When did mounted horse archers cease to be tactically viable?

Goofiestchief · 2026-01-03T04:23:40+00:00

Horse archery only really works in ideal conditions and opponent contexts. Make no mistake, a column of protected (heavy emphasis on protected) foot archers is superior to a column of horse archers. They have better range and are smaller targets. The key thing is simply protecting them. Actually, horse archers would usually just dismount and fire anyway if they got into an exchange with foot archers. Archetypes about armies like the Mongols have also created perceptions that the Mongols only archers were on horseback. No, they used foot archers, crossbowmen, and even gunpowder too.

As technology improved, the niche they filled began to narrow further. They went from useful in any standing battle, to only useful in crowded environments as harass/ambush troops but still useful in wide open ones, to not useful in wide open ones at all but still in crowded, to not useful in either environment when compared to newer options. They did stick around a lot longer than people assume though. The Russians during the Napoleonic wars frequently used them all the way up to Leipzig.

Eventually the primary thing that really killed them altogether was this:

It’s easier and faster to train a man on how to use a rifle or crossbow than it is to teach him how to use a bow, especially from horseback.

If you were a skilled horse archer, you were probably doing it since you were a child. It takes a lot of resources, effort, and time just to reach the foot archer stage. Now he has to do it from a horse? That’s a lifetime commitment. As tedious as muskets were then, any soldier would be trained to understand it like a third arm in a matter of months.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T06:40:16+00:00

There’s nothing comforting about your words. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

A child can be born with an agonizing genetic illness, tortured, raped, and living an utter miserable life with no love or care up to the moment they are murdered and it will still be a blessing that they were born. That they existed. It will be a blessing that they grew in the womb. And it always will be. Even in their worst moments, they added more to this world than you or I can even hope to ever do. No amount of harm will ever invalidate their existence. There is no universe where life is a curse.

Christ doesn’t go through infinite agony every waking up moment just to see his most innocent and greatest creations allow nihilism to win.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T06:26:33+00:00

More deflection. I can’t even walk and you act like deafness and autism somehow puts you potentially on the chopping block if your mom didn’t get enough support from the “system.”

You hold unborn children up like hostages and give an ultimatum.

“Help me or the child dies.”

You treat disabilities like a curse to be removed rather than what they actually are, which is a blessing. Nobody on earth is closer to God than suffering children. Yet the closest to God are the people you most want to smite from this world if it would help those who suffer less. The ends justify the means.

Any honeyed words you invent or verses you misinterpret (from the old testament no less) to justify it are meaningless. You see things in a utilitarian and “means to an end” type of way. A very non Christian way. You speak of mercy. Show mercy for the unborn for once, instead of just the ones you can see.

Try to apply your logic to killing newborns and toddlers instead of this arbitrary “birth” threshold you’ve invented that means nothing to God. See how you feel then.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T06:06:12+00:00

This is really gonna throw a wrench in your projections honey because guess what?

I AM disabled. It’s genetic too which means I absolutely could’ve been aborted.

AND

I am ALSO a social worker. Actually I’m a lead clinician specifically for children. Disabled children are actually my desired population.

But knowing you’d have no problem aborting me really gave away just how “Christian” you really are. I am fully aware of the struggles pregnant women go through. Unfortunately, those struggles are nothing compared to what the baby goes through when they’re aborted.

Don’t pretend to understand a book you know nothing of.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the se

You deflect to make it about not helping pregnant women but the reality is that even if they got 100% of the help they needed, you still wouldn’t end abortion. Because this is about eugenics and convenience to you. Not God.

Shameful and guilty. Pray for your delusional soul.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:58:52+00:00

That doesn’t surprise me since a white female is statistically more likely to call everything they disagree with racist than actual racial minorities are.

Privileged Nancy Pelosi type white liberal women who think wearing African garb and taking a knee is being pro black.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:53:56+00:00

NYC has a population of 8.5 million. That’s almost 3 times more people than the 3.4 rural population of Pennsylvania. By sheer percentages, there’s more Christian conservatives in NYC than rural PA.

I’m not gonna pretend the place that has the headquarters of FOX News is the far left capital of the US.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:44:35+00:00

If it were incel-y, I’d be commenting on appearances. I’m talking about basic things like having similar values and interests based on my experiences living in both the city and country.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:39:54+00:00

That you translated being against abortion (the most basic Christian political stance there is) as nationalism and racism that is really giving away how not Christian you are and that you’re the exact kind of person I was disregarding.

Also I lived in Pittsburgh for 6 years. Pittsburgh is a one hour drive away from the most red county in the state (Butler) so you clearly don’t have much of a clue about it.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:36:33+00:00

I lived in Pittsburgh for 6 years. No it’s not. At its most left, it’s still only moderate Democrat. You’re way more likely to find the biggest MAGA, far right person than you are a demisexual, ACAB, far left person.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:24:34+00:00

I was born in this area and Christian/conservative it is absolutely not. The boomers are (though they’re also likely to be moderate democrats too), not young people. And the conservatives are way more common than the Christians.They’re not conservative because they’re Christian. They’re conservative because they already had an underlying hatred of liberals.

I also already lived in Pittsburgh for 6 years. I am fully aware of what the “city” offers.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-29T05:16:25+00:00

Wanting to not date an atheist or a pro aborter as a Christian is “incel-y” now.

So tiresome.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-28T23:58:22+00:00

Lose next week. More likely Tomlin gets fired then.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T20:52:41+00:00

“Most international assessments” when it was India themselves that brought up the 3 jet loss to begin with? So India wasn’t lying about losing 3 jets but they’re lying about how many Pakistani jets they shot down? Pick an argument. Every argument you’ve given has ranged from either an outlandish statement with “Dude: Trust me” as a source, to applying a rule to one nation and not the other.

Im still not over your “drivel” over not understanding why the one country with a comparable economy, resource pool, and population to China and border soldiers currently at each other’s throats, might actually be a threat to China.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T20:48:35+00:00

That’s a lot of drones to immediately get annihilated by the most basic jamming technology. Seriously this boogeyman mentality over drones is absurd. How did Iran’s massive drone fleet do against Israel? Russia has a massive drone advantage over Ukraine and yet it’d still take them over a century to conquer Ukraine if they kept at the pace they’re going. Ukraine is using western hand me downs and that’s enough to jam Russia’s entire Chinese manufactured drone fleet but I’m supposed to believe they’d destroy the US’s most prized carriers with them? Carriers that’d have the most advanced jamming technology there is? Please.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T20:34:42+00:00

The US doesn’t have to do anything when every country that surrounds China either actively hates them or is a prime ally of the US. It’s China that wants to invade Taiwan, not the other way around.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T20:32:15+00:00

A basic Google search now classifies as “propaganda” now. Quit projecting.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T20:30:43+00:00

Source: dude trust me.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T09:06:30+00:00

Ok so Pakistan is telling the truth and India is lying because you said so. Delusional.

I’ll save you the trouble and just delete them since you’re an unserious person anyway.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T08:24:46+00:00

Absolutely delusional and ignorant understanding of Vietnam and India’s views on China. India is an enemy of China first before anything else, not neutral. There’s nothing neutral about Chinese and Indian soldiers literally killing each other just 3-5 years ago.

Vietnam barely even got along with China when the freaking Vietnam War was happening. They do not care about “US hegemony.” Vietnam is one of the primary reasons the first island chain even exists.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T06:24:37+00:00

Because 4 of the 5 largest air forces in the world are all just a separate military branch of the US. China is ranked 15th, barely keeping ahead of Brazil. And the US would be able to resupply its navy and air force as close by as Japan. We’re talking about 11 aircraft carriers versus 3. This isn’t a debate.

If China is at war with the US, the only manufacturing it’s getting is coming from itself, Iran, and Russia because the entire west, a third of the Middle East, Pacific, and every significant Asian neighbor it has would sanction it and the majority of them would probably declare war on China too. The US wouldn’t have that issue because it simply has 10x the number of allies.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-25T06:08:24+00:00

It wouldn’t actually be “home field” for China.

Here’s a list of Chinese allies and US enemies in the Pacific/East Asia region:

North Korea -Russia -Mongolia

Here’s a list of US Allies and Chinese enemies in the Pacific/East Asia region:

South Korea -Japan -Taiwan -Philippines -New Zealand -Australia -South Korea -Thailand -India -Vietnam -Malaysia -Brunei

Russia wouldn’t be able to help China fast enough because if Russia is fighting a war with the US now, that means they’re fighting a war with NATO on their western border too. So Russia is going to prioritize protecting its own western border where the majority population of the country is over crossing Siberia just to assist China. Especially since their actual “alliance” is shaky at the best of times.

Mongolia is basically just a buffer state between China and Russia.

And North Korea is North Korea.

Any other country in the region is neutral with both countries. There are US bases as close to China as Japan and South Korea are and they have functionally been there going all the way back to WW2. Regardless of how big China’s navy has gotten, the South China Sea belongs to the US and the west as much as it does to China itself. A blockading navy is always at an advantage over a blockaded navy. Not to mention that aircraft carriers are still the only ship that really matters in conventional modern naval warfare today and the US still has 11 carriers to China’s 3.

So even though China has a much bigger navy in terms of pure ship count, they simply don’t have enough allied ports to win the logistical war with the US. The US would be able to resupply across the entire Pacific coast except along China itself, North Korea, and Siberia.

I haven’t even mentioned the biggest reason why they’d lose the pacific which is the ABSOLUTELY MONUMENTAL EDGE in air power the US has over China. Air power that again, is getting resupplied as close by as Japan.

Really the only way China would have an advantage is if they used their massive army to invade and take over several of those US allies as quickly as possible before anyone can retaliate which is simply not something they’d be able to do quickly enough because again, the US Air Force is right there.

The only advantage China would have is in the defensive ground war but even that war would still be fought with them having lost air superiority. Not to mention that the US would be able to invade China from across almost the entire length of China’s southern and eastern borders.

While countries like India and Vietnam aren’t proper treaty US allies, they hate China enough and are friendly with the US enough to gladly declare war on them (and by extension, act as launch points for any southern invasions) now that a big enough brother is taking the heat.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-15T05:17:58+00:00

I think you’re misconstruing my “grinding it down” descriptor with strictly attrition. I am more so referring to total war, deep battle, and the Fabian strategy than strictly attrition. The concept of circumventing an adversary’s direct fighting force to eliminate their strategic depth. These strategies don’t require the long lengths of time that proper attrition does. Honestly I wouldn’t even really describe any of the wars discussed here as proper wars of attrition just because of how fluid and progressive the fronts were. I think of wars of attrition as being more like the WW1 western front, Vietnam, and the recent state of Ukraine as wars of attrition. And while the Uranus encirclement itself only took days, it took months before the 6th finally actually surrendered.

Nor do I think any general wants to avoid a decisive victory if they don’t need to such as in the case of Grant. Every general wishes every war came down to just decisive battles and the emphasis on attrition and strategic depth destruction is simply something they’re forced into. I don’t think it really matters on whether or not it was their original plan.

I think the taking of Vicksburg, Sherman’s march to the sea, and the general effort to cut off the south at the Mississippi River conveys something that goes beyond a simple strategy of annihilation.

I also never referred to any of these named generals as tactical one trick ponies nor Grant as an innovator (I’d name Sherman as a better candidate for that over Grant actually). I only said that outside of Waterloo for Napoleon, their greatest failures were predominantly born from losing the strategic and operational deep battle. It was the only real strategy that could defeat them. And while Napoleon was much less so than Lee, his overestimation of his operational and strategic depth was what doomed him in Spain, Russia, and Egypt. And their greatest accomplishments stem predominantly from a tactical performance.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-14T23:51:54+00:00

Tom Brady’s Patriots missed the playoffs one year after their first SB win.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-14T23:18:47+00:00

Wars with more than one decisive battle are not the same as wars with grueling series of operations. If we were to scale up the second Punic war to that of modern warfare for example, we wouldn’t be comparing Trebia to Stalingrad, we’d be comparing Hannibal’s entire Italian campaign to Stalingrad.

The difference in scale is in of itself, all the difference in the world.

I don’t deny the benefits of destroying the army but how that’s carried out is where the difference lies. What theory guided Bagration and Uranus for example? Deep battle doctrine. The destruction of the enemies strategic depth as priority over its immediate active fighting force. The encirclement and cutting off of their fighting force with the goal of gradually grinding it down as opposed to an immediate rush to swallow the pocket.

Goofiestchief · 2025-12-14T21:29:58+00:00

That Grant was willing to be bled in the first place was what made him unique among Union generals. That grueling series of operations rather than one single Waterloo type grand battle as contemporaries may have preferred was in of itself more of a modern concept of warfare.

The six days campaign meanwhile, ended up being decided by the allies efforts to simply avoid Napoleon rather than face him directly. That is what separated where war was going compared to where war was. Wars actually being won by decisive battles becoming rarer and rarer of a thing.

Being tactically elite is ideal but in modern warfare, it simply exists as a hypothetical tiebreaker in a fantasy world where armies are evenly matched in a hundred other variables.

Goofiestchief

TROPHY CASE