[George Hill]

What is the effective differnce between a spear and a lance? I've heard of lances used on foot, and the roman Hasta is sometimes defined as a lance.

Some say that the lance never has a blade with a flat on it, but I doubt that's true.

It can't be as simple as "IT's a spear until you get on a horse" can it?

[Alex Oster]

Here is a start:
(not based on any thing but experiance; you'll get textbook responses soon)

I think length has something to do with it. Also its hard to slash with a lance while riding, but thrusting is easy.
Therefore thrusting points would be more common in the lance catagory.
Unlike a Yari which would be used to slash as well as thrust.
I also have a boarspear that makes good swipes like a sword, but the "lance" I have is strictly a thruster
We have a few jousters who will respond more, and I am sure they know what the facts are.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Interesting question ! I would think that once a lance become a specialised tool with specific features in the 15th or 16th centuries the difference in function would make it distinct from a spear in the same way that a pike can be distinct from a spear.

But both lances and pike are spearlike objects: A 10th century spear might be in function and appearance interchangeable with lance.

At what point do specific features turn the generic to the specialised ?

If you are on a horse it's a lance! Get off the horse it's a spear

To confuse thing more: Lances could be cut down to a shorter length if a knight was force to fight on foot at times and might still be called a lance even if used as a spear

In any case, better informed than me may be able to give good answers, I just added to the questions

[Bill Grandy]

I believe it's one of those hazy questions, like, "What's the difference between a longsword, a two handed sword, and a bastard sword?"

I'm not a student of Fiore, but I believe when he describes his spear combat on foot he uses the word lance (or lanza to be specific). I would consider a lance to be a generic type of spear, one geared primarily to the thrust, but not necessarily a very specific type.

[Chad Sonderberg]

I'll add my $0.02.

I believe the main difference between a spear and a lance involves the design of the head. As far I'm aware, lance heads were made thin at the base of the blade to allow the head to break off once struck with enough force. This design allows the head to break off upon contact to insure that the weapon is not caught and the knight pulled from his horse or injured by the wrenching of the lance. It also would help in the construction of new lances by allowing the lance shafts to be recycled and reused, though maybe shorted a tad.

Historically, there was little difference between the length of spears and lances. The main difference is in the design due to the purpose of the weapon. Lances where made for mounted charges that (correct me if I'm wrong) were conducted in waves that hit then retreated to regroup before charging again if needed. During the regathering, their squires or servants would take their broken lances and give them new ones.

By the way, the differences between a long sword and a bastard sword are length and weight. Bastard swords a slightly shorter (usually 3 to 6 inches) and therefore weighed less. Also, bastard swords were developed during the late 14th century whereas long swords where in use since before the turn of the 14th century. Both sword types died off around the same time.

I believe bastard swords (mainly used by German knights) were developed for horse mounted combat due to the slightly reduced size and weight which make them more wieldable one handed than long swords. This is merely speculation though....

[George Hill]

Chad, I'm pretty sure the breakable lance thing was just for tournaments, and as a safety issue. Never a battlefield use. Also, you'd not want to break your point when stuck with force, as you are trying to penetrate armor.

As to the 'speicialized lance you brace against yourself' that would be more a type of lance, rather then the only lance. A devolopment of the long term use of the lance.

As to Bastard swords, that's still a term people argue over the original meaning of.

[Elling Polden]

The lances used in jousting today are between 8 and 10 feet, as far as I gather.
The lances used by the polish lancers in the 17th century was as long as 15 feet, probably to help defeat pikes.

A regulation length spear, by 13th century norwegian law, should not be longer than that you could reach the base of the spearhead., usualy about 8-9 feet.
Silver adds another two feet to this for his long poles.

If there is a fundamental difference between a lance and a spear, it has been lost in time. For our purposes, the "get on your horse" model works just fine.

[Matthew Kelty]

I think it's pretty much a matter of application, as well as the interpretations of regional languages.

First, as Jean has said, when all is said and done, they are all Spears. In German, it is 'Spiess' across the board. Whether it's a short spear (Boar Spear, Half-Pike), or a long Spear (Pike), or a Lance (Mounted Spear), it's called a 'Spiess', with a qualifier to identify it (i.e. 'Short', Long' , 'Horseman', etc.) In Italian, it's 'Lanzia' or 'Lanza', and later on, 'Picca' gets used specifically for Pikes, but that appears to have been a secondary term to help us Anglos differentiate between the two without a qualifier attached...

A parallel case is with the Japanese word (I'm probably wrong with the spelling) 'Nek Ti', meaning 'Necktie'. They have no word for it in their own language, so they fabricate one based on the Language behind the object.

As everyone has stated, 'Lance' is primarily attributed to the mounted application, but when they dismount and use them, they are still referred to as 'Lances'. A Lance can also be bladed or not, and it's still a Lance, just as a Pike can be bladed or not, and still be a Pike.

The bladed Lances tend to be of the shorter, lighter variety (used by Jinette's, Light Horse, Stradiot, etc.), where they get used in a slashing as well as stabbing action.

The Heavy Lances are the simple, pointy, armour punching variety, in the Renaissance hitting around 16-19' long on average:

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/images/Arme...SC1-01.jpg

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/images/Arme...SC2-01.jpg

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/images/Arme...SC2-02.jpg

As far as the Lance's design, on the Heavy lance at least, the intent is to lodge the tip, and have the shaft break (not the blade) just behind it. This isn't just a Tournament aspect, it's requisite for a 12+ pound stick being punched into Steel by 2000 pounds running at 20 miles an hour.

Hope that helps,
Matthew

[Jared Smith]

I suspect that the long (over 12') lance pretty much evolved in response to heavier armor.

Javelin like spears were still prevalent in Norman type forces around 900 AD. One article I read (Encyclopedia Britannica) stated that most of these early medieval types were generally not much longer than the height of the soldier and were believed to be thrown (both mounted and unmounted) in some situations. Some calvalry examples occasionally exceeded 12' length, but these were exceptions. I just browsed an article on tests of different types of spears and lances against armor. Unmounted, one handed grip thrusting with older type spears was fully adequate for devastating penetration of chain / mail. Against heavy plate, a high velocity impact with couched grip and guard (to prevent the lance from slipping during impact) was required to significantly penetrate the "simulated" plate armor. Couched grip with no guard proved difficult for penetration of plate (very small hole resulted compared to trial with a guard.) There is a controversial argument that such powerful couched lance technique could not have preceded the use of the stirrup. Although a few examples of stirrups as far back as 1000 AD can be found, they were not really common in Northern Europe until roughly 1200 AD. I think It is reasonable to speculate that the whole style of armor, equestrian harness, and style of lance pretty much evolved togather into completely different items (compared to early and middle Medieval era) approximately around 1200 to 1400.

Some fair examples and photos of equipment dated from this approximate time frame can be viewed at http://www.aiusa.com/medsword/laking/lak001c.html

Jared Smith

[Alexander Ren]

[Jared Smith]

It will be difficult to advocate the existence of the stirrup much earlier than 300 A.D. Most authorities claim it was invented later (6th century?) in China. Existance is different than "common place". First possessors seem to be very high ranking nobility. What my earlier point was, that mass cavalry units were not known to "commonly" possess the stirrup throughout Europe until much later than it's first appearance. Furthermore, given effectiveness of spear against simple mail, it really was not needed until later. I believe need could have coincided with widespread adoption.

http://dougsmith.ancients.info/notsev.html possible early depiction of stirrup in use by Gauls on coin.

[Patrick Kelly]

Jared,

There's quite a span of time between an early appearance of the stirrup in 300 AD and a claim that it wasn't in common usage until 1200 AD. The stirrup was in widespread usage by norman cavalry long before that as is attested to in period accounts of events like the Battle of Hastings, as well as norman encounters with muslim armies in southern Italy and Sicily 10-15 years before that. The massed cavalry charge with couched lance was an established tactic well before the 13th century, this would have been an impossible maneuver without the stirrup. Do you have any specific sources that give a 13th century date for common usage? I'd like to see this as it would definitely be a different theory.

I wouldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as a specific reference on medieval arms, nor would I use Laking as a definitive reference either. Much of Laking's research, such as that presumed appearance of a Saxon Thegn in your attached link, almost seems laughable now when compared to current research and archeological evidence.

[Jason Daub]

Jared,

As was mentioned in another post the evidence for an earlier date for the widespread use of the stirrup is almost overwhelming.

One example that I would like to call to your attention is the illustration of Carolingian cavalry from the Psalterium Aureum, which clearly shows all of the cavalry using the stirrup. The manuscript dates from the end of the ninth century, one of the plates that I am referring to was recently reprinted in "Charlemagne" by Matthias Becher.

A second example would be the Bayeux Tapestry, and another would be the early 12th century carving of a knight from Monreale Cathedral in Sicily where the stirrup is clearly shown.

As far as I know not one piece of artwork shows a man-at arms (past the mid ninth century) riding without stirrups, you will see a variety of spear lengths and head styles, the lance held overhand, underhand and couched. The overhand and underhand methods are very commonly shown in earlier art with more depictions of couched coming later. I do understand the dangers of relying on artwork alone, but, in this instance, I believe it is the most accurate picture we will be able to get due to the fact that stirrups are not the sort of item that would be preserved.

[Matthew Kelty]

I know it's out of character for be to be brief, but I'm tired....

I'm with Jason and Patrick on this one. There are many accounts of the Byzantines adopting the stirrup (most likely originating in the East) in the 700's, and it was Charles Martel who pretty much invented the Western Mounted Lancer, based on the support the newfangled Stirrups and rigid saddles added to the Rider. The Battle of Tours wasn't decided by the stirrup, but it pretty much stakes the flag in the ground for their appearance, and serves as the dividing line between the two epochs.

There is a great book out there that talks about this, as well as other nifty inventions and their impact on Western Society, it's called "Medieval Technology and Social Change" by Lynn White, Jr.

Also, the early Mounted Cavalry was more like what we would call "Light Cavalry" now. When you look at the Bayeux Tapestry, most ofthe horsemen are holding the lance like a Javelin, in an overhead posture. It was the advent of the plate armour and, subsequently, the Lance rest (or "arrest" as Gordon has shared with us... that really created the couched heavy Lance.

In *that* regard, Jared, you are right in attributing the Heavy Lance to the later era, ~1300+, but the Lancer was a very viable tool long before then, and they were still relying on the stirrup to assist with delivering the energy of the point. It was just not the Heavy Lance as we picture it.

Damn, I can't write in brief, can I....

Matthew

[Jared Smith]

I will take your word! I did not research the stirrup issue heavily, and was probably in error (by 300 to 400 years?.) I did find one site claiming that a Northern Europe cavalry unit had stirrups as early as 733 AD (lost the link in my long list of bookmarks though.) However, I did not interpret it to be "standard" equipment based on very little mention of it in other articles, and minimal archeological evidence of it , while other metal items such of bridles (snaffle bits, not harsher types as I have seen advocated on another forum post) have actually been recovered. The one I posted is the earliest archeological proof of stirrups in N. Europe that I have stumbed accross. My objective in searching through this information was actually trying to determine development of formally recognnized knighthood, actual numbers of legitimately titled knights, etc.

I also have decreased emphasis on making claims based on examining period artwork after several forum exchanges about popularity of long (8" to 12") sword grips as shown in art and training texts, versus statistics of what survives, which statistically turn out to be much shorter. It is hard to actually apply this "hard surviving evidence filter" to tack, since very little of common chevalier tack seems to have survived! I am still not completely sold on the idea that just because something did not survive in quantity, it could not have been commonly used by the mercenary/ foot knights...perishing in the battle sites as essentially most other metal objects accepted as common did.

This is a different direction than difference between spear and lance, but what exactly is the later medieval role of the spear as far as how Knights would have used it? I know Hollywood is full of bunk sometimes, but I really loved "The Knight's Tale". At least in that film, the spear remained a "knightly" competition, while the joust and lance is obviously something different. Is there any merit to that.... If so, was the spear mostly a "show weapon" at that point, or did Knights still throw them/ fight on foot?

[Malcolm A]

[Gordon Frye]

[Daniel Staberg]

Gordon,
What''s your source for the claim that the cornet was supposed to break his "lance"?
While it di dhappen sit was somethign that was expressly forbidden in the regulations and ordinances of the day, starting with the Rule of the Templars (at least that's the first written western european evidence) and progressing through the various ordinances of later centuries. Considerign the sheer amount of money that was lavished on banners and standards and the sheer dishonour of losing one to enemy action or neglect I must say that i doubt that the cornet used his staff as a lance in any but the most desperate circumstances. At least one Burgundian gentleman found himself both praised for his courage in the defence of Duke Philip the Good as well as censured for his sued of the btaff of the ducla banner as a weapon. The lowering/disapreance of a banner was considered to signal defeat hence it was vital to avoid givign the appearance of defeat by accident. If I remember correctly the battle was Gavere 1453, Flemish vs Burgundians.

[Gordon Frye]

Daniel;

Good points! The reference I was thinking of was De la Noue, but I know that there are others as well that I can't recall at the moment (dang... mind like a sieve anymore...). I doubt not that in earlier era's it was quite the dishonour to loose the banner, as it certainly remained for the Infantry! I recall the incident you quote with the Duke of Burgundy both lauding and disciplining a knight for using the ducal banner in such a way as to save the duke but loose the banner. Perhaps it was only with the Company Coronet that it was expected, but at least during the 16th Century the use of the Coronet as an offensive weapon was apparent, at least among French troops. I'll try to dig up those references tonight for you.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Daniel Staberg]

Gordon,
I knwo that we are getting OT but if it's from La Noue I'm not surprised, he was around Hugenot Gendarmes and those guys seems to have put in some insane, oops, I mean highly motivated performances even for French heavy cavalry.
At St Denis they charge a much larger force with such abandon and ferocity that the Turkish ambassador who saw it wrote home to the Sultan that if he (the Sultan) had 1000 "white cloaks" such as these as the speahead f each of his armeis the Sultan would conqure the world(!).

Their distinctive white coats and cassocks worn over their amour as well as their espirit de corps combined with relgious fanticism seems to have allowed the Huguenots to handle losing their rallying points in such a way that other mere mortals found hard to handle. While not as disciplined as the gendarmes of Bayards day they seem to have taken sheer bravery and guts to a new level in some battles.