Two Handed Lances - Any Rationale?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!