Must have been a pretty unwieldy weapon prior to the invention of stirrups.
Like this. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Battle_of_Issus_mosaic_-_Museo_Archeologico_Nazionale_-_Naples_BW.jpg)
Curiously enough, stirrups or lack thereof seem to have no effect on lance-wielding. The riding technique may be a little different, but the lance-using technique looks remarkably similar.
Or like this (http://warfare.netau.net/Ancient/Sarmatian-Tryphon_of_Tanais.htm), or this (http://warfare.netau.net/Ancient/Bosporan_murals.htm), or this (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4c/a9/5e/4ca95e652c687ba9e83278e52b9cf9cd.jpg).
Or this (http://history-of-macedonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/KINCH-TOMBDrawing-based-on-a-wall-painting-with-battle-scene-from-the-Kinch-Tomb-310-290-BC-Lefkadia..jpg)
(Meta question - how do you get the editor to make 'this' the text of the link, rather than the url? - Edited: thanks Duncan for answer!)
The difference that stirrups (and built up saddles) or lack thereof seems to have made is that lances were hand-held, not couched under the armpit, and presumably the force applied was the strength of the rider's arm, not the combined mass of horse+rider.
Quote from: RichT on June 07, 2017, 09:13:47 AM
(Meta question - how do you get the editor to make 'this' the text of the link, rather than the url?)
You do (url=link)this(/url) - only with square brackets instead of the round ones.
The unweildiness of lances is really a function of length and weight rather than having stirrups. Medieval cavalry practiced hard at controlling lances, despite their stirrups and high saddles.
Thanks re: link - simple!
Plus ancient lances are held nearer (if not at) the centre of gravity, not at one end.
I recall reading of a knight, can't remember who, whose party piece was to enter the lists with a small boy riding on the end of his lance. Practised hard indeed.
Quote from: RichT on June 07, 2017, 09:13:47 AM
The difference that stirrups (and built up saddles) or lack thereof seems to have made is that lances were hand-held, not couched under the armpit, and presumably the force applied was the strength of the rider's arm, not the combined mass of horse+rider.
In most of the (cavalry-employing) world, lances continued to be hand-held rather than couched after the introduction of the stirrup, and even in Western Europe the couched lance becomes standard only long after the introduction of the stirrup.
That said, here's a reenactor's piece (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php) arguing,
inter alia, that the couched lance must have been known long before the generally accepted date. I'm programmatically skeptical of arguments of the must-have-been-obvious type*, but whether one accepts that particular bit he's an interesting perspective of the interrelation been stirrups, saddles, and shock combat.
* Lance-couching was apparently a less than obvious technique for the Burgundian men-at-arms that Commynes notes as not knowing how to do it.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 07, 2017, 01:40:50 PM
* Lance-couching was apparently a less than obvious technique for the Burgundian men-at-arms that Commynes notes as not knowing how to do it.
He's commenting on the general lack of military preparedness of Burgundy's feudal host. Commines is saying "Even the most basic knightly skill they couldn't do". Duarte I (who has become a bit of a hero of mine even though he was a bit rubbish as a general) spends lots of time on using spears and lances in his book on horsemanship. His sections on bringing the lance from the upright position (butt between thigh and saddle, lance leaning against the neck) and the transition to charge, not holding the point too low, taking the weight between the palm, the underarm and the chest (its this last bit the
arrete makes easier) are great help on seeing what skills Commines is talking about. There's a whole background layer of horse control and aiming that goes with it too, plus the need to have your armour and horse tack correctly adjusted. And some real basics - don't use a lance too heavy for you to control and don't close your eyes before impact.
I confess to not being sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my point :o
Agreeing. It needed training to do well. If you realise that Duarte envisages going from a standing start to a gallop, levelling and aiming the lance, all in half the length of a tiltyard, it becomes even more a question of practice to get it right.
Quote from: RichT on June 07, 2017, 10:16:14 AM
Plus ancient lances are held nearer (if not at) the centre of gravity, not at one end.
The Sarmatian
kontos, yes - but look again at the Macedonian
xyston in the Alexander mosaic (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Battle_of_Issus_mosaic_-_Museo_Archeologico_Nazionale_-_Naples_BW.jpg) and the Kinch tomb (http://history-of-macedonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/KINCH-TOMBDrawing-based-on-a-wall-painting-with-battle-scene-from-the-Kinch-Tomb-310-290-BC-Lefkadia..jpg). It is held single-handed about a quarter of the way along its length. Two different weapons, each apparently with its own technique.
I read the Alvarez piece a few years ago and then lost the reference, so I am glad to recover it. As I see it all the riding aids made a difference: stirrups, a saddle with higher pommel and cantle and also a snug fit. Also, the girthing method. Bernie Bachrach points to the pictorial evidence for double-girthing around 1100 as part as the improved security for the rider and hence his ability to manage his lance to good effect. If this is true then breast and rump bands must also have been of assistance. I have not ridden much, but I do know that horse's back can be slippery, which is useful if you are a Cossack or Plains Indian doing tricks; but less so if you need a firm seat. Furthermore, stirrups are useful for delivering sword blows. Shortening the leathers enabled the riders to rise or stand in them and to deliver a weightier blow. It is true that it is the rider's strength that delivers the blow, but contra Alvarez, I believe that a heavier horse could bear down a lighter one e.g. Norman's versus Turks and Byzantines. Modern riders are much more careful about damaging their mounts than a knight with a true warhorse, I suggest.
Quote from: eques on June 06, 2017, 10:56:09 PM
Must have been a pretty unwieldy weapon prior to the invention of stirrups.
Not necessarily. It does depend upon the length of the spear and its point of balance, of course, but someone used to using such a weapon need not have struggled that much. The 12th century Syrian author does complain about the fashion for double-length lances which dragged along the ground like an animal's tail. He may, of course, be making a joke as well as an observation about real warfare.
Quote from: Bohemond on June 07, 2017, 07:50:28 PM
... contra Alvarez, I believe that a heavier horse could bear down a lighter one e.g. Norman's versus Turks and Byzantines. Modern riders are much more careful about damaging their mounts than a knight with a true warhorse, I suggest.
T.E. Lawrence in
Seven Pillars of Wisdom would agree: he took part in camelry charges in which Turkish cavalry (rider and mount) were physically overborne by animal-animal impact.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 07, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
look again at the Macedonian xyston ... It is held single-handed about a quarter of the way along its length.
Still at or or near the CoG - given the butt spike (or blade) and possible tapering shaft, the CoG could well be quarter of the way along - it would be mighty difficult to hold a long spear single handed a long way from its CoG.
The reenactor piece is interesting but I don't buy the idea that spears must always have been couched and just aren't ever so depicted. Couching may seem very natural but it depends what the objective is. Fair points about stirrup and saddle form following function though.
necessity is the mother of invention...
if long spears/lances etc develop for cavalry to get a tactical advantage over troops with shorter spears then a way to effectively use them will be found. If you take the parallel use of long spears for hoplites (leaving out phalangites at this point), Christopher Matthews spent a lot of time examining how they might be used effectively. His interpretation was that spears were held underarm and if you like semi couched to allow for a fluid movement during use.
I guess the other question is....what constitutes a lance? Length, girth, weight and flexibility of material all have a bearing on the use of such a weapon and will necessitate different ways to use those weapons
Quote from: RichT on June 07, 2017, 09:32:38 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 07, 2017, 07:46:12 PM
look again at the Macedonian xyston ... It is held single-handed about a quarter of the way along its length.
Still at or or near the CoG - given the butt spike (or blade) and possible tapering shaft, the CoG could well be quarter of the way along - it would be mighty difficult to hold a long spear single handed a long way from its CoG.
Valid point - which I shall take as QED.
Quote
The reenactor piece is interesting but I don't buy the idea that spears must always have been couched and just aren't ever so depicted. Couching may seem very natural but it depends what the objective is. Fair points about stirrup and saddle form following function though.
I wonder if this is the first time I have agreed in full with the entirety of one of Richard's posts.
Quote from: Holly on June 08, 2017, 07:05:25 AM
Christopher Matthews spent a lot of time examining how they might be used effectively. His interpretation was that spears were held underarm and if you like semi couched to allow for a fluid movement during use.
Which goes against the prevailing image of Greek art, and looks stilted, weak and ineffectual when attempted in the film '300' (one can almost see the relief when the cast revert to their swords). I think overarm has to be the way for the Greek infantry spear, not least because otherwise the shield needs to be held out at an angle to admit the spear (which also formed part of the Matthew system, the whole of which seems more applicable to pike formations than hoplites).
Quote
I guess the other question is....what constitutes a lance? Length, girth, weight and flexibility of material all have a bearing on the use of such a weapon and will necessitate different ways to use those weapons
Nomenclature can be a problem here, because 'lance' has been used for anything and everything from fifteen-foot mediaeval models to six-foot throwable types employed in the 19th century. One rule of thumb might be that a 'lance' is anything which is a) intended to outreach a foot opponent and is b) too long/heavy to throw effectively with the former being the predominant criterion.
agreed, alot of interpretations possible and maybe another of those discussions where we have to qualify separate 'incarnations' of a lance vs the perceived wisdom of their respective use
QuoteNomenclature can be a problem here, because 'lance' has been used for anything and everything from fifteen-foot mediaeval models to six-foot throwable types employed in the 19th century. One rule of thumb might be that a 'lance' is anything which is a) intended to outreach a foot opponent and is b) too long/heavy to throw effectively with the former being the predominant criterion.
I think Patrick is right to say create a functional definition to work with. In the Middle Ages, the terms lance, spear and glaive were all used for the big pointy stick men-at-arms wielded. Lance was also used to mean an infantry spear.
Key things are is it is long and primarily an impact weapon (as opposed to a throwing one). One area I'd like a view on is whether all ancient "lances" were actually impact weapons. Some authors seem to suggest the kontos-armed cataphract walked into battle in close order and was essentially a mounted pikeman, which would negate this view.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 08, 2017, 10:28:39 AM
Some authors seem to suggest the kontos-armed cataphract walked into battle in close order and was essentially a mounted pikeman, which would negate this view.
Walking into battle is not the impression I get from original sources.
QuoteThen, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, [2] except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust from the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough [rhumēs = force, rush] to pierce through two men at once.
- Plutarch,
Life of Crassus 27.2
I would be happy to class this as an 'impact weapon'. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 08, 2017, 08:50:06 AM
I wonder if this is the first time I have agreed in full with the entirety of one of Richard's posts.
The world turned upside down. I will return the favour by agreeing with you about Matthews and the hoplite underarm hold. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. :)
To restore sanity to the universe I might disagree with you a little bit about the Parthian example.
Erpingham:
Quote
Key things are is it is long and primarily an impact weapon (as opposed to a throwing one).
I think there's more than impact and throwing - I would divide into impact, thrusting and throwing:
- an impact weapon is held as rigidly as possible and relies on the forward momentum of the horse and rider to deliver the blow (though as the reenactor reminds us, it's not quite as simple as that). Such a weapon (used by cavalry) I'd call a lance.
- a thrusting weapon is held in the hand without further bracing, and relies on the strength of the arm to deliver the blow. I'd call this a spear, and this covers most ancient 'lances' (which are really long spears)
- a throwing weapon is a javelin
Like all categorisation schemes this oversimplifies - lances could be thrust, as could javelins, and spears could be thrown. But it's what I have in mind when I use these words, just so you know.
The Plutarch
Crassus example does not make clear whether a lance or a spear is meant - 'impetus enough' just translates 'force enough', exact nature of the force unspecified. It seems reasonable to suppose that the force of the arm (or arms, if this is two handed) couldn't pierce two men, but Alex is shown piercing one on the Sarcophagus with a handheld (long) spear (which itself seems unlikely enough) - a second rider close enough (on the same horse?) could have been pierced also.
I see you (Patrick) change Perrin's "the spear which the Parthians thrust
into the horses" into "the spear which the Parthians thrust
from the horses" - fair enough for sense perhaps, though the Greek is εἰς, into. But it's all a small matter.
Quote
I think there's more than impact and throwing - I would divide into impact, thrusting and throwing
Fair enough. I thought thrusting spears would cloud things a bit. But if we say that a lance can be used for thrusting (or even throwing - Eustache d'Auberchicourt lost his teeth to a cavalry lance thrown at him during the battle of Nogent-sur-Seine) but its primary use is as an impact weapon we will have a working definition.
Patrick confirms that the cataphract
contus is such a weapon and I presume it can be taken as read for the
xyston?
QuotePatrick confirms that the cataphract contus is such a weapon and I presume it can be taken as read for the xyston?
Not at all - I don't think there's any firm basis for thinking that the contus is a lance (impact, as defined) - though it might have been - and I'm certain the xyston, if by which we mean the Macedonian cavalry spear, isn't - it is a spear, albeit a long one. (I'm sort of saying that I'm defining lance = impact = couched - define the words some other way and sure - I agree.... :)
Quote from: RichT on June 09, 2017, 01:15:40 PM
QuotePatrick confirms that the cataphract contus is such a weapon and I presume it can be taken as read for the xyston?
Not at all - I don't think there's any firm basis for thinking that the contus is a lance (impact, as defined) - though it might have been - and I'm certain the xyston, if by which we mean the Macedonian cavalry spear, isn't - it is a spear, albeit a long one. (I'm sort of saying that I'm defining lance = impact = couched - define the words some other way and sure - I agree.... :)
Well that's torn it (as apparently they used to say) :) Harry's original question implies he is talking about pre-medieval weapons as lances.
What evidence for couching of long, pointy cavalry weapons do we have before the Middle Ages?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 09, 2017, 01:49:14 PM
What evidence for couching of long, pointy cavalry weapons do we have before the Middle Ages?
The best Alvarez could come up with was "it stands to reason". I'm not aware of anything else.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 09, 2017, 02:13:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 09, 2017, 01:49:14 PM
What evidence for couching of long, pointy cavalry weapons do we have before the Middle Ages?
The best Alvarez could come up with was "it stands to reason". I'm not aware of anything else.
Mr Alvarez is doubtless a very fine rider but perhaps less of a historian.
For what it is worth, David Nicolle reckons the Byzantines introduced lance-couching to Europe in the 10th century. This would leave a possible transfer from the East or potentially the steppes, with possible continuity to ancient times. Or it might have been a novelty.
Then again, does a long, shafted, pointed impact weapon used mounted need to be couched to qualify as a lance? I would consider couching to be a sufficient condition but not a necessary one, i.e. all couched weapons are lances, but all lances are not necessarily couched weapons.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 09, 2017, 07:50:50 PM
Then again, does a long, shafted, pointed impact weapon used mounted need to be couched to qualify as a lance? I would consider couching to be a sufficient condition but not a necessary one, i.e. all couched weapons are lances, but all lances are not necessarily couched weapons.
I think I would agree. I think it should be primarily an impact weapon but couching is simply a refinement to make it more effective, matched with improvements in saddlery. This opens the two-handed contus up to consideration as a lance. I leave it to the classicists to argue whether a
xyston is a lance or a long spear.
Quote from: RichT on June 09, 2017, 12:13:02 PM
The Plutarch Crassus example does not make clear whether a lance or a spear is meant - 'impetus enough' just translates 'force enough', exact nature of the force unspecified.
Plutarch uses 'kontos', which suggests a heavy, uncounterweighted weapon held by a two-handed grip Sarmatian style.
Quote
It seems reasonable to suppose that the force of the arm (or arms, if this is two handed) couldn't pierce two men, but Alex is shown piercing one on the Sarcophagus with a handheld (long) spear (which itself seems unlikely enough) - a second rider close enough (on the same horse?) could have been pierced also.
Alex is using the impetus provided by his horse, which brings us to our next discussion point.
Quote
I see you (Patrick) change Perrin's "the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses" into "the spear which the Parthians thrust from the horses" - fair enough for sense perhaps, though the Greek is εἰς, into. But it's all a small matter.
'Into' as a translation makes no sense whatsoever in the context, otherwise I would have left well alone. I think what Plutarch intended to convey, or at least express, is that the horse provides the force which gives the
kontos its impact and penetration. ("Use the horse, Luke!")
Quote from: Erpingham on June 10, 2017, 08:04:18 AM
I leave it to the classicists to argue whether a xyston is a lance or a long spear.
If we consider a spear to be a shafted cavalry weapon wielded overarm, the xyston would huddle up next to the lance. We could even be picky and consider the xyston to be in a class of its own, but that is a conceptual rather than a typological approach which does not really provide a solution.
couching could be a mechanism for carrying the lance in a battle ready stance during the last few moments before contact in a charge and not necessarily delivered that way? (I am speaking about classical cavalry here following the Alex threads)
QuoteIf we consider a spear to be a shafted cavalry weapon wielded overarm, the xyston would huddle up next to the lance.
Not sure that would work - cavalry could use spears underarm. I would suggest we maintain the distinction about impact and a weapon that relies more heavily on human muscle-power.
Quotecouching could be a mechanism for carrying the lance in a battle ready stance during the last few moments before contact in a charge and not necessarily delivered that way?
Except couching has a technical meaning. It isn't just an underarm carry, its a bracing and aiming mechanism to focus as much of the combined impetus of horse and rider at a target point as possible.
although couched as a general term means 'horizontal'
theoretically then a spear held horizontally either under the armpit or with a straightened arm could be classed as couched?
Quote from: Holly on June 10, 2017, 09:43:27 AM
although couched as a general term means 'horizontal'
theoretically then a spear held horizontally either under the armpit or with a straightened arm could be classed as couched?
True, but I'm not sure departing from the usual usage helps us clarify our definitions.
Quote
Alex is using the impetus provided by his horse, which brings us to our next discussion point.
Is he? Says who? I would want to see either/and/or:
- some (literary or artistic or archaeological, at any rate ancient) evidence that impetus is provided by the horse
- some word from a reenactor that it is possible to hold a spear at arms length in one hand at its point of balance, poke it into (and through) a body with the impetus of the horse, and not lose spear and probably arm in the process. Alvarez describes the force, actions (and pain) involved in doing this with a couched lance - on the face of it it would be vastly harder with a hand held spear. Markle has written about this - IIRC he advocates the 'windmill', but in that case there really isn't much horse impetus being transmitted.
This isn't to say that the horse's forward momentum wouldn't provide some increase in force, but it most certainly can't be as simple as "Alex is using the impetus provided by his horse". For the purpose of this discussion we seem broadly in agreement that the way horse/rider momentum is factored into an impact weapon is by couching. A hand held spear doesn't have the same effect (which is why couching was adopted). I don't suppose there's a hard line between the two - as with all things, there is some overlap, and a charging rider with a hand held spear would thrust harder than a stationary one - but (we seem agreed) impact/couched/lance is still a different thing from thrusting/handheld/spear.
Quote
'Into' as a translation makes no sense whatsoever in the context, otherwise I would have left well alone. I think what Plutarch intended to convey, or at least express, is that the horse provides the force which gives the kontos its impact and penetration.
Then you are up to your old tricks again. You have a theory of kontos use (the horse provides the force). You find a passage in Plutarch that doesn't quite support your theory. So you silently change the translation to make it fit better and say that this is what Plutarch 'intended to convey'.
See, this is more like it, no agreement here.
I don't see any benefit either in overarm or horizontal as definitions of spear-ness, I think couched/impact v. handheld/thrusting does a better job. But with definitions of words like this, there are lots of ways to cut it, and no right or wrong.
For what it's worth, Arrian at least uses xyston and doru (spear) interchangeably for Macedonian cavalry (eg Arrian 1.15.5f., Granicus - the Macedonians "were fighting with cornel wood lances (xyston) against short javelins (palta). At this point in the melee Alexander's lance (doru) was broken in the battle... Aretas had also snapped his lance (doru) .. Demaratus of Corinth gave him his own lance (doru). Alexander grasped it and seeing Mithridates riding far ahead of the line ... charged out alone in advance of his own men and thrust his lance (doru) into Mithridates' face and hurled him to the ground. Then Rhoesaces rode at Alexander, and struck him on the head with his scimitar .. Alexander hurled him to to the ground, piercing with his lance (xyston) through the cuirass into his chest... The Persians were now being roughly handled from all quarters; they and their horses were struck in the face with lances (xyston); they were being pushed back (exotheo) by the cavalry".... oh wait, I'd better stop there... Brunt translates as 'lance' throughout (presumably in the sense that a spear wielded by cavalry is a lance, which is fair enough).
transmission of 'power' through the spear is a good point to make Rich. Power/force is a function of speed and strength. A spear's power relies on both of these plus the resistance to backward motion. Therefore anything that braces a spear during the impact will aid the transmission of the force
Indeed. I don't have my notes on Markle to hand but here is Peter Connolly ('Experiments with the sarissa - the Macedonian pike and cavalry lance - a functional view', Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 11, 2000. (Note he calls the Macedonian cavalry spear a sarissa, and is arguing chiefly (and rather testily) about its length, but he did some practical experiments too:
"After many costly and fruitless experiments an example ten Athenian cubits (4.87m) long was constructed with a tapered cherry wood haft.... The cherry wood haft was fitted with Andronicos' large spearhead as a butt and the 0.235kg spearhead from Vergina as a point. The reconstruction has an overall weight of 3.610kg with a point of balance 1.47m from the butt ie 30% of the length.
"The reconstructed cavalry sarissa was tried out by John Duckham on two occasions in the summer of 2000. Duckham is a very accomplished horseman involved in historical re-enactment for English Heritage. Riding without a saddle he found it handled reasonably well when used under-arm but was more dificult to use over-arm because of its weight (this is a common experience for re-enactors trying out unfamiliar weapons). The lance shook violently at the trot but the amount of whip decreased when the horse broke into a canter.
"... The anticpated problems were:
"That the shaking of the spear would make it difficult to hit the dummy. In practice it proved easier to hit the target under-arm than over-arm.... Duckham was convinced that, given practice, he could achieve 100% success with either grip.
"That it would prove impossible to retrieve the spear by pulling it out as one rode past... In practice this proved to be no problem when using the lance over-arm... However, using the spear under-arm with the 'thumb-forward' grip proved more difficult as one had to change grip to retrieve the lance... Duckham found that if he allowed the lance to describe a horizontal rather than a perpendicular arc, with the butt passing round behind his back, retrieval could be achieved without changing grip. He did this successfully several times.
"... With regard to using the cavalry sarissa with both hands or couched: we concluded that, in the absence of a horned or high-backed saddle, the spear could not be used effectively either two handed or couched as the force of the impact would push the rider off the back of the horse."
My comments: this last observation goes against what Alvarez found, so treat with caution accordingly, but at any rate the experiment was with a form of blow (uncouched, one handed) in which there was not much force transmitted from the forward momentum of horse and rider - instead the spear was horizontally windmilled (swung round behind the rider) to retrieve it. How possible this would be in close formation is in some doubt, but the alternative is either a lost spear, or an unhorsed rider. This assumes that the rider ever did 'ride past' his target, which I doubt - that would seem to apply if spearing scattered infantry, or if jousting, but in the Granicus fighting Arrian described above (for example), I don't see any suggestion of riding past - rather, it is stop and thrust. But this gets us dangerously close to 'knife through butter' territory, so I'll leave it at that.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 10, 2017, 08:23:09 AM
Quote
I see you (Patrick) change Perrin's "the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses" into "the spear which the Parthians thrust from the horses" - fair enough for sense perhaps, though the Greek is εἰς, into. But it's all a small matter.
'Into' as a translation makes no sense whatsoever in the context, otherwise I would have left well alone. I think what Plutarch intended to convey, or at least express, is that the horse provides the force which gives the kontos its impact and penetration.
It may equally be that it's "horses" that is the problem here. In 25.9 we specifically see the kontoi being used against horses, those of the Gallic cavalry. The problem is that by 27.2 the Parthians are attacking the legionaries, the Gauls having been beaten, so there shouldn't be any horses to thrust at. Perhaps it's the horses that have crept in erroneously being influenced by the previous passage, and originally the kontoi should have been thrust into bodies, or something?
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 10, 2017, 08:58:52 PM
It may equally be that it's "horses" that is the problem here. In 25.9 we specifically see the kontoi being used against horses, those of the Gallic cavalry. The problem is that by 27.2 the Parthians are attacking the legionaries, the Gauls having been beaten, so there shouldn't be any horses to thrust at. Perhaps it's the horses that have crept in erroneously being influenced by the previous passage, and originally the kontoi should have been thrust into bodies, or something?
That would make good sense; either 'into' or 'horses' has to be wrong, and 'horses' could indeed be the problem. If we take them out of the equation, we are still left with a weapon which has sufficient impact to penetrate two Roman infantry at a time, which brings us back to the original point of the kontos being an impact weapon used with a charge as opposed to a thrusting weapon employed from a standing start.
Very good suggestion, Duncan.
Quote from: RichT on June 10, 2017, 11:33:56 AM
Quote
Alex is using the impetus provided by his horse, which brings us to our next discussion point.
Is he? Says who? I would want to see either/and/or:
- some (literary or artistic or archaeological, at any rate ancient) evidence that impetus is provided by the horse
What else could provide it?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 11, 2017, 09:27:54 AM
What else could provide it?
Alex's arm.
And if you're going to say that he won't have been strong enough, I reply that history is full of stories about people being penetrated by spears and cut in two by swords that, regardless of what really happened, I see absolutely no problem in assuming it was
reported he did it.
And would the horse have been standing still, or is the idea that the movement of the horse plus the movement of the arm provided impact? (I see no significant objection to the latter.)
The horse is rearing, so presumably not stationary, but neither moving forward at any considerable speed.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on June 11, 2017, 08:34:03 PM
The horse is rearing, so presumably not stationary, but neither moving forward at any considerable speed.
Yes, but we're not seeing the moment of impact, since the lance has already gone in and through the poor Persian chap. So the horse would have been moving, and reined up on impact.
Though possibly the first impact thrust killed the horse (somebody must have) and the Persian is actual a second blow from a now rearing horse? Certainly momentum has been lost by this point.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 11, 2017, 10:51:20 PM
Though possibly the first impact thrust killed the horse (somebody must have) and the Persian is actual a second blow from a now rearing horse? Certainly momentum has been lost by this point.
Good observation, Anthony: looking closely at the horse (maximum magnification on the picture (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Battle_of_Issus_mosaic_-_Museo_Archeologico_Nazionale_-_Naples_BW.jpg)), one can see what looks like a xyston-head protruding from its side, just below the right shoulder. However it cannot be Alexander who struck the horse as he is using his unbroken xyston, still pointed at both ends, to impale the rider and would have to have changed weapons at the kind of speed associated with Fiskean contraction. Hence I agree entirely with Duncan's assessment: Alex's horse would have been moving at impact, and has just checked to avoid collision with the Persian and his deceased or dying mount. Whether Alex will be able to extract the xyston is another question; if he is trying to pull it out backwards, he is at least getting some help from the Persian, who would also doubtless like it removed.
Well spotted Patrick - that looks like a broken off spearhead surrounded perhaps by entrails ?
Anyway, there is a danger in reading too much into an artistic composition - the main purpose of the artist is to display Alex in a heroic pose in contrast with Darius' craven pose. That is not to say Alex is in an unrealistic pose, just that it has been chosen for a purpose. Note though that some Macedonian cavalry are wielding overarm, others under arm.
I seem to recall there are other underarm thrusting Hellenistic cavalry, though. One on a rearing horse fighting an elephant, perhaps?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 12, 2017, 10:14:18 AMAnyway, there is a danger in reading too much into an artistic composition - the main purpose of the artist is to display Alex in a heroic pose in contrast with Darius' craven pose.
Plus, of course, ancient artists had notorious difficulties in getting the poses of moving horses right - remember the flying gallop!
Yes Alexander's horse (not Bucephalus?) must have stopped or be stopping (else in another second he will collide with Darius's chariot). Incidentally I love the mosaic, but reconstructing ancient combat techniques from it is like reconstructing 19th C cavalry tactics entirely from Lady Butler's Scotland Forever. It's a work of art, not a documentary photograph. But anyway, it's all we have.
If the blow lands while the horse is moving forward, then inasmuch as the rider is also moving forward, there is some augmentation of the force applied. But this isn't the same as 'the impetus of the horse provides the force' - if the horse keeps moving, then either Alex has to drop the spear, or he gets knocked off his horse, or his arm gets pulled out of its socket (or some combination). There can be no 'riding past', unless like in Connolly's experiment, he 'windmills' - which would be hard with a fellow human stuck on the end of the spear. If the horse stops (or he windmills), then not much impetus is being applied. For more impetus to be applied (even apart from the problems with riding past), then Alex would have to hold his arm rigid against the momentum of Alex+horse moving in one direction, and Persian+horse stationary in front of him. I can't be bothered to do the maths, as I expect we can agree this isn't possible. The point of couching is that it lends rigidity, which allows the force to be absorbed/transmitted by arm, armpit and body, not just by hand, wrist and arm - and even so (see the Alvarez piece) the force is considerable and the blow must either unhorse or at least knock back the target, or glance off in some way - if the spear stuck hard (as it presumably has in this Persian) then the lancer could not keep moving forward with his lance - something would have to give (most likely the lance). Hence the distinction we are making between couched/impact and handheld/thrust (and hence the view that the reason couching wasn't adopted is that it wasn't needed, as spears weren't impact weapons, according to the definitions we've been using).
On the Parthian kontos and without labouring this too much more than it already has been:
Plutarch Crassus 25.7f. "Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy. But his struggle was an unequal one both offensively and defensively, for his thrusting was done with small and feeble spears [doration, diminutive of doru] against breastplates of raw hide and steel, whereas the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes [kontoi] against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls, since it was upon these that Publius chiefly relied, and with these he did indeed work wonders. [8] For they laid hold of the honing spears [kontoi] of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from their horses, hard as it was to move them owing to the weight of their armour; and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly. These would rear up in their anguish, and die trampling on riders and foemen indiscriminately mingled. [9] But the Gauls were distressed above all things by the heat and their thirst, to both of which they were unused; and most of their horses had perished by being driven against the long spears [kontoi]. They were therefore compelled to retire upon the men-at-arms, taking with them Publius, who was severely wounded.
27.1f. "Crassus saw that not many of his men listened with any eagerness, but when he also bade them raise the battle cry, he discovered how despondent his army was, so weak, feeble, and uneven was the shout they made, while that which came from the Barbarians was clear and bold. Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen [kataphraktoi] in front, plying their long spears [kontoi], kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear [kontos] which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."
I don't see anything in this description that could provide evidence that Parthian kontoi were impact weapons as we have defined them (they might have been - but we are, or should be, looking for evidence). Plutarch makes much of their heavy iron, and in both cases (the Gallic cavalry's horses, the desperate infantry - if they are all infantry, which is not certain) it is the victim who is driven on or rushes on the spear. Whatever 'into the horses' might mean in the second case, and it is odd, and I agree it might well be an error or interpolation, it is at any rate not good evidence at all (to say the least) for Plutarch meaning that the Parthians charged with impact weapons.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 12, 2017, 10:14:18 AM
Well spotted Patrick - that looks like a broken off spearhead surrounded perhaps by entrails ?
Anyway, there is a danger in reading too much into an artistic composition - the main purpose of the artist is to display Alex in a heroic pose in contrast with Darius' craven pose. That is not to say Alex is in an unrealistic pose, just that it has been chosen for a purpose. Note though that some Macedonian cavalry are wielding overarm, others under arm.
I seem to recall there are other underarm thrusting Hellenistic cavalry, though. One on a rearing horse fighting an elephant, perhaps?
I suspect a mix is always likely. As an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 12, 2017, 10:14:18 AMI seem to recall there are other underarm thrusting Hellenistic cavalry, though. One on a rearing horse fighting an elephant, perhaps?
The elephant medallion (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-bRAH2I4lR3Q/UWu3ipqpVdI/AAAAAAAAAEs/PeOhe1Uu-H0/s1600/AlexanderMedallio.jpg) - with the rearing horse, similarly posed to the mosaic. And the lost Kinch Tomb painting (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kinchs_Tomb_(Macedonian_tomb),_Lefkadia,_Ancient_Mieza_(7272126148)_Crop.jpg), for instance.
Interesting discusdion, though I did become a bit cincern that we were treating the Issus mosac as if it was a photograph of actual events.
Macedonians may have had windmilling practise if they used spears , mounted , to hunt boar. Moeover we probably should not overestimate the speed of impact. Many wargamers seem to equate 'charge' with 'at the gallop' I doubt that it is , more lijely it is a much more moderate pace so that control can be maintained. After all,na man on a galloping horse that barrels into an oppising horse is lijely to go over his own horse's head. So the moving horse wouod add sone force to tge spearpoint, but not such as to rip an arm out of its sicket. or break a wrist.
Herodian's decription of kontoi strapped to the horse is interesting as a device where much more of the weight and momentum of the animal might be transmitted. Knights around 1100 AD verynlijely did deliver such energy through the lance that opponents were pierced through. I recall that is the conclusion of analysis of dscriptions in the chansons. Do earlier sources describe much in the way of spears bursting through chest and back??
Roy
Just going back to this:
Patrick:
Quote
Hence I agree entirely with Duncan's assessment: Alex's horse would have been moving at impact, and has just checked to avoid collision with the Persian and his deceased or dying mount.
Then we have a consensus, I believe. Nobody is proposing that Alex (or Mac cavalry generally) stopped before they reached the enemy, since that would be pointless. And now it seems nobody is proposing that they rode up to and kept on riding straight through the enemy, using the impetus of the horse to drive home their spears. Rather we all seem agreed that Alex (as an example) rode up to the enemy, struck a blow and stopped, then struck further blows from this largely stationary (if rearing) position. In this case the spear in the horse might be Alex's (and the spear in his hand belonged to a Demaratus of Corinth or equivalent) or it might be another rider's, off screen in the foreground. Either way, contact (between the formations) made, horses stop and riders trade blows with the strength of their arms. QED. So we could argue about how much of the forward momentum of the rider at the moment the first blow is struck, when the horse might still be moving forward, is transmitted through arm/wrist/hand/spear to the target, but that seems like a very minor point. I expect somewhere between some and not a vast amount.
Quote from: RichT on June 12, 2017, 10:55:39 AM
If the blow lands while the horse is moving forward, then inasmuch as the rider is also moving forward, there is some augmentation of the force applied. But this isn't the same as 'the impetus of the horse provides the force' - if the horse keeps moving, then either Alex has to drop the spear, or he gets knocked off his horse, or his arm gets pulled out of its socket (or some combination).
Not necessarily, on the basis that the initial impact appears to have drive the xyston through its target, so if the horse keeps moving it merely bloodies a greater length of the weapon shaft.
Quote
There can be no 'riding past', unless like in Connolly's experiment, he 'windmills' - which would be hard with a fellow human stuck on the end of the spear. If the horse stops (or he windmills), then not much impetus is being applied. For more impetus to be applied (even apart from the problems with riding past), then Alex would have to hold his arm rigid against the momentum of Alex+horse moving in one direction, and Persian+horse stationary in front of him. I can't be bothered to do the maths, as I expect we can agree this isn't possible.
Not necessarily rigid; Alex has his arm bent in the painting, which, while I take your point about artists and their details, suggests he is not in line for action and reaction being equal and opposite. My best guess is that he has done what lancers in the 19th century sometimes did, namely to deliver a thrust of his own to augment the momentum provided by his mount, but then release the shaft just after impact. This minimised both penetration (making the weapon easier to withdraw) and any kickback from the impact of lance into target and/or friction burn from the shaft sliding back through the hand. We may note incidentally that the momentum equation is not a case of Alex+horse being added to Persian+horse, it is rather xyston (with Alex+horse powering it) meeting Persian abdomen with perhaps a few metal scales on a leather or linen base in front of it. This latter has evidently been thoroughly penetrated at contact, and currently it looks as if Alex and the Persian are both keen to extract the xyston in a gesture of mutual international cooperation towards an identical aim.
Quote
The point of couching is that it lends rigidity, which allows the force to be absorbed/transmitted by arm, armpit and body, not just by hand, wrist and arm - and even so (see the Alvarez piece) the force is considerable and the blow must either unhorse or at least knock back the target, or glance off in some way - if the spear stuck hard (as it presumably has in this Persian) then the lancer could not keep moving forward with his lance - something would have to give (most likely the lance). Hence the distinction we are making between couched/impact and handheld/thrust (and hence the view that the reason couching wasn't adopted is that it wasn't needed, as spears weren't impact weapons, according to the definitions we've been using).
Though if using the release-on-impact technique none of this really applies and couching would do more harm than good.
Quote
I don't see anything in this description that could provide evidence that Parthian kontoi were impact weapons as we have defined them (they might have been - but we are, or should be, looking for evidence). Plutarch makes much of their heavy iron, and in both cases (the Gallic cavalry's horses, the desperate infantry - if they are all infantry, which is not certain) it is the victim who is driven on or rushes on the spear. Whatever 'into the horses' might mean in the second case, and it is odd, and I agree it might well be an error or interpolation, it is at any rate not good evidence at all (to say the least) for Plutarch meaning that the Parthians charged with impact weapons.
But although some infantrymen are indeed charging the Parthians, are they the ones being transfixed two at a time? I grant that
Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen [kataphraktoi] in front, plying their long spears [kontoi], kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear [kontos] which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once.
does seem to associate their death with their rush, and I do wonder if standing to receive was a standard cataphract defensive technique, but Plutarch's last clause -
often had impetus [or 'force'] enough to pierce through two men at once - is difficult to reconcile with a standing start, let alone two men simultaneously, one behind the other, thrusting themselves onto a Parthian point. Rather, the last phrase seems to be a general observation that a kontos
with impetus [or 'force'] could go through two men at once, the implication being that it is unsurprising that single individuals facing this weapon met their doom. I think this passage actually provides evidence both for inadvertent self-impalement by attackers and for Parthian shock tactics.
Plutarch's Life of Anthony 45.3 is interesting in this respect:
"The Parthians, however, thinking that the Romans dropping on one knee was a sign of fatigue and exhaustion, laid aside their bows, grasped their spears [kontous] by the middle and came to close quarters [prosemixan]. But the Romans, with a full battle cry, suddenly sprang up, and thrusting with their javelins [hussios] slew the foremost of the Parthians and put all the rest to rout."
This would be hard to achieve against Parthians coming in at full gallop, and seems more fitting if the Parthians were approaching at something more like a trot, perhaps with some leisurely thrusting in mind. It is conceivable that the Parthians had three tactical procedures for their cataphracts: 1) stand in place and hold or thrust; 2) trot in and thrust; 3) gallop or canter in while holding (or even thrusting) and let the momentum drive the kontos through more than one opponent.
If we eliminate 3), we have to explain how a Parthian could manage to skewer two Romans simultaneously with either 1) or 2).
Quote from: Holly on June 12, 2017, 11:00:14 AM
As an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Not on the painting, which seems to display a conspicuous lack of such refinements. But if release on impact was the technique employed in such circumstances, a grip could be counterproductive and hence consciously avoided.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 12, 2017, 10:14:18 AM
Note though that some Macedonian cavalry are wielding overarm, others under arm.
Indeed, the Companion behind Alex is using an overarm grip, and holding the weapon much further along the shaft than either Alex or the presumed owner of the xyston-head protruding beyond the neck of Alex's horse. Unfortunately we have lost the part of the mosaic which would tell us if he was using the rear spike of a broken xyston, but the placement of the grip suggests this may well be the case. If so, we have an intact xyston used underarm and a broken one, or one which has lost its spearhead, used overarm. (If it were not for spatial considerations, one might be tempted to associate the putative broken xyston with the detached xyston-head in the unfortunate Persian's horse, but I deem Richard's conclusion about a notional unrepresented foreground figure to be the correct one).
Quote from: aligern on June 12, 2017, 12:14:15 PM
Do earlier sources describe much in the way of spears bursting through chest and back??
The best I can find after a quick search is Arrian,
Anabasis XV, describing Alexander at the Granicus:
"... he rode on in front of the others, and hitting at the face of Mithridates with his spear, struck him to the ground. But hereupon, Rhoesaces rode up to Alexander and hit him on the head with his scimitar, breaking off a piece of his helmet. But the helmet broke the force of the blow. This man also Alexander struck to the ground, hitting him in the chest through the breastplate with his lance."
No penetration all the way through and out the other side, although in reacting to an adjacent opponent Alex presumably did not have much of a run-up. The point did nevertheless go in and take the target down to the ground.
Quote from: RichT on June 12, 2017, 12:28:41 PM
Then we have a consensus, I believe. Nobody is proposing that Alex (or Mac cavalry generally) stopped before they reached the enemy, since that would be pointless. And now it seems nobody is proposing that they rode up to and kept on riding straight through the enemy, using the impetus of the horse to drive home their spears.
More that they drove home the spears with impetus but did not, at least in this case, carry on riding through. On the Alexander Mosaic, it looks as if some effort is being made to disengage the weapon, the impact having already done its job.
Quote
Rather we all seem agreed that Alex (as an example) rode up to the enemy, struck a blow and stopped, then struck further blows from this largely stationary (if rearing) position.
Alas, no: yours truly deems Alex to have ridden into the enemy and to have checked only once he had a Persian impaled on the end of his xyston, not to have halted and then launched a succession of stationary thrusts.
Quote
Either way, contact (between the formations) made, horses stop and riders trade blows with the strength of their arms. QED.
Unfortunately not - riders may temporarily halt to extract a xyston, but, as with Alex at the Granicus, it seems to be more a case of: "
... he rode on in front of the others, and hitting at the face of Mithridates with his spear, struck him to the ground" apparently without halting to trade blows. This is not to say that Macedonian cavalry could not fight at the halt - forcing the Granicus required xyston-work in repeated struggles up the riverbank - but that they seem to have preferred to administer the point from a moving mount.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 13, 2017, 03:39:01 PM
Quote from: Holly on June 12, 2017, 11:00:14 AM
As an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Not on the painting, which seems to display a conspicuous lack of such refinements. But if release on impact was the technique employed in such circumstances, a grip could be counterproductive and hence consciously avoided.
release on impact would need some resistance at first to deliver any force otherwise you are relying on the speed of the horse and the weight of the spear to deliver said force alone. A slight resistance on impact via the wielder would increase the force of the blow although it would be a fine judgement call to avoid anatomical rearrangement of arms and shoulder joints
as an aside, I would wrap a small binding on any polearm I used during my reenacting days to to help deliver smooth and forceful blows :)
We should remember, as already stated, we are looking at an heroic image not a photo of the actual battle. AFAIK, the incident depicted is not a specific one in the historical record. But we do have specific combat descriptions (because they are quoted above) which suggest both body penetrating thrusts and spear replacement. So a senior cavalryman in the position of the mosaic's Alex would be well advised to drop the thing and shout "Lance!" to his nearest comrades, one of whom will oblige and then presumably draw his sword to continue in the melee.
Christopher Matthew looked in depth at penetrating spear thrusts (albeit it in an infantry context) and concluded there was a 'killing zone' where a maximum effect (of power and thus penetration) could be achieved. Its worth looking at in his book 'Storm of Spears' even if you dont ascribe to his favoured hoplite model
Quote from: Holly on June 13, 2017, 07:17:03 PM
Christopher Matthew looked in depth at penetrating spear thrusts (albeit it in an infantry context) and concluded there was a 'killing zone' where a maximum effect (of power and thus penetration) could be achieved. Its worth looking at in his book 'Storm of Spears' even if you dont ascribe to his favoured hoplite model
And that was in infantry combat, where one does not add the momentum conferred by a 900 lb horse. Yes,
Storm of Spears is definitely worth a read sometime (my library had not heard of it last time I asked).
Quote from: Holly on June 13, 2017, 03:49:09 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 13, 2017, 03:39:01 PM
Quote from: Holly on June 12, 2017, 11:00:14 AM
As an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Not on the painting, which seems to display a conspicuous lack of such refinements. But if release on impact was the technique employed in such circumstances, a grip could be counterproductive and hence consciously avoided.
release on impact would need some resistance at first to deliver any force otherwise you are relying on the speed of the horse and the weight of the spear to deliver said force alone. A slight resistance on impact via the wielder would increase the force of the blow although it would be a fine judgement call to avoid anatomical rearrangement of arms and shoulder joints
One which I think would easily be acquired through practice against training-ground targets.
Quote from: Erpingham on June 13, 2017, 04:30:11 PM
We should remember, as already stated, we are looking at an heroic image not a photo of the actual battle. AFAIK, the incident depicted is not a specific one in the historical record. But we do have specific combat descriptions (because they are quoted above) which suggest both body penetrating thrusts and spear replacement.
Albeit not in that order. And for a 'heroic image' this one has surprising detail. Look at Alex's grasp on his xyston: would you consider that tight or in the act of letting go? He may even be about to reach forward, grab it further along the shaft and tug it backwards, perhaps with a hint to his mount to do the same, with the aim of retrieving the weapon.
Quote
So a senior cavalryman in the position of the mosaic's Alex would be well advised to drop the thing and shout "Lance!" to his nearest comrades, one of whom will oblige and then presumably draw his sword to continue in the melee.
And he may well have done if the weapon did not extract
toute de suite. Unless seriously pressed, I think he would try extraction first, especially as his opponent seems to be helping.
I suppose it is a bit of a cliche to say there is much we do not know about Macedonian combat techniques, but sadly this seems to be the case. Perhaps we can work out a bit more through discussions like this about such evidence as we do have.
Quote from: Holly on June 12, 2017, 11:00:14 AMAs an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Interesting point, because there are occasional representations of such things on hoplite spears - the Achilles Painter amphora in the Vatican (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/ET4d-Amphora.jpg) is one of the best-known - so the idea was known, but I can't recall a clear example on a cavalry spear.
Quote
And that was in infantry combat, where one does not add the momentum conferred by a 900 lb horse.
But in a cavalry combat one does not add the momentum of the horse either (or rather one does, but nobody else does - see four pages of earlier discussion).
Quotelbeit not in that order. And for a 'heroic image' this one has surprising detail. Look at Alex's grasp on his xyston: would you consider that tight or in the act of letting go? He may even be about to reach forward, grab it further along the shaft and tug it backwards, perhaps with a hint to his mount to do the same, with the aim of retrieving the weapon.
I think this is where we cross over into over-interpretation based on an artistic image. He certainly seems to grip the shaft of the spear tightly but who knows whether this is the regulation Hellenistic cavalry grip or something the artist thought looked right? Likewise talking in too much detail about the victim. I seriously doubt the artist found a local Persian and ran a spear through him to get the pose - there is a degree of artistic composition here. That said, I don't doubt it was possible to run someone through with a cavalry spear. Procopius has someone do it and Byzantines didn't have stirrups and built up saddles either.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 14, 2017, 09:09:13 AM
Quote from: Holly on June 12, 2017, 11:00:14 AMAs an aside, do we have any evidence for shaft 'grips' or coverings to aid delivery of the impact or thrust?
Interesting point, because there are occasional representations of such things on hoplite spears - the Achilles Painter amphora in the Vatican (http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/ET4d-Amphora.jpg) is one of the best-known - so the idea was known, but I can't recall a clear example on a cavalry spear.
thank you Duncan, I was groping for a reference to it but was vaguely aware of having seen it 'somewhere' before!
Quote from: Erpingham on June 14, 2017, 11:58:27 AM
I think this is where we cross over into over-interpretation based on an artistic image. He certainly seems to grip the shaft of the spear tightly but who knows whether this is the regulation Hellenistic cavalry grip or something the artist thought looked right? Likewise talking in too much detail about the victim. I seriously doubt the artist found a local Persian and ran a spear through him to get the pose - there is a degree of artistic composition here.
I would be happy to agree on the likelihood of a degree of artistic composition, e.g. would Alexander really be helmetless in the middle of a battle? However I understand that the mosaic is derived from a painting made by a painter whose
floreat was contemporary with Alexander, either Aristides of Thebes or Philoxenus of Eretria, and they are unlikely to have made mistakes in portrayal of technique: they were not monkish artists working on impressions, but real-life experts working for kings. There could have been some detail compromised in transferring the medium of representation from a mural to a mosaic, but I would be inclined to give the composition the benefit of the doubt.
So while the portrayal of Alexander may have at least one questionable 'heroic' element (absence of helmet; not 100% sure about the armour either), I do not think we could or should extend this to the use of weaponry any more than in the painting of the 28th making their stand at Quatre Bras we should question the way they hold their muskets just because the artist has given them the wrong shako. :)
Perhaps the safest approach is to raise the possibility that the painter depicted the xyston just before an attempted withdrawal - but keep it as just a possibility.
QuoteThat said, I don't doubt it was possible to run someone through with a cavalry spear. Procopius has someone do it and Byzantines didn't have stirrups and built up saddles either.
Yes, good observation.
Quote from: RichT on June 14, 2017, 11:09:23 AM
But in a cavalry combat one does not add the momentum of the horse either (or rather one does, but nobody else does - see four pages of earlier discussion).
Generations of cavalrymen have successfully done so. I suggest one gets on a horse and tries it, preferably at the canter.
Reference four previous pages of discussion, generations of cavalrymen have not. The rest of us are making a distinction between the forward motion of the rider (sitting as he is on a forward moving horse, at least some of the time), and the 'transmission of the impetus of the horse through the lance/spear'. As you do not make this distinction, you are just arguing against a straw man. But that's fine as we have the usual consensus. Move along.
are we are looking for penetrative power in the spear/lance delivery? If so then we need a small tip especially if we are anticipating a lot of force being transmitted potentially through the rider on impact. Do we have a consensus on cavalry spear/lance tip size?
Quote from: RichT on June 16, 2017, 09:47:51 AM
The rest of us are making a distinction between the forward motion of the rider (sitting as he is on a forward moving horse, at least some of the time), and the 'transmission of the impetus of the horse through the lance/spear'.
So - under this assumed distinction, would a lancer on a bicycle going at 25 mph confer upon his weapon the same impetus and impact as a lancer on a pony going at 25 mpg, and would this be the same as one on a destrier going at 25 mph?
Quote from: Holly on June 16, 2017, 02:30:20 PM
are we are looking for penetrative power in the spear/lance delivery? If so then we need a small tip especially if we are anticipating a lot of force being transmitted potentially through the rider on impact. Do we have a consensus on cavalry spear/lance tip size?
Not sure, but the characterising feature of the xyston was its slender nature. Hence whatever the size of the blade, it transmitted a concentrated force through the point (as with the Roman pilum).
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 16, 2017, 09:03:38 PMQuote from: Holly on June 16, 2017, 02:30:20 PM
are we are looking for penetrative power in the spear/lance delivery? If so then we need a small tip especially if we are anticipating a lot of force being transmitted potentially through the rider on impact. Do we have a consensus on cavalry spear/lance tip size?
Not sure, but the characterising feature of the xyston was its slender nature. Hence whatever the size of the blade, it transmitted a concentrated force through the point (as with the Roman pilum).
And the Parthian kontos' "heavy iron" has already been cited in this thread. It's one reason to think that the heavy kontos may perhaps have been a distinctly different weapon from the slender xyston.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 17, 2017, 05:55:27 PM
And the Parthian kontos' "heavy iron" has already been cited in this thread. It's one reason to think that the heavy kontos may perhaps have been a distinctly different weapon from the slender xyston.
I would agree: a different description, what appears to be a different method of holding, and (for what it is worth) a different - and apparently consistently different - name.
so tentatively Xyston for a piercing hit and Kontos for more of a shock blow?
Quote from: Holly on June 18, 2017, 08:34:47 AM
so tentatively Xyston for a piercing hit and Kontos for more of a shock blow?
From the evidence so far presented,
xyston is a light lance and
kontos a heavy one. Do the two weapons overlap much in the historical record? E.g. does the
xyston predate the
kontos?
thats beyond my ken and for others to speak on. Interesting point (no pun intended) though on any overlap or indeed potential concurrent use. ie did, for example, Alexander have his cavalry armed with different spear types depending on what role they were playing on the battlefield?
Quote from: Erpingham on June 18, 2017, 08:41:58 AM
Do the two weapons overlap much in the historical record? E.g. does the xyston predate the kontos?
I would want Duncan's input on this; from what I can see the
xyston is the first of the long-shafted mounted weapons (with caveats about the Assyrian 'lance' and the Roman 'cuspis') and the
kontos more or less emerges together with the cataphract. ('More or less' here means I am not sure what Seleucid cataphracts used.)
I stand to be corrected on this.
Quote from: Holly on June 18, 2017, 09:13:32 AM
... did, for example, Alexander have his cavalry armed with different spear types depending on what role they were playing on the battlefield?
Quite likely, in my view, especially bearing in mind the
prodromoi's other designation:
sarissophoroi. His Paeonians are noted as acting in a scouting capacity and also as having a shock role at the Granicus and Gaugamela. It is
possible, and we might even stretch this to
likely, that they were differently armed for different roles, but - I must emphasise this - unless Duncan has something up his sleeve, we have no proof.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on June 18, 2017, 09:33:47 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on June 18, 2017, 08:41:58 AM
Do the two weapons overlap much in the historical record? E.g. does the xyston predate the kontos?
I would want Duncan's input on this; from what I can see the xyston is the first of the long-shafted mounted weapons (with caveats about the Assyrian 'lance' and the Roman 'cuspis') and the kontos more or less emerges together with the cataphract. ('More or less' here means I am not sure what Seleucid cataphracts used.)
Very hard to be certain, but I know of no firm evidence for the kontos (in the sense of "long two-handed lance with a big spearhead") that would predate Alexander.
The Hellenistic tacticians lump xystophoroi, kontophoroi and doratophoroi together, so it doesn't do to overstate the differences.
Quote from: Duncan Head on June 18, 2017, 02:58:42 PM
The Hellenistic tacticians lump xystophoroi, kontophoroi and doratophoroi together, so it doesn't do to overstate the differences.
Granted, although we lump together lancers, cuirassiers and dragoons of a later era as 'shock cavalry', so differences in the nature of weaponry are not necessarily precluded.