| Author |
Message |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
 Posted: Mon 17 Feb, 2014 3:26 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Michael Wiethop wrote: | | 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. |
Napoleonic and 19th-century lancers always carried the sabre as a backup weapon. Note that contemporary studies(in the 19th century, that is) stated only the first rank should be armed this way; the second rank (and third, if necessary) should be armed with sabres and carbines in the manner of ordinary light cavalry, and should have their sabres drawn in a charge to move in and take over from the lance-armed first rank if the enemy wasn't routed by the initial impetus and the fight turned into a melee. Having all ranks armed with the lance was generally regarded as a recipe for disaster.
| Ralph Grinly wrote: | 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 ? |
What makes you think so? If you actually go and look at the manuals, you'd find that lancers were told to target the horse, and that infantry facing a frontal cavalry charge were specifically instructed to shoot the horses down first. Besides, hand-to-hand defence with a bayonet was intended as a last resort; European infantry doctrine had always emphasised the primary role of fire in repelling cavalry charges since at least the 18th century. The photographs shown in previous posts were mostly from public exhibition exercises where the focus was on showing off the participants' skills rather than accurately informing the public on how lance and bayonet techniques were really supposed to work in battle. Now that would have been too messy to make a good public spectacle.
|
|
  |
 |
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Feb, 2014 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure if this has already been linked to, but nonetheless a nice display of lance drill. Not sure how authentic it really is since I'm not familiar with the polish manuals/drill instructions, but it seems legit 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXMkJ1rBhg
There is nothing quite as sad as a one man conga-line...
|
|
 |
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Feb, 2014 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | Not sure if this has already been linked to, but nonetheless a nice display of lance drill. Not sure how authentic it really is since I'm not familiar with the polish manuals/drill instructions, but it seems legit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkXMkJ1rBhg |
Were Victoria War horses not trained to be aggressive at all? I've read that Knights perfected uncastrated stallions because they are aggressive and fearless which is really benefical trait for a animal going into close combat. Were the horses trained to bite, kick, side step or tackle in order to aide the rider in killing? Especially against unarmor men, a bite to the neck from a horse can be just a deadly as a lance stabbed and a llot quicker. Haven't the horse engaged in killing can also help in dealing with multiple opponents at once.
|
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Feb, 2014 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
Were Victoria War horses not trained to be aggressive at all? I've read that Knights perfected uncastrated stallions because they are aggressive and fearless which is really benefical trait for a animal going into close combat. Were the horses trained to bite, kick, side step or tackle in order to aide the rider in killing? Especially against unarmor men, a bite to the neck from a horse can be just a deadly as a lance stabbed and a llot quicker. Haven't the horse engaged in killing can also help in dealing with multiple opponents at once. |
I doubt it. General aggression could possibly be encouraged in a horse, but in close fighting I would prefer to have manouverability and control since I as the rider has the weapons and can (hopefully) tell friend from foe.
The closest thing I can imagine that exists today is the training and work in mounted bull fighting (still done on the Iberian peninsula) From what I have seen them do, it is all about making the horse swift and agile, jumping and turning to give the rider room for action.
That said, all horses are individuals. And you never really know how they will react in extreme situations until you are a actually there. But in actual combat, I can imagine horses kicking about quite a bit, but more to general stress and panic than actual training..not that it makes a difference when the hoof meets your head.
There is nothing quite as sad as a one man conga-line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Feb, 2014 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Watching riderless horses fight among themselves would also be instructive; these fights involve a great deal of rearing and bucking, which would tend to throw the rider off if a stallion were to be allowed to indulge in its aggressive instincts with no restraints whatsoever. I suspect incidents of horses kicking and biting in battle did not really represent natural aggression but rather a trained response painstakingly schooled into the horse to replace its natural way of expressing a dominant (and aggressive) attitude.
|
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Feb, 2014 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just have a hard time imagine how to justify the time vs results on getting the horse to fight, rather than being under control enough for you to fight. That said, I also know my limits in this field I have however been riding and practiced some mounted martial arts..
What does the earliest known cavalry training manuals say, anyone know? From what I've seen about Ross-fechten, it is all about the rider. Spanish Riding School does some nifty airborne manouvers claimed to stem from combat training, but can those claims be verified by some documented sources?
There is nothing quite as sad as a one man conga-line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philip Dyer
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Feb, 2014 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | I just have a hard time imagine how to justify the time vs results on getting the horse to fight, rather than being under control enough for you to fight. That said, I also know my limits in this field I have however been riding and practiced some mounted martial arts..
What does the earliest known cavalry training manuals say, anyone know? From what I've seen about Ross-fechten, it is all about the rider. Spanish Riding School does some nifty airborne manouvers claimed to stem from combat training, but can those claims be verified by some documented sources? |
airborne maneuvers? O.O I didn't know Pegasus's exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Feb, 2014 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Philip Dyer wrote: |
airborne maneuvers? O.O I didn't know Pegasus's exist. |
Well, almost! Do a youtube-check for "Courbette" and "Capriole" (or "Airs above the ground) and you'll see what I mean
These are claimed to have military origins, but I seriously doubt they where until I can find an actual training/drill-manual that really promotes this for a fight situation to attack enemies. But again, this is not a field I have studied more than casually.
There is nothing quite as sad as a one man conga-line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sam Gordon Campbell
Location: Australia. Joined: 16 Nov 2008
Posts: 678
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Feb, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bjorn Hagstrom wrote: | | What does the earliest known cavalry training manuals say, anyone know? |
Not sure. I'd have to find my copy of Xenophon...
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
|
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Hagstrom
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Feb, 2014 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I have Xenophon alright. Some passage about how to be armed when fighting from horse. Recommendations on preferred weapons. But no mention of using the horse as a weapon. I was thinking more in the line of cavalry doctrine documents or training manuals form the 17th century onwards, from the time military training was starting to become a formalized government matter. But as interesting as that is, I guess this is drifting Off Topic that was all about the use of lances..
There is nothing quite as sad as a one man conga-line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic