[Wolfgang Armbruster]

[Gordon Frye]

Elizabethan writers were renouned for their inventiveness in spelling and word-useage, Shakespeare being merely the best known example. Sir John Smythe, as well as his fellow War Horse Sir Roger Williams, would have given a modern lexographer fits (and probably do, for that matter). So our trying to fit our modern, rather persnickety and definitive notions of what a word actually means into a 16th (or pretty much any other) Century nomenclature is an exercise in frustration, since they didn't use such specific terms/meanings in the day. At least not the same ones used today. I am sure that German, Italian, French and just about any other language one would wish to mention has the same difficulties. Modern historians and especially collectors like things specific and in their pigeon-hole, but folks writing in the period didn't have such notions, nor did they really care. Durn 'em!

Two of the better examples I can think of are firstly in the English 1590 translation of Francois de la Noue's Discourses , in which the word "spear" is used in the same way we would use "Lance", i.e meaning a "heavy lance" of the type a Gendarme would carry. The second is the term "Snaphaunce". Modern collectors and historians use this term for a very specific type of flint ignition system for firearms, with a separate steel and pan-cover. However, in the 17th Century, it was used to describe just about any flint-ignition system, leading some historians to unwittingly believe that the more archaic form was in use far longer than is probably the case. But it was the term, rather than the type, that was in long usage.

Allons!

Gordon

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Gordon Frye]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

Seems like they really needed too much of such a stuff. How many lances would single Gendarme carry into fight then?

But when charging infantry that I think in most cases would outnumber heavy cavalry quite significantly wouldnt horsemen put some effort to use their lance at several opponents in their way? It seems to me its hard to get lance out of a huge mass of meat like horse anyway hitting infantryman into head could cause lethal blow and still allow rider to keep his lance for second try well that only my imagination about this. Armour would be really resistant so I think theres no better way to finish off fully armoured infantryman that to use shock that lance can provide but maybe when fighting weakly armoured opponents lances would have just same effect as any weaponry as not so much energy is needed to get through protection of the enemy IMHO.

Could you advice some good about such a battles like Fornovo Marignano Ravenna Castillon or Formigny or about equipment and organization of French Ordonnance from the end of 100yrs war? I tryed to find something closer though unsuccesfully.

[Gordon Frye]

Benjamin;

It's hard to say exactly what the Spanish Horse of Cortez was armed like, since there verying claims as to their equipment, but yes, they do sort of fit in between the Jinete and Gendarme. They used shock tactics like Gendarmes, yet often as not used the lance overhand, or threw it. I guess that was the genius of those men, in that they weren't forcing themselves into a single style but using what was needed in the situation. The muster lists of Coronado's men reveal a broad selection of arms and armour carried by the horsemen, and one would think that they might be trying to push themselves into the Gendarme mould, but their tactics (as well as occasional throwing of their lances) suggests otherwise.

If we are comparing "Lancers" to "Gendarmes"/"Fully Plated Knights" then we get into some difficulties of definition. Sir Roger Williams was writing in an era of the degredation of the Gendarmerie away from the fully armoured Man-at-Arms on an armoured horse, to a much lighter species of Cavalry. Mezo and Basta (according to John Cruso, for I haven't read those in the original yet) claimed that the Lancer of their day (post-1600) was no longer to be considered a Heavy Cavalryman, as he didn't use sufficient armour or horse, and that only the Cuirassier/Pistolier ("Rutters" as Sir Roger Williams was wont to call them, after the German "Reiter") could be considered as such. Even then, Cuirassiers weren't up to par with the old French or Burgundian Gendarmerie. Really, only the French Catholics and Spaniards held to the Lance much by the time Sir Roger was writing (1580's), in Western Europe at least, and they weren't the best quality, at least according to most other commentators. But Sir Roger certainly held to them, and his arguments are worthwhile, definitely. But for every point he makes in favor of the Lance, Francois de la Noue makes them in favor of the Pistol, so it was one of those points in time when all was in flux. But I don't think anyone depreciated the Gendarmerie at the height of their prowess, say 1450-1550, as being the premier force on the battlefield. Maybe not the overwhelming force that Feudal Cavalry had been a few hundred years earlier, but a serious force to be reconned with, and always to be on the watch for.

Anyway, it does seem counter-intuitive, but breaking the lance seems to have been the main object of the game: if you came back with an umbroken lance, you weren't trying hard enough.

Jaroslav:

The Gendarme himself would only ride into battle carrying his single lance, but he would have servants in the rear carrying several in reserve. After breaking his first lance, he would rally with his comrades and return for a fresh lance, and repeat.

Per the organization of a Compagnie d'Ordonnance, I would suggest that you pursue the following website's information. These fellows have done a lot of research into the subject, and are no doubt far more able to be of service to you in providing the information you desire:

http://www.medievalproductions.nl/compagnie_de_ordonnance/

As far as I know, the composition of the individual companies didn't change dramatically until the reforms of 1536, when Francois I decreased the numbers of Archers in a Lance, and changed the armour requirements, etc., but I'm not totally positive about that. There may well have been other major dimunitions in the size of each Lance prior to that.

Allons!

Gordon

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Gordon Frye]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

I still wonder how would such a charge look like. Division to lances would mean that there were no more mass frontal attacks like in earlier days but rather well placed and timed charges to cause maximal casualties for minimal losses. This would mean that after one group get out of fight maybe with retreat backed up by other company they could restock lances and perform another strike thats obvious to me. But how would fight itself look like? After collision with first ranks they had to start fighting with some secondary weapon when their lance broke would it be effective way to deal with heavily armoured infantry? Maybe horsespeed adds some energy to weapon used anyway to me it looks like lance would allways be best solution to eliminate well armoured enemy or would it be better to change weapon after charge from practical causes? Id say riders would struggle not to be forced to stop in the middle of the infantry or would they rather fight stationary without being forced to?

What about equipment of heavy cavalry of middle 15th century? Especially in case of the horses. AFAIK full plate armour for horses wasnt so common by that time but its quite possible they used some additional horse protection like chainmail or hardened leather. Would be most cavalrymen say French heavy cavalry carry even some plate parts except chanfron and crinet? Maybe peytrels at least?

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Gordon Frye]