Please explain the how of it

[First Shirt]

Actually, I think I got that from an article written by the late Peter Capstick. IIRC, it was in one of his books made up from magazine articles he'd written.

[SeekHer]

It depends on when your talking about the lancers was being used and where.

Ancient Egypt through late Roman period they would carry a few throwing spears to harass the pike line/phalanx, they’d also use them against other mounted cavalry primarily as stabbing weapons not thrown.

Heavy horse, knights, 1100 to 1400 carried a single heavy lance with them into battle and would use the speed and power of their destrier to drive the spike head through the other knight’s plate armour (where it usually got stuck or broke off) and then continue to battle with sword, mace, hammer or axe…If possible they would ride back to their lines to re-outfit themselves with another lance (of which they would carry many).

The tournament lances used in the lists where totally different then the war lances—those huge bell shaped covers forward of the grip where used to ward off sword cuts or halberd thrusts from infantry and they added extra weight to help balance a 12 to 15 foot, 30+ pound stick.

Napoleonic War to Crimean War period they had lanyards just ahead of the handgrip to retain the lance when stabbing but it wasn’t worn around the wrist—which could break when going 40 MPH and hitting a standing 200 lb man—but it sort of laid on the shaft and they would grip through it to hold the lance and the lanyard would just rest on their hand’s sides…They were used mostly against fleeing (broken) infantry and other light horse but their main job was reconnaissance and screening the advancing army by keeping other light horse far enough away.

They also were outfitted with a curved sword, shamshir-- changed to sabre—as they slashed their prey not stabbing and the blade shape lends itself better to the job…Whereas the heavy horse had long, straight blades as they used the like a lance to impale the opponent using the horse again for momentum…Both would take their prey not from behind as the stuffed haversack could stop the cut but as they rode past and used the backhand stroke instead.

During the American Civil War there really wasn’t many lancers but in India, Africa the British continued to use them until after the Zulu Wars and even into the Boer War…There was a British Light Dragoon charge by the Anzac troops on Beersheba in 1917 during the First World War and there was even a very unsuccessful (100% casualty) Polish charge against invading German Wehrmacht tanks in 1938.

[D5CAV]

Uhlan cavalry still carried lances during WW1. I don't know of any recorded cavalry charge by Uhlanen - it would have been suicidal with machine guns. I think this was mostly a place to park sons of peerage where they could ride around and look dashing, without getting into any real danger or combat.

http://www.sarcoinc.com/lances.html

My father has a couple of these lances - from some distant relative. My mother asks me if I want them every time I visit. They are about 12 feet long. They don't fit very well with most home decor, certainly not hers.

They are surprisingly light and well balanced at the handle. They look very well made. They do not look disposable. They do not look like they were put together with field expedient wooden poles.

[toad]

I remember reading somewhere that just prior to WW I, the Germans had some lances that were sectional and made out of aluminum. I don't remember if the article mentioned how the sections were put together. Knowing the Germans the design was for speed of assembly and secure fastening both. I wish my search fu was up to finding something about them.

[JAG2955]

Incidentally, if you watch enough Hitler Channel about Western Ancient/Medieval warfare, you'll see my college history professor, Prof Abels. I remember discussing how there was a renaissance in warfare between the light lance/cavalry and heavy lance/cavalry. If you look at the design of saddles, during the time of the light lance, the saddles were small, lightly padded, and without stirrups. The lancers would mostly hold their lance in the overhand fashion and stab downward at their opponent, throw it, or leave it in their opponent by holding it underhand. They could carry multiple ones on their horse in a quiver, as written about by Josephus, and would carry as many as 20, as written about by Arrian while describing cavalry exercises.

Once the invention of stirrups and the high back saddle, cavalry began holding their much heavier lance in a couched fashion, tight under their arm. The heavy lance began to appear around 1300. Often, the heavy lance would break or would stay lodged in a body or shield. There's still arguments by scholars about what was of more use-the couched lance or the fact that many tons of armored cavalry that would bear down on a target. In fact, there are very few recorded events of heavy cavalry smashing through a well-defended line like in Lord of the Rings. Many of the successful cavalry charges against pike-carrying infantry were due to a dying horse crushing a few men and the resulting exploitation of the hole in the defense.

Look at that, I even broke out some college books for this post!

[D5CAV]

In fact, there are very few recorded events of heavy cavalry smashing through a well-defended line like in Lord of the Rings. Many of the successful cavalry charges against pike-carrying infantry were due to a dying horse crushing a few men and the resulting exploitation of the hole in the defense.

My cavalry experience is with the kerosene-inhaling kind rather than the oats-nibbling kind. However, I do have some friends who enjoy the anachronism of riding their four legged cavalry around a polo field chasing a ball. Every one of them has told me that horses are not as stupid as they look, and there is no way a horse will charge into a hedgehog of pike carrying infantry. Any cavalry trooper who thinks their well trained mount will do so, better hold on tight, because that horse will come to an abrupt stop just short of the pikes, and the unprepared trooper will find himself with a birds-eye view of those pikes when Mr. Gravity decides to end his flight.

I think history bears this out. From the Greek Phalanx to the British Square, pike or bayonet carrying infantry were more than the match for cavalry. All the cavalry could do is ride around the phalanx out of pike range and poke at the infantry with their lances. When pikes evolved to muzzle loading muskets with bayonets, even that practice became inadvisable. The Hollywood fantasy of horses charging a hedgehog of pikes is exactly that - a Hollywood fantasy.

I'm at a loss to find any example of a successful horse cavalry charge against trained troops. The only (relatively) recent examples were both spectacularly unsuccessful: The suicidal charge of the British lancers against the Russians during the Crimean War, and the suicidal charge of the Polish lancers against the Germans in WW2. I won't even call them "Kamikaze" charges. At least the Japanese Kamikaze were able to inflict real damage to US warships and troops. These actions were pure suicide.

[randy]

From David Drake's An Oblique Approach

Imagine three thousand Persian lancers, thundering up to a wretched little earthen wall, guarded by not more than a thousand terrified, pathetic, wretched infantrymen. They sweep the enemy aside, right? Like an avalanche!

Well, not exactly. There are problems.

First, each cavalry mount has been hauling a man (a large man, more often than not) carrying fifty pounds of armor and twenty pounds of weapons—not to mention another hundred pounds of the horse's own armor. At a full gallop for half a mile, in the blistering heat of a Syrian summer.

So, the horses are winded, disgruntled, and thinking dark thoughts.

Two—all hearsay to the contrary—horses are not stupid. Quite a bit brighter than men, actually, when it comes to that kind of intelligence known popularly as "horse sense." So, when a horse sees looming before it:

a) a ditch

b) a wall

c) lots of men on the wall holding long objects with sharp points

The horse stops. Fuck the charge. If some stupid man wants to hurl himself against all that dangerous crap, let him. (Which, often enough, they do—sailing headlong over their horse's stubborn head.)

It was the great romantic fallacy of the cavalry charge, and Belisarius had been astonished—all his life—at how fervently men still held to it, despite all practical experience and evidence to the contrary. Yes, horses will charge—against infantry in the open, and against other cavalry. Against anything, as long as the horse can see that it stands a chance of getting through the obstacles ahead, reasonably intact.

But no horse this side of an equine insane asylum will charge a wall too high to leap over. Especially a wall covered with nasty sharp objects.

And there's no point trying to convince the horse that the infantry manning the wall are feeble and demoralized.

Is that so? Tell you what, asshole. Climb off my back and show me. Use your own legs. Mine hurt

[Aglifter]

Trained horses jump blind all the time. You might have to slip a blinder on a horse to get it to charge pickets - or train it that it won't get hurt if it charges pickets, but considering horses can panic and run into walls, etc, breaking their own necks, or run off cliffs, I don't think your argument holds.

That, and for some reason, heavy horse was considered an improvement over the phalanx.

[Yogimus]

Trained horses jump blind all the time. You might have to slip a blinder on a horse to get it to charge pickets - or train it that it won't get hurt if it charges pickets, but considering horses can panic and run into walls, etc, breaking their own necks, or run off cliffs, I don't think your argument holds.

That, and for some reason, heavy horse was considered an improvement over the phalanx.

You don't charge the phalanx with the horse, you go around it and crush the squishies.

[randy]

... crush the squishies.

In the Targeting community the technical term was "soft pudgies".