THE INSTITUTION OF THE HORDE IN MONGOLIC & TURKIC SOCIETIES

or

What the Horde is it Anyway?

 

Much ink has been spilled about the so-called "Ordo System" of the Khitan Empire and its effect on the development of the Mongol army under Temujin Chinggis Kha'an, although I think much of it has clouded the picture of early Turkic and Mongolic military systems. I also think the modern English usage of the word "horde," which is ultimately derived from early Mongolic and Turkic languages, has nevertheless departed enough from the original usage to require explanation here as it relates to an understanding of these early Mongolic and Turkic military systems. I hope to clear the air here, or in the very least, to explain my point of view and thus illustrate how I use some terms on this website. My point of view is obviously also the basis upon which I made my decisions regarding the interpretation of the military systems of various Mongolic, Turkic, and nomadic Aryan peoples, and so I have referenced this page in several of the galleries on this website. Keep in mind that the written languages of the early Mongolic, Turkic, and Aryan peoples did not use the Roman alphabet, and so the English versions of the words I use in my discussion (as well as many other names and terms on this website) are Romanized using the Pinyin system of phonemic transcription. At the bottom of the page I have links that should take you back to your starting point, regardless of which gallery served as your portal to this page.

 

Ordo (sometimes transliterated as ordon) is a Mongolic word that means "place (or seat) of power," and among Turkic and Mongolic cultures throughout Eurasia it was generally used to denote the camp, palace, tent, or court of a chief, king, or emperor. In the Khitan language it was rendered as woluto, and in Old Turkic it was ordu. Significantly to our purposes here, Turkic and Mongolic warriors often mustered at the ordo/ordon/woluto/ordu of their prospective commander to make the oath of loyalty for an upcoming campaign, and to display themselves and their equipment for inspection by their prospective commander. Failure to impress that commander meant you would not be joining him on campaign, or that you would be relegated to some lesser duty (e.g., camp chores, infantry, etc.). Generally, warriors mustered at the seat of their own tribal chief (Mongolic, noyan or noyon, Old Turkic, bäg or beg, Khitan, mufoho). If that chief was himself answering the call-to-arms of a war-chief or king (Mongolic, khan, Old Turkic, beglerbeg, Khitan, ssu-chin), he would present himself at the seat of his superior only after his own warriors had presented themselves to him, so that he could enumerate to his king exactly what resources (men and material) he could bring to a given campaign. This same process would move up the chain of command in imperial states, with major war-chiefs or kings presenting themselves at the seat of an emperor (Xiongnu, chanyu, Old Turkic, kayan or khagan, Mongolic, kha'an, Khitan, i-chin or gürkhan). Thus, all early Turkic and Mongolic warriors should be considered to be part of an "ordo system," although for the Khitans this would most accurately be termed a "woluto system," and with the Turks it would be an "ordu system." This basic system was transmitted across the Eurasian steppe, particularly during the periods of the great steppe empires of the Turks and Mongols—beginning with the Xiongnu Chanyuate (ca. 209-53 BCE), first carried into Central Asia and the European steppes by the Turkic peoples (ca. 91-1200 CE), and ending with the Mongol Empire (ca. 1206-1368 CE) and its successor states (ca. 1225-1680 CE). Indeed, the modern English word, "horde," was introduced to the English language from Middle French (horde), which was derived from Polish (horda), which was derived from Russian (orda). The Russians, of course, learned the word the hard way, during the Mongol invasion (ca. 1223-1240 CE) and occupation (ca. 1240-1680 CE) of Russia. Although the modern English word is often used in reference to a large, violent crowd or mob, early European usage was much closer to the original Mongolic meaning (i.e., a unit or army of nomadic warriors), and this is how I use the term, "horde," throughout this website.

 

The tactical stance of the constituent hordes of most Mongolic and Turkic peoples would have been very similar, across cultures and over the span of time—from the eighth century BCE until the sixteenth century CE—equipment simply becoming ever-more refined and/or adapted to different circumstances. As my grandfather used to say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The dominant steppe nomad tribes basically fielded two types of cavalry, both of which fought primarily as horse-archers. By virtue of their better equipment, especially their ability to afford a more-extensive panoply (e.g., armor for both man and horse, as well as secondary weapons like sword, axe, and/or mace), nobles would usually lead the charge into hand-to-hand combat when/if rotational mounted archery attacks had resulted in a perceived tactical advantage (e.g., demoralized, injured, isolated, and/or broken and fleeing enemy warriors). Often (although not always), in larger armies fielded by larger states, these aristocratic units (nobles and their kinsmen, close associates, and/or retainers) would be specifically segregated into special battlefield formations—often forming up in denser, close-order groups, although Mongolic and Turkic hordes almost always operated in a more flexible manner than Aryan/Iranian and/or Mediterranean cataphracts (see below). For the typical low-intensity encounters such as raids and counter-raids, when the infliction of significant casualties was normally eschewed (the point was to capture stock and slaves) and mobility was at a premium, nobles probably continued to operate alongside common tribesmen (i.e., as well-equipped skirmishers), but for major battles there were two basic deployments: The first consisted of two distinct lines, deployed in succession (i.e., one after the other), with the mostly unarmored common tribesmen forming the front line and the armored nobles forming the rear line. The front line seems to have performed most of the initial skirmishing, with the heavy cavalry nobles supporting these attacks, sometimes with their own rotational runs and sometimes with mass volleys of long-distance archery. However, the heavy cavalry nobles were mostly held in reserve, conserving their energy and resources for an anticipated charge into hand-to-hand combat when/if a tactical advantage was perceived. In the second of these deployment schemes, there were three divisions deployed side-by-side. There were two different ways this deployment could work—either the center division consisted of the armored nobles, and the wing divisions consisted of light cavalry, or all three divisions consisted of the two-line arrangement outlined above (i.e., skirmishers in front, heavy cavalry behind). In the first of these options, all three divisions would make rotational attacks until an advantage had been achieved, and when/if it had, the nearest units would move in for close-combat. The second of these options was often used in coalition armies, with the center division consisting of the hordes of the leading tribe or state, and the wing divisions consisting of allied hordes. Each division would operate in a semi-independent manner, but following the same general principles outlined above.

 

So far, I've used a couple of terms that I think bear closer discussion—skirmishing and rotational attacks. Typically in pre-modern warfare, skirmishers were lightly equipped cavalry or infantry that used ranged weapons (bows, crossbows, slings, javelins, etc.) to probe and harass enemy formations, for reconnaissance, and/or for screening the deployment of the main battle units of the army. Skirmishers were usually not prepared for sustained close combat (i.e., hand-to-hand fighting), and if such was offered, they usually ran away (i.e., made a tactical retreat). The idea was to wear down an opponent through frustration and injuries, in the hopes you could make him do something stupid. In the case of horse archers, this usually meant charging at an enemy formation, shooting arrows at them as you charged, then swerving away before you made contact, and turning partway around in your seat as your horse rode away, so that you could shoot more arrows at the enemy as you retreated. By staying on the move, you made yourself a difficult target. Because of the greater mobility that horses provided, horse archers could make multiple such hit-and-fade attacks (i.e., rotational attacks), removing themselves from the immediate vicinity of their enemies between each attack. Often, nomad armies established staging areas far from the front lines to which warriors could retreat when they ran out of arrows and/or they and/or their horses were tired (blown is the term usually used for tired-out cavalry horses). Many warriors had remounts (i.e., extra horses) that could be kept in these rear staging areas, and in addition to a resupply of arrows, water, and other equipment, a cavalry trooper could change out a blown horse for a fresh one. If a cavalryman had an armored horse (only kings and emperors could afford to have more than one armored horse), he would not normally use it for rotational attacks because the horse would be slower and become exhausted more easily. Such warriors compensated for this by having additional unarmored mounts—a further expression of their wealth, as well as a practical matter—and they would use their unarmored mounts to make rotational attacks, and then switch to their armored horse when they believed the opportunity for a charge into close combat was imminent. I have always thought a useful analogy for steppe nomad cavalry warfare is aircraft carrier combat during WWII, with the resting, resupplying, and remounting areas acting like the carriers, and the cavalry acting like the aircraft. You can extend the analogy further, by comparing the light cavalry to fighters and the heavy cavalry to dive-bombers or torpedo bombers. Indeed, although the great Eurasian steppes often look like a flat, featureless expanse to outsiders, in most places they actually consist of gently rolling hills, draws, and sharply-cut arroyos, and steppe nomad cultures were adept at using these features to hide their staging areas and camps, as well as to confuse an enemy by making oblique attacks and retreats that made it difficult to pin-point the location of these areas.

 

I should also point out that, despite the fact that cavalry was undoubtedly the prestige arm of steppe nomad hordes, and despite the fact that cavalry made up the bulk of most hordes, almost every steppe nomad society could also field infantry. These were drawn from either the poorest members of a tribe or, in the case of larger groups, from minor tribes of subjects or allies—some of these would have been semi-nomadic tribes of forested regions and/or hill country whose members herded goats, sheep, and/or kine (i.e., cattle), while others would have been agro-pastoralist farmers, fisherfolk, and/or those engaged in sedentary animal husbandry (swine, chickens, goats, sheep). These people generally provided the only infantry available north of the Chinese frontier in East Asia, north of the city-states of the Silk Road in Central Asia, and north of Caucasia and the Balkans in Europe (and west of the Carpathians). As one would expect, these infantrymen were, like their mounted counterparts, mostly bowmen and mostly operated like skirmishers, although even minor tribes would have had their own elites, and sometimes these were more-extensively equipped infantry with armor, shields, spears, javelins/darts, swords, and/or axes. Nevertheless, infantry were considered part of a horde, and they mustered at the seat of their chief (and he at the seat of his overlord) the same as the cavalry, and it was the chief that decided whether he wanted to utilize their particular tactical skills on a given campaign. Infantry were, however, difficult to fit into the battle scheme of most steppe nomads, so they were most often used to defend home territories, especially when an invading force needed to pass through areas with rough terrain, when the particular skills of these minor tribes were most useful (i.e., men accustomed to fighting on foot in situations where horses were a liability rather than an asset). They were also used to guard the baggage and camps on longer campaigns, as well as to guard the staging areas on a battlefield.

The tendency of the nobles to set themselves apart by virtue of their extensive panoply, "heroic" warrior ethos, and distinct tactical function tended to become more formalized over time, but I do not think it is appropriate to refer to them as "cataphracts." In my opinion, the term "cataphract" is too-often used indiscriminately, in reference to all heavy cavalry (i.e., armored cavalry). However, I think it is important to distinguish between the combat system of the composite cavalryman, as it took shape across the Eurasian steppes (ca. 900 BCE-1500 CE) amongst the Aryan, Mongolic, and Turkic steppe nomads that later influenced the development of heavy cavalry traditions in China, Korea, and Persia; the development of dedicated heavy cavalry lancers amongst the later Aryan peoples of the Kazakh and Pontic-Caspian steppes (ca. 300 BCE-1239 CE) that later influenced the development of heavy cavalry traditions in Europe; and the development of cataphract heavy cavalry (ca. 300 BCE-500 CE) across a broad swathe of southern Central Asia (Chorasmia/Khwarezmia, Sogdia/Transoxania, Khorasan/Chorasan, and Tokharia/Tarim Basin) that later influenced the heavy cavalry traditions of the Caucasus, Mesopotamia, Syria, Arabia, the Mediterranean, and Tibet. I've basically already discussed the development of composite heavy cavalry in this essay (and briefly discussed horse archers in general), so I will merely summarize by saying that I favor the interpretation that defines composite heavy cavalry as armored horse archers, and this is how I use the term throughout this website. For a discussion of the dedicated heavy cavalry lancer and the cataphract, I would point you to the link below that leads to my essay on the classification of heavy cavalry in the ancient/Medieval world.