Two Handed Lances - Any Rationale?

[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 ) 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 ) 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..). 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

[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..). 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

Absolutly correct! 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 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...

[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

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.

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...

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]

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?
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]

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?
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! . 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"?) 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

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.