Historical Discussion Thread

[Novellus]

It is an interesting point to make that the two-handed technique with cavalry lances did not arrive until meeting the Makedonians. The reason this seems unusual is that many of the cavalry units that fought in the style of the Makedonian Hetairoi were not depicted with shields, which it can be concluded that the efficiency of the charge was emphasized by weilding with two hands rather than one hand and a shield (common sense tells us that longer lances need to be supported by more than one hand). But the fact that this hasn't been in use (as you say) seems unusual in the East. Of course, the length of the lances in other parts of the world in EB's timeframe in some locations such as Western Europe seem to lack the lengthy spears. The reason some civillizations could have them such as the Iberians could be from Carthaginian influence, which would have had contact with the Greeks and Makedonians. But as for the East, it seems strange that the development hadn't been around before then, especially with the heavy emphasis of cavalry in the steepes. I would expect the Europa Barbarorum team has information regarding this, so I will not speculate any further as I lack the historical information needed for this discussion.

[MeinPanzer]

It is an interesting point to make that the two-handed technique with cavalry lances did not arrive until meeting the Makedonians. The reason this seems unusual is that many of the cavalry units that fought in the style of the Makedonian Hetairoi were not depicted with shields, which it can be concluded that the efficiency of the charge was emphasized by weilding with two hands rather than one hand and a shield

Only every depiction of Macedonian lancers we have shows them charging while holding the lance one-handed. Charging with a long lance two-handed is very difficult to do and requires very good horsemanship. It is evident from depictions of Macedonians that they needed to hold the reins with their free left hand while charging, thus not allowing them to wield a lance two-handed properly. My point is that Central Asian peoples could not have adopted the two-handed lance charge from the Macedonians because they did not employ it.

(common sense tells us that longer lances need to be supported by more than one hand).

And this is a good case of common sense assumptions about ancient warfare being proven wrong. From the second century BC, we have numerous depictions of Hellenistic cavalrymen wielding very long lances one-handed while holding large shields and the reins with their other hands; it appears that their lances had heavy spearbutts and they simply held them at a balanced centre point.

[Novellus]

Now that I think about it, it does seem that the Makedonian depictions show one-handed lances on most every account. Now I'm annoyed that I didn't notice that earlier. But you're right about that. Didn't some of the research say that some cavalrymen held the lance with both hands the moment before impact however? It would be a way to compensate for the lack of horsemanship required to use both hands throughout the charge. Before the moment of impact, the horse would already be headed in the right direction, so steering wouldn't have been a necessity. So from what you're saying, the Hellenic cavarly were armed similarly to the Lonchophoroi (pardon the spelling) in the EB game.


I did misunderstand where you were going with the entire conversation though. I couldn't tell whether or not you were saying that the Asian horsemen didn't adopt two-handed lances until Makedonian influence or not.

So the question now is where did the two-handed lances come from if not from the Makedonians?

[MeinPanzer]

Now that I think about it, it does seem that the Makedonian depictions show one-handed lances on most every account. Now I'm annoyed that I didn't notice that earlier. But you're right about that. Didn't some of the research say that some cavalrymen held the lance with both hands the moment before impact however? It would be a way to compensate for the lack of horsemanship required to use both hands throughout the charge. Before the moment of impact, the horse would already be headed in the right direction, so steering wouldn't have been a necessity.

That claim is hypothetical at best. The depictions of the Alexander mosaic and the Kinch tomb fresco both show the moment immediately before impact, and in both those depictions the riders are only using their xusta one-handed.

So from what you're saying, the Hellenic cavarly were armed similarly to the Lonchophoroi (pardon the spelling) in the EB game.

Almost all Hellenistic heavy cavalry seem to have been armed like the EB Lonchophoroi Hippeis unit after around the last quarter of the 3rd c. BC. Before that they were just regular lancers without shields.

Previously, Asiatic horsemen, as a generalization of Scythic and Achaemenid horsemen fought with their spears mainly overhand through a downward thrust, or in cases pertaining to smaller "palta"-type cornel-wood spears, these could have been used single-handed in a rather free-form manner. The introduction of a long fighting lance, the xyston, outside of the Macedonian armies, proliferated first during a reform of Darius III Codomannus, and later spread into the steppen equestrian culture; it implies the introduction of a fighting weapon for shock tactics, not the way to which it is applied (I personally am not aware of any Graeco-Macedonian cavalry wielding a xyston in the manner of later Parthian or Sarmatian cavalry; typically the Graeco-Macedonian usage rather evokes the imagery of the Kinch tomb) the two-handed grip as a tactical application is a completely independent concept, more associated with the kontos/contus, out of which, the artifact from Koi-Krylgan-Kala, at best, appears to be an anomaly, however with its early dating, the mention of introduced Macedonian-type lances becomes crucial. So, in order to correctly interpret the description, we must distinguish from the introduced Macedonian xyston, and its manner of application. Paraphernalia does not equal tactics.

I think this just stems from a misunderstanding then, as we seem to be in agreement.

The interpretation of two-handed application comes from Iranica Antiqua vol. 10 (Issued 1973), p. 102; and Historia 4 (Issued 1955), pages 264 - 283. Nicholas Sekunda uses the reconstruction from the Iranica Antiqua, where he agrees with the given description. Thus the interpretation finds some support, and because the "front hand" is used to aim a lance (As in releasing the lance shortly upon impact, while the "rear hand" follows through the charge and finally discards the lance), it is possible to wound the aiming hand with the reins, in order to ensure critical control of the mount (Perhaps along with coordinated pressure from the knees as inferred from the classics). In fact, such a tactical "preparation" seems rather ideal for charging, retreating, charging, retreating and so forth. Something appears to connect with the lance, and it is likely to be a hand.

To that list can be added the study by Perevalov in Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia 41, no. 4 (2002) pp. 7-21 about the Sarmatian use of the contus two-handed.

On this last sentence I am a bit confused though. Are you referring to the Koi-Krylgan-kala fragment? If so, certain reproductions of it "muddle" the details, and make it looks like the reins running across the horse's neck are a continuation of the rider's left arm. The reproduction from the original 1948 publication of Tolstov clearly shows a delineation between the arm of the rider going behind the horse's neck and the thin reins.

However, the anomaly notwithstanding, whether or not the fragment shows the two-handed grip, the fact is that both of the aforementioned units should be wielding the lance in a one-handed fashion; if multiple animations were permitted, some of them would be carrying them in an over-handed manner, in accordance to previous traditions (Though I am very curious about this mentioned golden bracelet and its provenance; Siberia makes me want to think Pazyryk, but that's a gap spanning more than a century, before Rudenko began any excavations in the 1920's).

Like all (or most) of the collection of Peter I, it is thought to come from western Siberia. Gorelik frequently reproduces it, as in Fig. 3 e of Kushanskij dospech (1982) and Oruzie Drevnego Vostoka (1993) Fig. 53, 19a-b. It is strangely often overlooked, especially considering its importance as the only depiction of cataphract warfare from the centuries BC.

The two-handed grip is as correctly observed a later Sarmatian and Parthian tactical tidbit (Though far from dominant; the one-handed grip continues to be represented in late Parthian military art, one which may even be couched proper, but most famously the charge of Shâpûr I dismounting the Parthian viceroy in a joust, and the grafito of a Parthian Clibanarius of the 2nd-3rd centuries CE at Dura-Europos).

Thus, the two-handed grip is an independent tactical development which had little to nothing to do with the Graeco-Macedonians. However, the same cannot be said about the kontos. Just so we have that clear (Of course, I cannot recall writing this description either; I am rather firm in using Latinicized variations, and I would rather write out "Companion Cavalry" than Hetairoi... So this is my interpretation of the hopefully intended meaning of the description). Essentially, there is no such thing as a "two-handed lance"; there is a lance, and there are ways of using it.

I think we are in total agreement, then. I still think that based on the depiction of the gold bracer, the Saka Cataphract unit should wield its lance overhand, better reflecting the general method of employment at the beginning of the EB timeframe.

[Watchman]

Just wondering, but could that last be depicting a cataphract wielding a long two-handed lance (kontos or proto-such) not braced for the impact of the charge, but in a "hanging guard" for close-combat "lance-fencing" ? AFAIK that kind of guard is a common enough all-purpose "ready" position for two-handed staff-weapons, especially when held in the kind of "reverse grip" typical of the kontos.

[MeinPanzer]

Just wondering, but could that last be depicting a cataphract wielding a long two-handed lance (kontos or proto-such) not braced for the impact of the charge, but in a "hanging guard" for close-combat "lance-fencing" ? AFAIK that kind of guard is a common enough all-purpose "ready" position for two-handed staff-weapons, especially when held in the kind of "reverse grip" typical of the kontos.

I don't quite understand what you mean by this, but the man holds the lance overhand in his right hand with his left hand down at his side (presumably holding the reins, but the artist has not rendered them beyond the harness around the head). What is interesting about this depiction is that a) the scene is one of three victorious cataphracts (the two rear ones shooting their bows while the foremost one lances the rearmost enemy rider) chasing four fleeing cataphracts (two of whom are tumbling from their saddles, presumably after being shot), meaning that this doesn't depict a direct charge per se, and b) that the spearing cataphract actually seems to have broken off his lance in the speared enemy's body: the man stabs it into his enemy's back at a 30 degree angle downward and the enormous lancehead emerges from his chest at the same angle pointing upward! This may not be the way the lance was held during the standard charge, but it is our only source of information on how cataphracts held their lances during the EB timeframe, so it is worth something in that regard.