Two Handed Lances - Any Rationale?

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I have been recently delving into Medieval and Renaissance cavalry tactics and armament, and for all things I have noticed that nooone after a certain point in history retained the use of two handed lances on horseback. All examples we have, or at least we seem to have, after about halfway through the Medieval period on the whole world is the dominance of the one handed, couched lance technique over the EB'ish Parthian Cataphract method. Even the late Byzantine Kataphraktoi employed the kontos one handed, and everything we know seems to suggest that a one handed lance is as devastating in the impact as a supposed two handed combo would be without needlessly encumbering the cavalryman. All subsequent development points in this direction and not on the use of two handed lances, to increase length and penetrative power.

So what's exactly the rationale behind a two handed lance...?

[Gabeed]

My guess right off the bat would be pre-stirrup warfare (without stirrups, using a lance two handed would guarantee a steadier charge, maybe?), but the best answer probably is that the end of the two handed lance was due to a countless myriad of factors.

[Nachtmeister]

I'm no expert, but I'll post a theory anyway:
The medieval heavy charge-lance was employed in combination with stirrups, giving the rider a much firmer hold on the saddle, and thus enabling him to actually pull off what amounts to a "bulldozing" charge attack.
The mounted warriors of antiquity portrayed in EB do not have stirrups; thus, they could not just "ram" enemy formations (without getting knocked off their horses according to the universal third law of motion). Instead, they closed rapidly, halted, and stabbed.
This is easier/less dangerous for the rider if he has a longer stick than his opponent, regardless of whether he is fighting another cavalry unit or infantry.
If fighting infantry, he would take one opponent down, then retreat as the enemy closed to bring his own (shorter) weapons to bear.
Rinse and repeat.

When you are not aiming to stab once, then get out of there and attack again but rather want to "run them through",
-bringing a shield along is a very good idea / you need one hand for it
-after the first attack your lance will be useless as it is stuck in someone's ribcage
-thus having the shield which serves you even after the initial clash outweighs the advantage of dealing the initial attack at greater distance (which makes a difference of not even a second at full gallop)
-after first clash you will need a slashing weapon to efficiently kill further enemies and deflect incoming blows anyway
-a two-handed spear is difficult to discard on time (before the force transmitted back at you along it's direction of entry into the enemy and knocks you back); otherwise it might have even been feasible for the medieval type of cavalry charge.

So, basically a two-handed spear confers range advantage and this has priority when closing to "barely within range" and retreating repeatedly.

A one-handed, preferrably heavy, couched lance confers advantages for sheer force exercised/impaling enemies but cannot be retrieved once it hits something because it burrows deep into the target and is thus "stuck"; when this happens it is easier to release quickly enough to evade getting adversely affected by "recoil".
This also shortens the time needed to "switch" weapons.

[Watchman]

Cataphracts don't do hit-and-run. Period.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Cataphracts don't do hit-and-run. Period.

Once they have hit there is no reason to run away because there is no enemy alive anymore..

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Cataphracts don't do hit-and-run. Period.
Apparently it's all about conflicting info. I agree that a Cataphract was too heavy for a hit-and-run, and also that somehow, the use of the full charge was possible without the stirrup. However I also tend to agree that charging without a stirrup and a saddle requires probably a different technique than with them. I expect more opinions on this, particularly on what lead the adoption of two-handed lances in the first place (beyond, if anything, reach).

[Watchman]

The usual one, AFAIK - two hands gives way more control, especially on a big and clumsy weapon. Which in turn allows for a heavier "flagpole" to be handled, which in turn means the thing withstands more abuse without breaking which ought to be quite useful when "jousting" full tilt with other dudes in heavy armour. For the sake of comparision, the lighter one-handed Macedonian xyston was apparently quite prone to splintering at the charge; I don't remember seeing too many references to the kontos having suffered the same problem.

Moreover, two hands ought to allow for much more "lance-fencing" with the damn thing if need be; one useful possibility that occurs to me is using the shaft to deflect the other guy's long pointy thing before impact, so that hopefully *he* gets run through and *you* don't... (for the sake of comparision, Renaissance fighting manuals taught techniques like that for the even longer and more cumbersome infantry pike so it should be doable enough.)

[The_Mark]

The mounted warriors of antiquity portrayed in EB do not have stirrups; thus, they could not just "ram" enemy formations (without getting knocked off their horses according to the universal third law of motion).
Wrong. The stirrups do nothing to stop a charging lancer being thrown off his horse, as the force of the impact affects the lancer backwards and up, while the force exerted by the stirrups is completely upwards - it does nothing to resist the impact.

[Nachtmeister]

Wrong. The stirrups do nothing to stop a charging lancer being thrown off his horse, as the force of the impact affects the lancer backwards and up, while the force exerted by the stirrups is completely upwards - it does nothing to resist the impact.

Did you ever *use* stirrups yourself, in person, on the back of a moving horse?
I did, once, roughly ten years ago.
I'd say it very much depends on how you angle the stirrups / ankle joint position. They very much help you not to get shifted back, forwards, or sideways. The "up only" is true if and only if you are *standing* on them rigidly and the horse is perfectly stationary and you are in a perfect vertical position like a stone column...


No, not even then - compare with forces along the beams of an angled roof (vertical triangle):
They will afford you considerable left-right stabilization at all times.



Regardless, Parthians iirc had no stirrups (at least not in 272 BC, right?)...
Here we have another reason for using a heavier, two-handed lance:
It will have some momentum of it's own (accelerated relatively slowly by going into a gallop), so the rider will have to transfer less "push" force onto it for the charge - and thus it will exert less "recoil" force back on the rider. The heavier the lance, the better to use in a charge when the rider is sitting on the horse unsupported.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

@Watchman,

If splintering was such a big problem, then why Byzantine Cataphracts wielded the kontos one handed, instead of the traditional two handed combo? Did splintering become any less of a problem, is that representative of a change in tactics, etc...? It should also be noticed that very much every lance wielded by Medieval heavy cavalry was quite bulky, long and heavy (the conical knightly lances come to mind), but yet one-handed.

Also, on lance fencing, I dunno but that was quite perfectly possible with a one-handed lance or a shield all by themselves...

@Nachtmeister, I find your explanation interesting. I admit I am at best a complete amateur in physics but I can think of it as being a necessary technique prior to the advent of stabilizing factors such as the stirrup and the saddle, in case the cavalrymen sought to maximize charging power.

[The_Mark]

Did you ever *use* stirrups yourself, in person, on the back of a moving horse?
I did, once, roughly ten years ago.
I'd say it very much depends on how you angle the stirrups / ankle joint position.
No, I haven't; going completely with a priori here. Nevertheless, I have hard time imagining stirrups assisting in any lance impacts unless the rider can lean forwards enough to lock his feet against the stirrups.* Otherwise they won't be much of assistance, being quite far from the line of the impact force.

*Admittedly, that could work, provided that the impact doesn't have too a large vertical component that'd lift the rider off his saddle (which, I understand, was quite instrumental in absorbing the force - horned saddles being something of an example), which, in turn, would push the rider more off from the stirrups...

How far forward can you lean on/out of a saddle, armed and armored? If the stirrups support leaning that far forward, are they of any use otherwise?


They very much help you not to get shifted back, forwards, or sideways. The "up only" is true if and only if you are *standing* on them rigidly and the horse is perfectly stationary and you are in a perfect vertical position like a stone column..


No, not even then - compare with forces along the beams of an angled roof (vertical triangle):
They will afford you considerable left-right stabilization at all times.

True, although irrelevant considering the lance impact. Stabilize, yes, considerably, but brace for impact?


[EDIT2]
Sounds very plausible.

[MeinPanzer]

For the sake of comparision, the lighter one-handed Macedonian xyston was apparently quite prone to splintering at the charge; I don't remember seeing too many references to the kontos having suffered the same problem.

On the contrary, the Romans changed their old, flimsier lances for xusta, because, as Polybius states, "the shaft from the nature of its construction was steady and not quivering" (6.25.9). As for kontoi, I don't think we have any literary evidence referring to their construction or their durability in combat.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

But we do have modern tests, don't we?

[Nachtmeister]

No, I haven't; going completely with a priori here. Nevertheless, I have hard time imagining stirrups assisting in any lance impacts unless the rider can lean forwards enough to lock his feet against the stirrups.* [...]
*Admittedly, that could work, provided that the impact doesn't have too a large vertical component that'd lift the rider off his saddle (which, I understand, was quite instrumental in absorbing the force - horned saddles being something of an example), which, in turn, would push the rider more off from the stirrups...
[...]
How far forward can you lean on/out of a saddle, armed and armored? If the stirrups support leaning that far forward, are they of any use otherwise?
[...]
True, although irrelevant considering the lance impact. Stabilize, yes, considerably, but brace for impact?

1) Precisely what I meant by "angling ankle joint appropriately" (sorry for my clumsy choice of words)
1.2) I don't know much about horned saddles but I wonder how they should force the rider up or down

2) You can lean forward all the way on to the horse's neck - which will support you just fine. If it is strong enough to gallop with you, your balls, your kontos and your armour and it's own balls and armour on it, then it will not snap it's neck when you lean on it. Nisaean mount for the win.
This in itself has nothing to do with stirrups.

3) Stabilize and brace are the same here - you must bring up a greater force to topple a diagonal beam leaning towards you than you need to topple a perfectly vertical column of the same size and weight. Much greater.
For the vertical column, you must only overcome it's inertia.
For the diagonal one, you must overcome it's inertia plus part of it's weight. If it is also planted in the ground, you are in trouble... Which is effectively what the stirrup does until the rider's ankle breaks if he has locked his foot into the stirrup.
Breaking his ankle will be difficult as force is dissipated because he is practically not a rigid body; he can "dampen" the impact by slightly giving way in his upper joints (if we're talking about his own lance's effect on him when hitting a target / "recoil", that would be the wrists, elbows, shoulders, spine, hips).


@Nachtmeister, I find your explanation interesting. I admit I am at best a complete amateur in physics but I can think of it as being a necessary technique prior to the advent of stabilizing factors such as the stirrup and the saddle, in case the cavalrymen sought to maximize charging power.

Here's an over-exaggerated image to visualize the profound difference a lance's weight will make (1)
and a free-body-diagram of the lance (Kontos) at the moment you hit a target with it (2):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/picture.php?albumid=162&pictureid=1512

Based on Newton's third law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion):
The force with which the rider "pushes" his lance against an enemy acts directly back at him.
This is what I refer to as "recoil".
If he penetrates the enemy with it, the "recoil" will not act back in one instant but gradually over time at the same rate with which the lance is slowed down.
In the same way, the lance gradually pushes him backwards as his horse accelerates into a gallop for the charge (of course accelerating into a gallop is much more gradual than the lance stopping when it impales an enemy).
Once he has accelerated to a gallop, his lance will be "charged" with momentum - movement energy - proportional to it's own weight. The heavier the lance, the more power it stores when it reaches constant speed.
1) Assuming they both let go of their lances at the moment of impact, which rider will achieve "deeper target penetration" - the red rider or the blue one? The red guy's lance is a bit over-exaggerated of course, but as "Kontos" is supposed to mean something like "barge-pole", I thought it serves well to illustrate the point here: The red rider does not need to "push" at all to achieve the same result the blue rider will achieve if he "pushes" really hard because his lance has less momentum.
As they are charging frontally, the speed with which they hit each other is the same for both.

(Impact force)=(speed)x[(mass of lance)+(strength of rider's push on the lance)]

If you increase (mass of lance), you need less (strength of push) to achieve the same resulting (impact force) or "penetration power".

2) The above "equation" in action, assuming the lance is a rigid body (doesn't deform at all on impact and is un-breakable); note that A) has a lower magnitude than B) because
A) is only the rider's ("push") whereas
B) is (push)+(mass of lance). They are both affected proportionally by (speed).
However, it is only applicable for the "impulse" dealt to the target. Should the lance be stopped by the target, the force in A) would become

(speed of rider)x[(mass of lance)+(push)+(velocity of target)]:skull:
which is why I think it would have been a good idea to let go of the lance after first impact...
(Velocity of target)=[(speed)x(mass of enemy horse)+(mass of enemy rider)]...
However, even here, a bigger lance would be helpful as it has a stronger effect on (velocity of target) and might knock the enemy rider off his horse, giving you much better odds by cancelling the horse out of the equation...

The thick part of the arrows is the part acting away from the rider, the thin part is that acting back towards the rider (I put it this way allthough this is a free body diagram of the lance's center of mass to show the advantage of a bigger lance for the rider).
This is over-simplified of course, but in dynamics it would get un-necessarily complicated because you'd have to account for the lance's flexibility, the target's flexibility, the target's armor's flexibility, etc...
The same kind of relation as exists between the rider, lance, and target also exists between the horse, the rider, and the lance, also between the ground, the horse and the rider, and on the other end the lance, the enemy rider and his horse, the enemy rider, his horse and the ground...
Now the difference the stirrup makes is that it is effectively a bit like having a heavier lance.
If you have both the heavy lance and the stirrups, you are the end-boss...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I think you deserve a baloon for that: here (:balloon2:), with my best compliments. That's something which my completely non-physical mind would never be able to elaborate :laugh4:.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

@Nachtmeister,

So from my understanding of what you wrote, the lancer with the heaviest lance will need less of a push to get more penetrative power, therefore allowing him to exert a greater pressure than the guy with the lighter lance while giving the same "punch" as his rival.

So essentially the use of a couched two handed grip on the kontos would simply mean more "push", which combined with all the other factors (like the mass of the lance) would exert an enourmous pressure on the foe. With stirrups factored in, though, that same effect can be achieved only by a one handed grip, therefore allowing the heavy horseman to be less encumbered for about the same effect. Am I correct?

[russia almighty]

Mathematical/statistical analysis of history, I like.

[Nachtmeister]

I think you deserve a baloon for that: here (:balloon2:), with my best compliments. That's something which my completely non-physical mind would never be able to elaborate :laugh4:.

Thank you very much, Christopher Burgoyne! It is sincerely appreciated.


@Nachtmeister,

So from my understanding of what you wrote, the lancer with the heaviest lance will need less of a push to get more penetrative power, therefore him allowing to exert a greater pressure than the guy with the lighter lance while giving the same "punch" as his rival.

So essentially the use of a couched two handed grip on the kontos would simply mean more "push", which combined with all the other factors (like the mass of the lance) would exert an enourmous pressure on the foe. With stirrups factored in, though, that same effect can be achieved only by a one handed grip, therefore allowing the heavy horseman to be less encumbered for about the same effect. Am I correct?

Sort of - I'll re-summarize briefly:

The heaviest lance's wielder will need to push less to get the same power;
if he pushes the same he will get more power.
The confusing element here must have been the speed, so here's the equation first in it's raw form from above and then transformed to emphasize the relation between push and mass:

[power] =[(speed)x(push+mass)]
divide by "speed" on both sides of equation mark and you get
[(power)/(speed)] =[push+mass]
The "power" is the same as the "punch". The total force he exerts with the tip of his lance at the moment of impact.

Couched, two-handed and stirrups are all the same type of "modifier": compare with stronger glue.
They help the rider optimize the transfer of force from the horse to the tip of the lance.
The horse is the real power behind a cavalry charge - not the rider. To achieve ideal brunt of impact, you'd fix the lance to the horse - except that aiming becomes very bad if you do that because horses are innately gentle, non-violent creatures to whom the concept of deliberately pronging someone on a pointy stick is very alien. This is what the scythed chariot is all about...

[Aper]

@Nachtmeister: glad to see some physics here, but take care to not over-rationalize: history is not an exact science...

The main problem with the stirrups-theory is not it's debatable contribute to the stability of the rider during the charge, but the fact that the timelines of the development of the medieval heavy cavalry and that of the spread of the stirrups don't match at all: stirrups appeared in europe during the VII century among Avars IIRC, but their diffusion was very slow in the west: after 2 centuries the carolingian knights often didn't use them, according to the iconography (sp?) for example.

Now, the couched-lance tecnique was developed in northern france in late XI-XII century: if stirrups were really the decisive factor, why only 5 centuries after their appearance the new charging method was invented? I can hardly believe that a tool of steppe people after 500 years of more of usage caused a major revolution in the way of fighting in a very remote area of the world, that had a cavalry tradition so much younger than that of its inventors...

[Duguntz]

No, I haven't; going completely with a priori here. Nevertheless, I have hard time imagining stirrups assisting in any lance impacts unless the rider can lean forwards enough to lock his feet against the stirrups.* Otherwise they won't be much of assistance, being quite far from the line of the impact force.

*Admittedly, that could work, provided that the impact doesn't have too a large vertical component that'd lift the rider off his saddle (which, I understand, was quite instrumental in absorbing the force - horned saddles being something of an example), which, in turn, would push the rider more off from the stirrups...

How far forward can you lean on/out of a saddle, armed and armored? If the stirrups support leaning that far forward, are they of any use otherwise?


True, although irrelevant considering the lance impact. Stabilize, yes, considerably, but brace for impact?


Sounds very plausible.

Guys, i'm myself an experianced horse rider, I do Brunk dicipline in rodeo (means, wild horse WITH saddle, while bareback brunk means without sadle) and after more than 15 years of horse riding and 5 years of rodeo, I assure you that stirrups DOES help stabilistaion on a horse running, even with upward force, as the impact of the lance implies...

Anyway, I did jousting also in a medieval organisation (Saint-Adolphe-d'howard, for referance) and I swear I would risk it without stirrups... The stirrup really helps for bracing for impact.

I'm talking here not by studies but by personal experiance...

Cheers to all!

[Nachtmeister]

@ Aper:
Hello Aper, a fellow pursuant of the holy discipline...? :2thumbsup:
I must point out that I am definitely not saying that the Parthians used stirrups (on the contrary; I am reasoning that the absence of stirrups was an "argument" in favour of using relatively huge, super-heavy tree-trunk lances).
I am basing this only on two strict, known physical properties:
-The Kontos was the heavies cavalry lance of it's time and known "area of use"
-It was used two-handed (most of the time)
Everything else is deducted from those: Most feasible way of using it, forces acting when using it, hypothetical differences stirrups would have made if present / general differences they make in present times and made for medieval knights who used them. This last part is strictly speaking somewhat off-topic; the OP inquired as to the ratio behind using an oversized lance with both hands.
Your point about the advent of knights-as-pop-culture-"knows"-them is very interesting; I had assumed that within ten years of the first contact with either the Huns or Genghis Khan, stirrups would have been standard issue all the way from Byzantine Greece to the British Isles... But then, almost everything I "know" about history stems from EB...

@ Duguntz:
Yay, a real knight!! :clown:
Seriously, thanks for the heads-up; it is very good to hear something on the subject from someone who *really* knows what he's talking about from first-hand experience.
As an aside, I've often dreamed of learning how to properly do tjosting and of partaking in such events - sadly, I am a huge-city-dweller and do not own the financial means of supporting a country residence with stabling facilities - and in addition to that I know of no northern German (my area) societies reasonably open to "interested members of the public" to even watch such events... The only thing I sometimes hear of is occasional medieval/viking/roman/whatever infantry- and village- reenactment, but most of those events do not involve serious practise of the associated martial techniques, let alone horses... How does one immigrate to Canada as a European and what does it take (financially and culturally) to join an order of Canadian Knighthood? I could do a research whether I might be some sort of literal fallen blue-blood distant bastard if nobility is required, but I am almost getting hopes up that one can become a Squire nowerdays even without actual nobility by faithful service and valor in combat...?

[Duguntz]

@ Aper:
Hello Aper, a fellow pursuant of the holy discipline...? :2thumbsup:
I must point out that I am definitely not saying that the Parthians used stirrups (on the contrary; I am reasoning that the absence of stirrups was an "argument" in favour of using relatively huge, super-heavy tree-trunk lances).
I am basing this only on two strict, known physical properties:
-The Kontos was the heavies cavalry lance of it's time and known "area of use"
-It was used two-handed (most of the time)
Everything else is deducted from those: Most feasible way of using it, forces acting when using it, hypothetical differences stirrups would have made if present / general differences they make in present times and made for medieval knights who used them. This last part is strictly speaking somewhat off-topic; the OP inquired as to the ratio behind using an oversized lance with both hands.
Your point about the advent of knights-as-pop-culture-"knows"-them is very interesting; I had assumed that within ten years of the first contact with either the Huns or Genghis Khan, stirrups would have been standard issue all the way from Byzantine Greece to the British Isles... But then, almost everything I "know" about history stems from EB...

@ Duguntz:
Yay, a real knight!! :clown:
Seriously, thanks for the heads-up; it is very good to hear something on the subject from someone who *really* knows what he's talking about from first-hand experience.
As an aside, I've often dreamed of learning how to properly do tjosting and of partaking in such events - sadly, I am a huge-city-dweller and do not own the financial means of supporting a country residence with stabling facilities - and in addition to that I know of no northern German (my area) societies reasonably open to "interested members of the public" to even watch such events... The only thing I sometimes hear of is occasional medieval/viking/roman/whatever infantry- and village- reenactment, but most of those events do not involve serious practise of the associated martial techniques, let alone horses... How does one immigrate to Canada as a European and what does it take (financially and culturally) to join an order of Canadian Knighthood? I could do a research whether I might be some sort of literal fallen blue-blood distant bastard if nobility is required, but I am almost getting hopes up that one can become a Squire nowerdays even without actual nobility by faithful service and valor in combat...?

Nachtmeister : To emigrate to canada, well the best way to have the correct information is to go at the Canadian ambassy of your city or province (or whatever state your country is subdivised in) as for the financial means of horse husbandry, yes, it's expensive, what makes it easyer for me is that i've always lived on a farm, so it's kinda part of my life... The horse itself can be affordable (though count 1000$ and over to have something you can count on) without paying for a pure-blood, that's unnessessary. the race does count for little, but the strongest the better, I'd advise you (for jousting) Canadian Horse... Big enough though not a giant, so not a fortune to feed, but as strong as any ''shock'' horse you could want, they've been breed, in history to work in deforestation, so are strong enough, still nowaday, to drag a fallen big tree (moooore than what you need for jousting) and thei're mostly pitch black, wich is nice! Anyway, the expensive part, it's the taming for jousting purpuse (if you don't do it yourself), you should go to a specific center... as I told you, Saint-Adolphe-D'Howard there's a jousting and medieval reenactement assossiation who can give you plenty of info. and to own a horse you don't need a farm! you can clearly live even in Montreal, let's say, and have a horse in ''pension'' (that is, to pay a fee each month to rent a place for your horse in whatever stable). And for armour (that's the real expensive part)

Body, count at least 2000$, count even more (that is best quality, handmade)
Horse, I borrow, so i can't tell you the price... but expensive as Horse armour are rare (but look so damn cool!)

in Quebec, as we didn't have the medieval history that you have in europe, w edeveloped a kind of inspiration of the subject wich make that we're often more passionate about as european, because of it's mistery... Fact : The art of armoury and traditional weapon smithing is in BIG expansion in quebec, the armour for the movies TROY, and 300 all have been made in montreal, by hand...

Ususaly, armourers use traditional method to make their armour because they can be made that way more resistent, as well as for weapon... i myself fight in real sword combat (of corse, no sharp sword there, the goal is fun and medieval passion, not killing!), and I can tell that the difference between good and bad sword (as well as armour) is ENORMOUS. Sword badly made = broken in 1 hit... good sword = fight several days without even correcting the edges (wich tend to break easily).
Shield, pffff, you can even make it yourself, with 16 or 14 gauges steel...

in jousting, you need to think : plate, helmet, shield, (lance can be borrowed), and let say, imagine a late 13th century armour is the best (and german models kick asses)... ALL beautifully made traditionally by hand in Canada!
But by informing, talking, and making contacts and friends in the middle of assossiations, you can borrow most of the stuff... appart form : the sword (wich is really affordable) the horse (i'm pretty sure that, there again, you could borow, at first, the armour) still, horse armour isn't obligatory, appart from the chamfron and a breast plate (even in leather) is really not too much, if you love your horse...
Now, I can't really tell more, because since 3 years I stay in europe most of the time, for my university studies, returning to my baby (yeah, that's my horse) only the summer...
I hope that info have been usefull to you pal!

Cheers!

[Duguntz]

And by the way, No nobility title needed nor Knighthood fraternity! hahaha, only friendship and shering of passion for medieval period, that's he beauty of it! need of corse to know hor to ride a horse and even to fight, most assossiation give medieval fighting lessons with all kind of weapon, from the longbow (wich my bestfriend make, th the traditional 13th century way) to the long swors, the tricky dagger and everything! lol, not even need to be on the jousting, Foot combat are a whoooole funny also. so what you need to be part of it is pasion, money (for sure, for the equipement), and friendly attitude! before fighting on a tournament, though, be prepard to loooong practice I'm talking of years now!) and a lot of patience, I know it myself, when we go there we want to smash everybody with a sword in the hand like kids... that's not working like it! There are indeed tournament of medieval sword fighting in Quebec, in wich i didn't took part, because I don't have the pretention to be the best swordfighter (still!!! :laugh4:). Jousting take part mostly in reenactement, not as tournament... but you know, I don't know EVERYTHING neither,

[Nachtmeister]

Thanks a million, mate! It is rare to get such an elaborate response to the noob-sort of question...
As I have no other means to express it at my disposal, here's a balloon :balloon2: for you - may it be shiny and faithful to you! Especially the part of buying a horse is *very* new to me - having once worked (only three months in a school-related "praktikum") at a "Gestüt" (where they train full blood horses for derby and dress riding and the likes) as a "stable boy", I was under the impression that good (as in "will not collapse when put to serious work") horses cost more like 20.000€, which is more like 40.000$... Before taxes... Ok that was an exceedingly beautiful Hannoveran male fit (and definitely intended) for vigorous breeding. But still... Starting at 1.000$ is a BIG contrast to what I expected.
Being a student myself, I will still need some time to gather enough money and I will need to get a job to afford "running costs", but it now seems rather like an achievable goal than like an unrealistic childrens' dream...! I like the prospect of one day owning a Rappen. Will have to attend some sort of proper riding school too - I only know how to groom a horse and how to ride a *very* complacent one in a sand-hall... So, I now have a new objective! Thank you very much again, Duguntz! :2thumbsup:

@the others - sorry for hijacking the thread, but maybe the information is helpful to others too rather than just myself.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Damn, the closest I got to real medieval jousting was playing Mount&Blade :clown:.

Glad to see so many people who love it like me.

[Duguntz]

Damn, the closest I got to real medieval jousting was playing Mount&Blade :clown:.

Glad to see so many people who love it like me.

You bet there are others who loves it!! I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one here!!!

[Gabeed]

Ha, I learned about M&B from this forum around 2 years ago. Total War fans and M&B fans seem to often be one and the same.

[Ibrahim]

You bet there are others who loves it!! I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one here!!!

are people allowed to dress like arab fursan and go joust with you all accordingly? If so I hope one day to head to Quebec and do just that-we'd have the crusades all over again:clown:

but seriously, jousting? that's cool!

[Duguntz]

are people allowed to dress like arab fursan and go joust with you all accordingly? If so I hope one day to head to Quebec and do just that-we'd have the crusades all over again:clown:

but seriously, jousting? that's cool!


Honnestly, i never saw it, but I don't see why not, if you have all the requiered protective equipement! that'd be cool to see comething else than the usual (well, even ''usual sound strange in talking of armour!!!) armour of western europe... that is something on wich i'll have to inform!

[Chris1959]

If as Aper says the couched lance charge emerged in XI, XII centuries in France i.e the Normans perhaps the reason is simply they did not want to discard those big Kite shields they had carried when using javelins, hence a one handed technique emerges.

[Aper]

i myself fight in real sword combat (of corse, no sharp sword there, the goal is fun and medieval passion, not killing!), and I can tell that the difference between good and bad sword (as well as armour) is ENORMOUS. Sword badly made = broken in 1 hit... good sword = fight several days without even correcting the edges (wich tend to break easily).
Shield, pffff, you can even make it yourself, with 16 or 14 gauges steel...
in jousting, you need to think : plate, helmet, shield, (lance can be borrowed), and let say, imagine a late 13th century armour is the best (and german models kick asses)... ALL beautifully made traditionally by hand in Canada!
About edges that break easily http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm.
It happens only if you fight like a wild boar (like often I do myself :embarassed:) and not like a skilled swordman.
Who is the master of fencing you learned with? Where did he study? Take care: there are many "masters" that have a great passion for sure, but little real knowledge. Since there's no more a direct tradition from middle-ages, a proper interpretation of ancient treatises is crucial in reviving the Art, and usually only academic studies, or the teachings of a well-known association, allow a proper understanding of the secrets of ancient masters, who often wrote using a quite cryptic language exactly to confuse casual readers.

P.S.
(I study medieval archeology, btw, not physics ~:))
(I assume when you speak about german armor you are referring to the so called "gothic plate": if so it's late XV, not XIII ~:))

EDIT:
If as Aper says the couched lance charge emerged in XI, XII centuries in France i.e the Normans perhaps the reason is simply they did not want to discard those big Kite shields they had carried when using javelins, hence a one handed technique emerges.Correct: the first iconographic example AFAIK is in the tapestry of Bayeux, depicting normans using it vs. Saxons; there's a problem here: the couched lance is an anti-cavalry technique, useful to brutally dismount enemy knights (and eventually kill them), but in the tapestry is used against infantry... Probably an error of the author...
About the shield, the iron mail often was not enough to protect from the weapons of the age, it was very effective against non-bodkin arrows, but even a strong sword cut sometimes was enough to seriously injure the wearer, so the shield was still very important.

[Duguntz]

About edges that break easily http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm.
It happens only if you fight like a wild boar (like often I do myself :embarassed:) and not like a skilled swordman.
Who is the master of fencing you learned with? Where did he study? Take care: there are many "masters" that have a great passion for sure, but little real knowledge. Since there's no more a direct tradition from middle-ages, a proper interpretation of ancient treatises is crucial in reviving the Art, and usually only academic studies, or the teachings of a well-known association, allow a proper understanding of the secrets of ancient masters, who often wrote using a quite cryptic language exactly to confuse casual readers.

(I study medieval archeology, btw, not physics ~:))

Of corse you're right and i won't contradict you on that point! but I wasn't talking about the way to fight, but of the difference of a good and bad quality sword (subishing a direct blow on the blade), not on the way of : how should we fight! i have a bad (I admit) quality sword, but still usable after one year! (although i don't fight as often as i would want!). in the assossiation, they teach us parade even before offensive technique (duh, normal!)... So I was only talking about steel quality!

Cheers!

[Aper]

Of corse you're right and i won't contradict you on that point! but I wasn't talking about the way to fight, but of the difference of a good and bad quality sword (subishing a direct blow on the blade), not on the way of : how should we fight! i have a bad (I admit) quality sword, but still usable after one year! (although i don't fight as often as i would want!). in the assossiation, they teach us parade even before offensive technique (duh, normal!)... So I was only talking about steel quality!

Cheers!

My point was that edge-on-edge it's not a good method in testing a sword, because even a good weapon surely will suffer damage after few days of intensive training (I know from harsh experience..:knight:). Instead, a correct parry will redirect the blow of your aggressor, and eventually allow you to counterstrike in the same time.

Examples:
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/BasicsMastery.mov
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Edge-Bashing1.mov

Cheers :2thumbsup:

[Duguntz]

My point was that edge-on-edge it's not a good method in testing a sword, because even a good weapon surely will suffer damage after few days of intensive training (I know from harsh experience..:knight:). Instead, a correct parry will redirect the blow of your aggressor, and eventually allow you to counterstrike in the same time.

Examples:
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/BasicsMastery.mov
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/Edge-Bashing1.mov

Cheers :2thumbsup:

Absolutly correct! :2thumbsup: i also know it by... let's say rough experience!!! (and expensive one!) It's a coincidence, but I fight with much more technique since I broke a 500$ sword:no: i then decided to buy a cheaper one who forced me to pay more attention, and... VOILA! I'm still not the best duelist but I now fight with much more technique! although I didn,t fought in long time now... university abroad... the border policemen have trouble to understand the reason of : why we'd want to bring a broadsword in a plane...:laugh4:

[Duguntz]

oh, and just for referance, the school is ''Le Cercle Des Lames'' situated in Drummonville. I don't know if there's an english version of the site...

Fellow Passionate, I salute you!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a nice dicusion, but I have two points of order.

1. Stirrups are far less important than the saddle, the former stabalises the rider, the latter helps distribute the impact of the cahrge.

2. Northumbrian horsemen of the 8th Century are depicted using what is arguably the "couched" posture when fighting Picts, similarly there are instances of couched or semi-couched poses in antiquity, though they are rare. This implies the technique was nown before the 10th Century.

[Macilrille]

As an aside, I've often dreamed of learning how to properly do tjosting and of partaking in such events - sadly, I am a huge-city-dweller and do not own the financial means of supporting a country residence with stabling facilities - and in addition to that I know of no northern German (my area) societies reasonably open to "interested members of the public" to even watch such events... The only thing I sometimes hear of is occasional medieval/viking/roman/whatever infantry- and village- reenactment, but most of those events do not involve serious practise of the associated martial techniques, let alone horses... How does one immigrate to Canada as a European and what does it take (financially and culturally) to join an order of Canadian Knighthood? I could do a research whether I might be some sort of literal fallen blue-blood distant bastard if nobility is required, but I am almost getting hopes up that one can become a Squire nowerdays even without actual nobility by faithful service and valor in combat...?

I have a hard time believing that if you are really interested. I have done Viking fighting re-enactment for 16 years here in Denmark and there are both loads of Viking Fighters in Germany and quite a few medieval re-enactors here (not nearly as many as Vikings though, Vikings PWN medievals!!). Including at least two groups of jousters that I know off. With these factors in mind I suspect if you really want to you can find medieval re-enactors in N Germany and if you just want to fight with steel weapons I can refer you to some German Viking Re-enactors.

[Macilrille]

are people allowed to dress like arab fursan and go joust with you all accordingly? If so I hope one day to head to Quebec and do just that-we'd have the crusades all over again:clown:

but seriously, jousting? that's cool!

Dunno about the medievalists, but in Viking we are open to every "race", as long as one is not a religious or political radical we do not give a sh*te. Norman is a big black fellow and Quanon a Paki, both dress up as Arab guests/mercenaries/slave traders, etc at Viking Markets and have fun with the rest of us.

[Aper]

2. Northumbrian horsemen of the 8th Century are depicted using what is arguably the "couched" posture when fighting Picts, similarly there are instances of couched or semi-couched poses in antiquity, though they are rare. This implies the technique was nown before the 10th Century.
:bow: Do you have any pic?
However, it became widespread in Europe more or less at the time of the crusades... But this Northumbrian stuff is extremely interesting. Do you know if there are articles or other published material on the matter?

the border policemen have trouble to understand the reason of : why we'd want to bring a broadsword in a plane...:laugh4::laugh4: I know something about this, and about people looking at me like a madman armed & dangerous...
My master learned here (italian only sorry) http://www.scherma-antica.org/link/associazioni.php in the links section there are many sites in english of schools and associations around the world

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:bow: Do you have any pic?
However, it became widespread in Europe more or less at the time of the crusades... But this Northumbrian stuff is extremely interesting. Do you know if there are articles or other published material on the matter?
:laugh4: I know something about this, and about people looking at me like a madman armed & dangerous...
My master learned here (italian only sorry) http://www.scherma-antica.org/link/associazioni.php in the links section there are many sites in english of schools and associations around the world

Mathew Strickland published a piece on pre-Norman medieval warfare in England in Anglo-Norman Studies a few years ago. I'll dig up the reference.

[Chris1959]

Aper you are right in that the Bayeux Tapestry is the best representation of early Norman and Breton "Knights" as we come to know them.
At the time of Hastings 1066 if I am correct the Norman cavalry did not charge into contact rather they behaved like super heavy skirmishers, gallop up to the enemy hurl heavy javelins then turn away. In which case a kite shield is particularly effective in protecting both rider and horses flank as you retire. It also means the representation of the over hand spears is correct.

Following Hastings and the destruction of the Anglo-Danish Housecarls shield wall the primary fighting force would be a heavily mailed horseman and as a result the Norman cavalry evolved to fight themselves whilst retaining the shields they had come to use.

[Watchman]

The kite shiled is a much older device, and IIRC an import from the Eastern Mediterranean (the Byzantines used to have some toeholds in southern France until fairly late, so that's one contact route). Anyway, from what I've gathered post-Carolingian European heavy cavalry for the most part was already quite "shock" oriented, though not yet to the degree of the Middle Ages proper. Which isn't really very surprising given the nature of most Euro battlefields. The spear was used both as a thrusting weapon (usually overhand AFAIK) and for throwing, which flows nicely from the overhand grip and is useful for creating gaps and general disorder in the enemy ranks before contact.

The older "heavy skirmisher" pattern of cavalry tactics was AFAIK still in use but increasingly in the retreat and limited to specific regions where it was still favoured for one reason or another; I've read it theorised the Breton cavalry that formed the Norman left wing at Hastings still adhered to the principle, and their hit-and-run tactics may have been what first lured some of the English infantry out of position.

[Cyclops]

Re the OP:

I believe two-handed lance use continued into the 19th century. IIRC Uhlans and other "horse and musket" European lancers used a two handed technique. I have a very dim memory of b&w footage on British Indian cav "tentpegging" two-handed...but where did I see that? Of course more often you see it one handed.

I guess that the one-handed grip might be less weildy: whether you have it tuckled under your arm, weilded underhand or flourished overhand, it would most likely be less stable (especially at great lengths).

I would venture that heavy massed cavalry used in an anti cavalry or massed infantry role would be best off using an overlong couched lance: a pike square or massed line of DeustchRitterOrdern doesn't exactly dance away unexpectedly, so a bit of "wobbly tip" isn't going to ruin your charge. The extra length and punch would count over nimbleness.

I would argue that later lancers (eg Napoleonic) has a lighter role against more open order cavalry as well as a variety of infantry from line to skirmishers. Definitely their opponents wore less armour (even curassiers are positively naked compared to medieval knights) so they were after more mobile targets. I think their lances were quite spindly things too IIRC.

[Watchman]

Infantry pikes handily outreach cavalry lances, though. About the longest the latter is ever going to get is about five meters; the former can go to over six without becoming unmanageable...
Plus infantry pikemen are waaaaay cheaper than heavy lancers, and the horses still refuse to run into solid obstacles, so losing proposition there.

[Cyclops]

Infantry pikes handily outreach cavalry lances, though. About the longest the latter is ever going to get is about five meters; the former can go to over six without becoming unmanageable...
Plus infantry pikemen are waaaaay cheaper than heavy lancers, and the horses still refuse to run into solid obstacles, so losing proposition there.

So true. The lesson that the Swiss and Flemings gave the Burgundians transformed cav from medieval mailed fist into rather overdressed mounted pistoliers for a while. Funny how social factors ("but I want to ride into battle in shiny armour!Thats what real warriors do") impact military practice as much as economic, doctrinal and technological constraints.

BTW I hope I am right about post-medieval 2 handed lance use. Has anyone else seen Napoleonic and later lancers weilding 2 handed? The subcontinental tent pegging I found on UTube was all one-handed.

[Watchman]

AFAIK one-handed use was the norm...

Also, no dissin' the Early Modern pistol-toting reiters/cuirassiers. They ate lancers for breakfast and were actually useful against pikemen. Though I'm under the impression the trend got started by the Germans and Dutch...

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

Heavy armour was actually worn long after the invention of firearms. Curaissiers in the XVII century still used full plate suits, and nobles still went on to joust in important occasions. It might not protect against firearms, but it surely does a very good job of deflecting every other kind of blow that goes against the wearer; the only reasons they were abandoned was that they were unpractical amidst larger, professional armies.

And for what I know, there have been occasions where elite horsemen had been able to break through pikes in a charge. The Gendarmes did it at least once in the Italian Wars, and it wasn't exactly alien to the Winged Hussars anyway; in principle, a horse might dislike solid obstacles, but that's blinkers are for. Plus the pike is only good at stopping a charge, not being anymore effective against other weapons in hand to hand except by virtue of reach, but at the expense of being greatly bulky and unwieldy, making it necessary for pikemen to be skilled swordsmen. The whole principle of pike warfare relies on an essentially lower number of fatalities than pure close combat slug matches, anyway...

Alas, I don't think a fully armored horse approaching at gallop speed has much to fear from pikes anyway. Even lances were starting to become ineffective vs. plate during the XVI century, so much that unless the pikeman maneuvers to hit a weak spot in the barding, the horsie will actually jump through unharmed.

[Duguntz]

:bow: Do you have any pic?
However, it became widespread in Europe more or less at the time of the crusades... But this Northumbrian stuff is extremely interesting. Do you know if there are articles or other published material on the matter?
:laugh4: I know something about this, and about people looking at me like a madman armed & dangerous...
My master learned here (italian only sorry) http://www.scherma-antica.org/link/associazioni.php in the links section there are many sites in english of schools and associations around the world

Thanks for the reference! it's seems really interesting! I'm glad we understnd each other! Andyeah, i know what you're talking about with that : Women changing side of the street when they see an armoured and armed man walkig, peacefully to his training session, with a broad, long, or whatever sword you train with!!!

Cheers!

[Aper]

Aper you are right in that the Bayeux Tapestry is the best representation of early Norman and Breton "Knights" as we come to know them.
At the time of Hastings 1066 if I am correct the Norman cavalry did not charge into contact rather they behaved like super heavy skirmishers, gallop up to the enemy hurl heavy javelins then turn away. In which case a kite shield is particularly effective in protecting both rider and horses flank as you retire. It also means the representation of the over hand spears is correct.
Again, only few norman knights are depicted using the "couched lance" technique in the tapestry, it implies that for norman knights in 1066 the norm was fighting otherwise, probably hurling javelins and then close to fight with overhand spears or swords, as you suggested.

The kite shiled is a much older device, and IIRC an import from the Eastern Mediterranean (the Byzantines used to have some toeholds in southern France until fairly late, so that's one contact route).
So in the east the so-called "norman shield" was adopted earlier than among Normans? Interesting, can you provide me some references? thanks! :bow:. Do you have a theory about why this particular shape was adopted, considering that AFAIK it's unknown in the ancient world? It seems quite logical that a shield like that can cover the entire upper part of the body and the forward leg (it's correct to say "forward leg"?:embarassed:) reducing the weight in comparison to a full oval shield, so why it appeared only in late antique-early middle-ages? Maybe for manufactoring issues?

Anyway, from what I've gathered post-Carolingian European heavy cavalry for the most part was already quite "shock" oriented, though not yet to the degree of the Middle Ages proper.Shock cavalry never fell out of use in western europe (at least in Italy, likely because of Byzantine and Avar influence), for example here's a nice longobardian 2H lancer http://utenti.lycos.it/campagneparallele/longobardo.jpg

The point is: when and where the medieval underarm shock tactic was adopted?

EDIT: my 2cents about the transition from 2H to underarm techniques: when horsemen didn't have a specific high saddle and the stirrups, they needed 2 hands to effectively absorb the shock of the impact (and not being dismounted by their own charge), when they had the right stuff, 1 hand was enough, and so they could still use the extra protection of the shield. However, I don't have any reference to support this theory... what do you think about this?

[geala]

Markus Junkelmann (Die Reiter Roms, vol. II and III) presumes that the two handed lance was used because it grants you a longer reach in opposition to the one handed. You cannot make an unsupported one handed lance so very long because with one hand you always have to grip it near the centre of mass. So some length is wasted. A two handed lance can be gripped more near the end and so reach further.

Junkelmann states also that stirrups are not very important for horse combat with the lance. It is more important with the sword when you slash to the side. The saddle is far more important for stability. Junkelmanns group made a lot of tests with ancient horse combat without stirrups and I am willing to trust his conclusions a little bit.


Why was it not used in the Middle Ages? The use of the shield was widespread from the beginning. So a two handed lance was a problem. The mailed knights did not trust the armour enough to do without the shield. When the armour became better and better (plate and more and more harded steel plate), horse warfare was already on a steady decline. Think of the longbow, halberds, bills and the pike. Often men-at-arms fought on foot.

The advantage of the two handed lance was also relativated by the introduction of the lance rest, a feature not known (by me) to be used in antiquity. It allowed heavy and long one handed lances and in the same time still the great advantage to be able to take the reigns with the left hand.

And a factor you have always to take into account is perhaps also just habit and fashion.

[Aper]

Markus Junkelmann (Die Reiter Roms, vol. II and III) presumes that the two handed lance was used because it grants you a longer reach in opposition to the one handed. You cannot make an unsupported one handed lance so very long because with one hand you always have to grip it near the centre of mass.Not if you block it underarm in medieval fashion.


Junkelmann states also that stirrups are not very important for horse combat with the lance. It is more important with the sword when you slash to the side. The saddle is far more important for stability. Junkelmanns group made a lot of tests with ancient horse combat without stirrups and I am willing to trust his conclusions a little bit.IMO, it's not a matter of lance/sword, but of charge/melee. Charging, stirrups are less useful, fighting in melee more, I think the weapon is quite irrelevant in this: strong thrusts to the sides can be as dangerous for stability as slashing with a sword.


Why was it not used in the Middle Ages? The use of the shield was widespread from the beginning. So a two handed lance was a problem. The mailed knights did not trust the armour enough to do without the shield. When the armour became better and better (plate and more and more harded steel plate), horse warfare was already on a steady decline. Think of the longbow, halberds, bills and the pike. Often men-at-arms fought on foot.The real decline of medieval cavalry was very fast and happened in XVI century. In XIV-XV the situation was EB like: armored cavalries were the elite of the elite (like Hetairoi), but they were no match for the best infantries, at least in frontal attacks.

[Watchman]

It might not protect against firearms......although it did that, too. The specs I've seen referred for Thirty Years' War cavalry harness demanded it being musket-proof at around fifteen meters, and pistol-proof at five - and I've read of at least one instance of a point-blank pistol shot failing to penetrate high-end armour.

...the only reasons they were abandoned was that they were unpractical amidst larger, professional armies.True dat. The cuirassier armour was certainly effective in field battles, but armies spent way more time marching around than fighting set-piece battles and the cavalry was needed to carry out all kinds of "campaign" duties away from the main body in the meanwhile; for this the heavy and uncomfortable cuirassieur kit was quite ill-suited, as most of it had to be left in the baggage, meaning that in the small-scale skirmishes fought with enemy patrols and the like that formed the majority of the cavalry's actual combat experience there was no difference between an expensively equipped cuirassier and the lighter "reiter" in his mere cuirass and helmet...

Didn't take too long for the economic logic there to sink in.

And for what I know, there have been occasions where elite horsemen had been able to break through pikes in a charge. The Gendarmes did it at least once in the Italian Wars...Chiefly by the virtue of their nigh invulnerability though, AFAIK. Kinda hard to keep them from simply walking into the ranks and through them when man and horse alike are for most intents and purposes immune to your weapons...

...and it wasn't exactly alien to the Winged Hussars anyway...Except that, whatever the Polish nationalists might try to tell you, those fellows weren't stupid enough to try frontal attacks on pike blocks. Their gear was optimised for speed and maneuverability, as befitted the military context they operated in, not being unstoppable steel juggernauts like the heavy lancers of the West.

What they did was the Old Skool tactic of first clearing the enemy cavalry from the flanks, and then enveloping the isolated pikemen For Massive Damage. "It's Super Effective!"

Alas, I don't think a fully armored horse approaching at gallop speed has much to fear from pikes anyway. Even lances were starting to become ineffective vs. plate during the XVI century, so much that unless the pikeman maneuvers to hit a weak spot in the barding, the horsie will actually jump through unharmed.Except knights attacked at the trot or thereabouts already long before the sheer weight of protective gear forced the speed to be dialed down. Not in the least on account of full gallop being a surefire means of disordering the assault line and thus diluting the effect, as the lancers would be hitting home piecemeal rather than as a single rolling wall of lance-tips.

So, yeah, as mentioned above, sufficiently well armoured cavalry could pretty much just walk through the pike-wall by virtue of sheer invulnerability. Whether this was of any real consequence is another issue; from what I could find of it, it seems that the infantry were wont to summarily close ranks over the holes the gendarmes tore into their lines and kept on fighting, and were also wont to inflict heavy damage with short-range musketry in the process...

[geala]

Not if you block it underarm in medieval fashion.

Nevertheless you cannot make a couched lance as long and strong as you like. It becomes unwieldy. That's the reason for lance rests which were invented when the rigid breast plate came in use.




The real decline of armored cavalry was very fast and happened in XVI century. In XIV-XV the situation was EB like: armored cavalries were the elite of the elite (like Hetairoi), but they could no more win a battle alone.

Can you give some hints when and where you see a sudden decline of armoured cavalry in the 16th century? I have the feeling that they gained some importance again, mainly because of more disciplined unit warfare. The "decline" of cavalry, armoured or not, came slowly and reached it's climax after 1650, when the shock charge was at last totally neglected and fighting with firearms became the prevailing and only doctrine (despite the successful but short-living attempts of Gustavus Adophus to revitalise the shock combat element). Only in the 18th century the real advantages of cavalry were recognized again. "Decline" in this sense does not mean less use of cavalry. On the contrary we see some 17th c. armies consisting nearly entirely of cavalry.

[Watchman]

Nevertheless you cannot make a couched lance as long and strong as you like. It becomes unwieldy. That's the reason for lance rests which were invented when the rigid breast plate came in use.Actually the purpose of the lance-rest was just to absorb the impact of the lance charge into the breastplate, hence ramping up the "impact threshold" the cavalryman could deal with... there *was* a more elaborate version that actually supported the weight of the lance-shaft, but that was specialised tournament gear.

The "decline" of cavalry, armoured or not, came slowly and reached it's climax after 1650, when the shock charge was at last totally neglected and fighting with firearms became the prevailing and only doctrine (despite the successful but short-living attempts of Gustavus Adophus to revitalise the shock combat element). Only in the 18th century the real advantages of cavalry were recognized again.Okay, just no. Period. By the end of the 1500s the pistol had replaced the lance as the cavalry shock weapon of choice, having at least as much effective range, being much more useful in the ensuing melee, and way easier to carry to boot. Around the early 1600s, or in any case the Thirty Years' War, its use had somewhat degenerated into a kind of "heavy skirmish" role which actually had its uses (namely against pikemen) but was a bit besides the point against other cavalry - this was chiefly due to the priorities of the mercenaries and military enterpreneurs who supplied most of the manpower, as they preferred to minimise the risks to their expensive heavy cavalry. All the Swedes really did was reintroduce the older aggressive "pistolade" tactics, which were swiftly readopted by everybody around.

The next shift in emphasis came around the turn of the century, in early 1700s or so, when the sword replaced the pistol as the primary weapon used in the charge and the latter was relegated to support and backup duties.

[Aper]

Can you give some hints when and where you see a sudden decline of armoured cavalry in the 16th century?. Right, I edited

[Atraphoenix]

You bet there are others who loves it!! I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one here!!!

yep, you are not alone,
I have played M&B since 4 years.
It changed a lot.
And if you know how to couch you do not need any level. In level one I can decimate 20 -30 infantry very easily.


But the main problem that is quite illogical is you cannot use your lance more than one. Both in EB or any RTW game and also M&B your lance is never broken. At maximum, you can couch twice.


In Islamic history: It is stated that Khalid bin Walid broke "9" swords in "Mutah"

But I must confess that in low levels lances are my life saving weapons in M&B.
In M&B, shields can be broken but dev team disagree with the idea that weapons can be, too.
I do not why but I do not complain :-)
Both games must have thought weapons are made of titanium :-)))))

[Aper]

Why was it not used in the Middle Ages? The use of the shield was widespread from the beginning. So a two handed lance was a problem. The mailed knights did not trust the armour enough to do without the shield. When the armour became better and better (plate and more and more harded steel plate), horse warfare was already on a steady decline. Think of the longbow, halberds, bills and the pike. Often men-at-arms fought on foot.
I quote again, because there is something more to say.

The reason because knights carried a shield is that there is no point in taking a very dangerous charging-lance blow when you can deflect it. This is confirmed by the fact that in plate armor era, the knights carried a little shield only when on horse, discarding it in favor of 2 handed weapons when on feet: I guess knights trusted their very expensive plate protections enough...

Knights did trust their armors in early middle-ages too. We have many evidences that knightly "chainmail" was an effective and well made protection, even in comparison to the armors of the more technologically advanced civilizations of the time (Byzantines, Muslims). No reason to doubt its effectiveness.

I'd rather think another reason because knights love their shield was that they often fought on foot, since the beginning to the end of middle ages. First well recorded example I remember is the battle of Civitate (or Civitella), 1053, where the Norman heavy cavalry defeated the dismounted swabian knights of the Pope, only because the "langobardian" infantry fled exposing the flanks and rear of the germans, who were hacking to pieces the horses of the northmen until they were surrounded.
Most knights fought indifferently mounted or dismounted depending on the tactical situation, during all middle-ages; and when you are on foot (mobility limited), likely storming a fortification (fulfilling a role similar to that of Peltastai Makedonikoi), a big shield is simply your best friend.

[Atraphoenix]

I quote again, because there is something more to say.
The reason because knights carried a shield is that there is no point in taking a very dangerous charging-lance blow when you can deflect it. This is confirmed by the fact that in plate armor era, the knights carried a little shield only when on horse, discarding it in favor of 2 handed weapons when on feet: I guess knights trusted their very expensive plate protections enough...

Knights did trust their armors in early middle-ages too. We have many evidences that knightly "chainmail" was an effective and well made protection, even in comparison to the armors of the more technologically advanced civilizations of the time (Byzantines, Muslims). No reason to doubt its effectiveness.

I'd rather think another reason because knights love their shield was that they often fought on foot, since the beginning to the end of middle ages. First well recorded example I remember is the battle of Civitate (or Civitella), 1053, where the Norman heavy cavalry defeated the dismounted swabian knights of the Pope, only because the "langobardian" infantry fled exposing the flanks and rear of the germans, who were hacking to pieces the horses of the northmen until they were surrounded.
Most knights fought indifferently mounted or dismounted depending on the tactical situation, during all middle-ages; and when you are on foot (mobility limited), likely storming a fortification (fulfilling a role similar to that of Peltastai Makedonikoi), a big shield is simply your best friend.

In MTW, you can dismount. I do not know why CA abandoned dismounting ability for RTW other later releases.

That is also main reason why I like M&B, you can change your weapons you can pick up quivers to use your bow again, and of course you can dismount even change your horse if you manage to kill the rider and if you catch the horse. It is very funny to watch the player who lost his horse and chasing a horse to mount with his full armor.

Coding infantry should be less time consuming activity than cavalries in game engines and a combo style fight like dismounting must be a real nightmare for game developers. M&B was released years ago but it is still the only game with cavalry battle system.