I'm looking for information on cavalry lances and their usage during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (c. 1840s through WWI).
Photos and measurements would be especially helpful.

Thanks!

Here are a few threads from SFI on the subject:

Unknown British Cavalry Lance
Difference Between Cavalry Lances and Boarding Pikes (with some great schematics and measurements of British lances)

Not late 19th century, but maybe of interest Instructions for the sword, carbine, pistol, and lance exercise. (1864)

And from 1890, "The Resurrection of the Lance" by G.J. Younghusband.

And here are a few late 19th century images:

From The Victorian Army in Photographs by David Clammer


And a few poor quality images from Navy and Army Illustrated Volume 1 (1895) which show a demonstration of various sword, lance, and bayonet demonstrations.

one thing i never got about 19th century lancers paticularly napoleonic era.. is that a common remark ive heard (mostly through the sharpe novels) is that, lancers were often extremely vulnerable to sword cavalry 'once you get past the lance point its alot like killing rabbits' it almost makes me think napoleonic lancers didnt HAVE swords as sideams..

Anyway, back on topic.

You might already have this but , from the Illustrated Encyclopaedia of Swords and Sabres (Withers, H. J. S. 2008) here are some measurements (not a great book but it has nice pictures):

British cavalry lance 1840 Pattern: OL = 109"
British cavalry lance 1846 Pattern: OL = 108.3" (head and langets = 47.1")
British cavalry lance 1868 Pattern: OL = 81.5"
British cavalry lance 1885 Pattern: OL = 108.3"
British practice cavalry lance circa 1890: OL = 109"

Neil.

Here are a few mid-19th century examples from the National Army Museum:

Lance, pattern 1846, 1848.

Lance, pattern 1846, 1848.

Cossack lance, 1854 (c).

Here's a nice article
http://napoleon.org.pl/taktyka/lancaen.php

i photographed some ww1 russian cossack lances some time ago in the arsenal of vienna (army history museum).
the photos are not too great but you get the point.

---

 Attachment: 136.8 KB



 Attachment: 139.42 KB

I came across this site a few months ago:

http://angloboerwarmuseum.com/Boer20c_techofwar_lance.html

Danny

Thank you for all of the replies!

This is exactly the sort of information I was looking for.

This has some useful links, too:

http://victorianwars.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&a...nce#p25683

Are there any British manuals for sabre and lance exercises closer in date to WWI? Or would one have to look at (if any could be found) English translations other manuals?
The one's already supplied in this thread are pretty informative, but would exercises have remained the same for that much from the late 19th to early 20th centuries?

I too am confused by this lance vs. saber dichotomy. From classical times through the middle ages and later, lancers always carried a sword as a sidearm, in case their lances broke or the enemy got too close. In the 19th century, though, the argument seemed to be between carrying one or the other. Carrying both at the same time makes sense.

Also, why were 19th century lances so short? Considering that they were around just 9 ft., and that they are generally depicted as being held around the middle rather than couched, they could barely clear the horse's head, and in those photos they have no reach advantage over the bayonet. Seems like an extra yard or so of length, plus couching, would've let lancers charge pretty much anyone head on and impale them before the lancers were within reach. A quick-moving lancer charging a sword-armed horseman head on with a 12 or 15-ft couched lance would have had a huge advantage, and if he thrust his lance, he'd have a reach advantage over a footman with a bayonet on a rifle, too.

The only drawback I can think of is that it would've taken extra training to master a long lance, which would be a problem in an army of horsemen trained by the state. But if they had the lancers play pig-sticking or tent-pegging in their spare time, and if the lances were a bit thinner (they would only be hitting soft, unarmored men, anyway), it should've been doable.

Maybe I'm being extremely nieve - but all these cavalry lance exercises seem to be missing one essential point (pardon the pun) . Of course the main target is your opponent - normally considered another cavalryman. But I've yet to see a manual that even mentions another obvious target - his mount. Was the horse considered out of bounds / ungentlemanly ? ( as if war ever *was* 'gentlemanly) Take down the horse - and your opponent is just floundering around for a while trying to get out of the mess and fairly easy target.
Again .. infantry vs cavalry. Why aren't they taught .. shoot the horses as cavalry charges?. Don't let them GET to hand to hand ranges ?
Misplaced "Chivalry?? or sheer stupidity ?

Some info and images here.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?...ight=lance

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17594

[ Linked Image ]