How did Ancient lancers use their lances?

[RichT]

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. 

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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 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'.

[RichT]

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:

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[RichT]

Patrick 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....

[Erpingham]

Patrick 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?

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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!")

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.