How did Ancient lancers use their lances?

[RichT]

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).

[Erpingham]

lbeit 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.

[Imperial Dave]

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.

thank you Duncan, I was groping for a reference to it but was vaguely aware of having seen it 'somewhere' before!

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

Yes, good observation.

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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?

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).

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

so tentatively Xyston for a piercing hit and Kontos for more of a shock blow?

[Erpingham]

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?   

[Imperial Dave]

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?

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

... 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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.