How did Ancient lancers use their lances?

[eques]

Must have been a pretty unwieldy weapon prior to the invention of stirrups.

[Patrick Waterson]

Like this.

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.

[Duncan Head]

Or like this, or this, or this.

[RichT]

Or this

(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.

[Duncan Head]

(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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

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 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.

[Erpingham]

* 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.

[Andreas Johansson]

I confess to not being sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with my point 

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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 and the Kinch tomb.  It is held single-handed about a quarter of the way along its length.  Two different weapons, each apparently with its own technique.

[Bohemond]

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.

[Bohemond]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

... 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.