Were lances used in actual combat?

[slaphead]

@Shodan

Mounted cavalry

In contrast to the equally-feared mounted infantry and walking cavalry

Seriously though, I remember reading about a battle where the commander had his knights dismount and act as heavy infantry, to great effect. I think it might have been mentioned in The Art of War in the Western World. Any ideas?

[Tamerlane]

@slaphead

In contrast to the equally-feared mounted infantry

Plenty of examples of feared mounted infantry, actually :). For example the early Arab armies that swept the Near East and Mediterranean consisted largely of mounted infantry - they generally rode to battle on horse and camel-back, but most dismounted to fight. Arab calvary, though it played a key role in a couple of early battles ( most notably at Yarmuk ), generally was not the arm of decision, but rather were used mostly to skirmish and screen ( also those Arab armies did not include any horse-archers - that stereotypical feature of Middle-Eastern warfare didn’t become common in Muslim armies until centuries later with the importation of Turkic troops ).

Seriously though, I remember reading about a battle where the commander had his knights dismount and act as heavy infantry, to great effect.
Any ideas?

I don’t think it was that uncommon, though granted more the exception than the rule. The English used that tactic successfully ( fighting the Scots ) at the battle of the Standard. The French unsuccessfully at the battle of Poitiers ( against the English ), just to name two.

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

@Kinthalis

I should add that no pole arm or Goedendag is going to magically confer the ability for a peasant to kill a trained knight.

Well, it did work at Coutrai ;). But that was a bit of an exception to the prevailing model.

• Tamerlane

[Kinthalis]

@slaphead

In contrast to the equally-feared mounted infantry and walking cavalry

Seriously though, I remember reading about a battle where the commander had his knights dismount and act as heavy infantry, to great effect. I think it might have been mentioned in The Art of War in the Western World. Any ideas?

This was done a lot and was termed fighting in “the English Manner”. Simply knights on foot rather than on horse.

[MaddyStrut]

@Tamerlane

Plenty of examples of feared mounted infantry, actually :). For example the early Arab armies that swept the Near East and Mediterranean consisted largely of mounted infantry - they generally rode to battle on horse and camel-back, but most dismounted to fight. Arab calvary, though it played a key role in a couple of early battles ( most notably at Yarmuk ), generally was not the arm of decision, but rather were used mostly to skirmish and screen ( also those Arab armies did not include any horse-archers - that stereotypical feature of Middle-Eastern warfare didn’t become common in Muslim armies until centuries later with the importation of Turkic troops ).

• Tamerlane

Would the Australian light horse regiments be considered mounted infantry? My understanding is that they usually would dismount to fight although they could charge.*
*The movie The Lighthorsemen includes one such charge and is probably the most adrenaline-raising, breathtaking, but-kicking charge ever filmed!

[Speaker_for_the_Dead]

@Tamerlane

Plenty of examples of feared mounted infantry, actually :). For example the early Arab armies that swept the Near East and Mediterranean consisted largely of mounted infantry - they generally rode to battle on horse and camel-back, but most dismounted to fight. Arab calvary, though it played a key role in a couple of early battles ( most notably at Yarmuk ), generally was not the arm of decision, but rather were used mostly to skirmish and screen ( also those Arab armies did not include any horse-archers - that stereotypical feature of Middle-Eastern warfare didn’t become common in Muslim armies until centuries later with the importation of Turkic troops ).

I don’t think it was that uncommon, though granted more the exception than the rule. The English used that tactic successfully ( fighting the Scots ) at the battle of the Standard. The French unsuccessfully at the battle of Poitiers ( against the English ), just to name two.

• Tamerlane

Weren’t the English knights at the Battle of Crecy also dismounted and mixed among the regular troops?

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Shodan

And I have to second or third the impatience with a lot of these “why didn’t they just do so and so against the knight?” ideas.

Hey, man, some mofo comes down on me with a damn horse, I’ll burn him with my Tec 9, old school, yo.

[Tamerlane]

@MaddyStrut

Would the Australian light horse regiments be considered mounted infantry? My understanding is that they usually would dismount to fight although they could charge.*

Seems they would qualify.

@Speaker for the Dead

Weren’t the English knights at the Battle of Crecy also dismounted and mixed among the regular troops?

Yep - there, too.

• Tamerlane

[Raguleader]

@Tamerlane

Plenty of examples of feared mounted infantry, actually :).

At the Battle of The Cowpens in the American Revolution, mounted infantry (in this case refered to as “Dragoons”) commanded by a Major Washington (no relation to the other guy) repulsed two British light cavalry attacks on either flank of the American line, and later were able to cut off a retreating Scottish unit, forcing their surrender. A lot of the time, mounted infantry would just act as light cavalry.

Modern day examples of mounted infantry would of course be infantry trained to deploy from helicoptors, or even just riding around in trucks, as opposed to modern equivilents of mounted cavalry, which would be the guys who fight from inside tanks or helicoptors or planes.

[Northern_Piper]

@Raguleader

Probably my favorite anti-armor weapon of the day was the “Gutentag”, a very large, heavy hammer with spikes on it, designed for breaking up tightly packed dirt for farming.

@slaphead

Am I going mad, or does that translate to 'Good Day"?

Isn’t that what AD&D calls a “morning star”?

[slaphead]

@MaddyStrut

Would the Australian light horse regiments be considered mounted infantry? My understanding is that they usually would dismount to fight although they could charge.

I think this is one instance where terminology has departed from original usage so much as to get really confusing. I believe in the old days light horse would be armed with ranged weapons (javelins, bows, darts, whatever) and heavy horse would use shock weapons (lances, swords, poll-axes, etc.). Once firearms developed decent range and accuracy, using them from horseback became counter-productive and for best accuracy you needed to dismount - hence light cavalry of whatever kind would tend to evolve into light infantry with extra mobility.
Or more likely, I am wrong.

[Dunderman]

@Northern Piper

Isn’t that what AD&D calls a “morning star”?

No, a morning star is a kind of flail.

[Tuco]

@Spavined Gelding

Someplace I’ve read that this is probably not so. The knightly war horse was a big horse but not the huge, slow, modern draft horse with great strength and mild disposition. It was probably a lighter and more nimble horse weighing about 1300 pounds or slightly larger and standing about 16 hands tall at the shoulder (16 hands = 5 ft 4 inches). Your standard thoroughbred is about the same height but weighs from 800 to 1000 pounds in racing trim. It was the sort of horse we would call a heavy weight hunter or a carriage horse and the sort of horse used by the British household cavalry. A big old Belgian, Clydesdale or Shire horse just would not have the speed, endurance, spirit or agility needed for a knightly war horse. On top of that draft horses’ backs are just too broad for a rider to achieve a firm seat. You don’t just balance up there like a sack of potatoes. You have to grip with your thighs, knees and calf. If you can’t get your legs around the beast you are coming off at the first jump.

I saw a TV program about the Battle of Hastings talking about the size of the horses used by the French. They were not large war horses but pony sized horses - they showed a lineup of children’s horses and an adult’s feet were almost touching the ground.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/bayeux8.htm

shows a scene from the Bayeux tapestry showing the size of the horses relative to the riders, the program (presented by Adam Hart-Davis I bellieve, can’t remember what it was called though) said this wasn’t artist’s licence with the size.

[Kinthalis]

@Tuco

I saw a TV program about the Battle of Hastings talking about the size of the horses used by the French. They were not large war horses but pony sized horses - they showed a lineup of children’s horses and an adult’s feet were almost touching the ground.

http://www.bayeuxtapestry.org.uk/bayeux8.htm

shows a scene from the Bayeux tapestry showing the size of the horses relative to the riders, the program (presented by Adam Hart-Davis I bellieve, can’t remember what it was called though) said this wasn’t artist’s licence with the size.

I’m not so sure about this, medieval artists weren’t known for their accuracy. IT certianly seems to contradict what I’ve heard form an archeological and historical point of view.

[Ficer67]

The fact is that lances were used to great effect, and it was documented in historical battles. If it were so easy to side-step a charge, then we would not be reading about knights and lances at all.

[sturmhauke]

@Kinthalis

I’m not so sure about this, medieval artists weren’t known for their accuracy. IT certianly seems to contradict what I’ve heard form an archeological and historical point of view.

Plus, it doesn’t really make sense. If an armored knight is riding a horse so small that his feet are practically brushing the ground, he’s going to have problems whenever the horse jumps over something or gets going at any kind of speed.