How did Ancient lancers use their lances?

[Patrick Waterson]

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), 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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[Duncan Head]

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.

Plus, of course, ancient artists had notorious difficulties in getting the poses of moving horses right - remember the flying gallop!

[RichT]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Duncan Head]

I seem to recall there are other underarm thrusting Hellenistic cavalry, though.  One on a rearing horse fighting an elephant, perhaps?

The elephant medallion - with the rearing horse, similarly posed to the mosaic. And the lost Kinch Tomb painting, for instance. 

[aligern]

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

[RichT]

Just going back to this:

Patrick:

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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. 

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.

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.

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).

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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).

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.

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.

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.

[Duncan Head]

As 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 is one of the best-known - so the idea was known, but I can't recall a clear example on a cavalry spear.