Search Results
7/5/2025, 9:00:19 PM
>>63943893
Russians used hammer and anvil tactics in field. Their military was hybrid. Cavalry was feudal horse archers nomads style, but infantry was arquebusers corps centrally hired and supplied by King (Tsar). (Very similar to Ottoman Empire with its Mamelukes and jannisars).
Both parts was crucial: arquebusier infantry created resilience in head on battle and horse archers had necessary speed to chase Nomads (but if they run into superior Nomads forces they could fall back to Russian camp protectted by guns).
Also big part of Russian strategy was bit and hold using fortifications. They quickly constructed forts and cities along rivers and Nomads can't do anything about them can't assault walls protected by guns, can't cut off supply by river ships.
Russian fortifications sucked ass pic related, European size artillery would level them couple days but Nomads had no such artillery.
Russians used hammer and anvil tactics in field. Their military was hybrid. Cavalry was feudal horse archers nomads style, but infantry was arquebusers corps centrally hired and supplied by King (Tsar). (Very similar to Ottoman Empire with its Mamelukes and jannisars).
Both parts was crucial: arquebusier infantry created resilience in head on battle and horse archers had necessary speed to chase Nomads (but if they run into superior Nomads forces they could fall back to Russian camp protectted by guns).
Also big part of Russian strategy was bit and hold using fortifications. They quickly constructed forts and cities along rivers and Nomads can't do anything about them can't assault walls protected by guns, can't cut off supply by river ships.
Russian fortifications sucked ass pic related, European size artillery would level them couple days but Nomads had no such artillery.
Page 1