Two Handed Lances - Any Rationale?

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...?

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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).

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nachtmeister

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

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...

[EDIT]
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.
[/EDIT]

[EDIT2]
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.
[/EDIT2]

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nachtmeister

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?

Quote:

---

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..

[EDIT]
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.
[/EDIT]

---

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

Quote:

---

[EDIT2]

---

Sounds very plausible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

@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):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/pictu...pictureid=1512

Based on Newton's third law:
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...

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:.

@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?

Mathematical/statistical analysis of history, I like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

@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:

Code:

---

[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...

@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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Mark

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!

@ 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...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...?

---

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!

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,

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Burgoyne

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!!!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duguntz

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ibrahim

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!

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.