
I’ll watch John Green, but I’m pretty skeptical of the whole bow theory for that and other reasons.
Steppe nomads were usually pretty good at logistics across a long distance. Compared to dismounted armies, this army was generally good at feeding itself and didn’t need to rely on a long supply chain as the nomads were the supply chain.
This might be part of it, but I imagine Genghis Khan’s army was often eating the same pillaged grain as Kaloyan the Romanslayer’s. It’s not like they could graze cattle while being shot at.
Compared to dismounted armies
Farmers could ride horses too. I’m sure you realise that, but that wording kind of implies they were all on foot.
I’m not talking about farmers, I’m talking about armies.
Professional armies weren’t really the norm in this period. Most soldiers would also be farmers, or herders in the nomad’s case.
The ones I can think of that were semi-professional were the knights from the farmer societies, and they were definitely able to ride horses.
Professional armies weren’t the norm, but a general had to deal with the logistics of the army they had.
Knights could ride horses, but they generally need at least two warhorses along with a support train of staff to support the knight in battle. That staff isn’t all riding on horses. You also need a supply network to supply not only the knight, but the support staff for the knight.
In contrast, a steppe army is going be a lot more mobile due to the culture and supply demands. A steppe army is going to be a lot more mobile.
See, I meant it when I said it might have been part of it. If you’re always migrating anyway army life probably was less of a departure. Sometimes that goes in a “they can live completely off the land” direction, though, which isn’t true when you have the concentration of people necessary to win a battle.
That staff isn’t all riding on horses
I’m guessing that’s true, but I imagine pack animals were heavily used for both passengers and cargo. In Roman times they relied on giant breeds of mule for this.
I should say I honestly don’t know if the “knight in shining armour” of Victorian fantasy ever saw combat that far east. But, even if it was a common style of combat, “the locals are never stupid” and would be capable of traveling light if it made sense. It would take a bit more training than it would for the nomads, is all.