Cavalry Spear and Shield

[Alex Zetsu]

In Rome: Total War, Equites (Roman basic cavalry unit) carry shields and spears.

This is not only an in game-feature, there is plenty of art of Roman cavalrymen with a shield and a spear, possibly a Doru or a hasta (2-2.3 meters long). There is also art of them carrying Lances.

And I read some accounts in the High Middle Ages of Normans carrying Lance and a spear into combat (redundant...).

What's the use of the one-handed spear for cavalrymen? It's long enough to pike into the enemy in a charge... barely. A lance seems obviously more suited to the charge. A one-handed one allows the free hand to quickly use a shield you strapped to your back I suppose (or start the battle with it) but it seems better to use the lance because it's more likely to disrupt the enemy and render his formation disorganized than the one-handed spear. The shield isn't much protection from arrows (if your mount is hit, you're out of combat and almost as ineffective as if you were knocked out) and in the melee it seems more valuable to have rendered the enemy disorganized (with the lance) than merely poke the frontline guy and have a shield to protect you in the ensuing melee (shield and spear)

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

In Rome: Total War, Equites (Roman basic cavalry unit) carry shields and spears.

This is not only an in game-feature, there is plenty of art of Roman cavalrymen with a shield and a spear, possibly a Doru or a hasta (2-2.3 meters long). There is also art of them carrying Lances.

And I read some accounts in the High Middle Ages of Normans carrying Lance and a spear into combat (redundant...).

What's the use of the one-handed spear for cavalrymen? It's long enough to pike into the enemy in a charge... barely. A lance seems obviously more suited to the charge. A one-handed one allows the free hand to quickly use a shield you strapped to your back I suppose (or start the battle with it) but it seems better to use the lance because it's more likely to disrupt the enemy and render his formation disorganized than the one-handed spear. The shield isn't much protection from arrows (if your mount is hit, you're out of combat and almost as ineffective as if you were knocked out) and in the melee it seems more valuable to have rendered the enemy disorganized (with the lance) than merely poke the frontline guy and have a shield to protect you in the ensuing melee (shield and spear)

Cavalry shock charge didn't come into vogue until the stirrup the lancer could brace in. A man on a horse with a spear is going to do quite well at sticking that spear in soft things. I'm not sure you're accurately picturing how heavy a spear can be handled with one hand and how much damage "poking" does.

 

[Practical Lobster]

Burton pretty much has it. The use of cavalry has changed again and again throughout history as technology advances in different eras, rendering charges more or less useful. That said, lances themselves are only a post-stirrup invention. In the Roman era, the role of cavalry just didn't involve charging into densely packed, close-order infantry and breaking them with the force of impact. Roman cavalrymen picked the weapons that were most useful for them in their primary role - harassing and turning exposed flanks, charging disordered formations, and riding down fleeing soldiers.

 

[longsword14]

Cavalry shock charge didn't come into vogue until the stirrup the lancer could brace in.

The idea of stirrup being important for shock action is not really logical. Sidnell in his book 'Warhorse' writes about it:

and

 

[galanx]

Ah, History 121: Rome to Renaissance- I remember being quite swept away by White and Medieval Society and Social Change, much to the disgust of my medieval history prof, who made some scathing remarks on my paper.

 

[RodentRevolution]

What's the use of the one-handed spear for cavalrymen?

Well it is stabby, also long and stabby. Humans tend to lack much natural resistance to penetrating stab would and even some armours that give moderate to good protection against slashing wounds turn out not to be so good at stopping a really fast point. Such as you get when a bloke charges up to you on a horse and sticks you with his spear.

Cavalry shock charge didn't come into vogue until the stirrup the lancer could brace in. A man on a horse with a spear is going to do quite well at sticking that spear in soft things. I'm not sure you're accurately picturing how heavy a spear can be handled with one hand and how much damage "poking" does.

This would surely come as news to a lot of classical cavalry (though with you on the poking).

This is a replica of one of the pre-stirrup solutions to hitting staff hard enough to generate recoil and not falling off your horse. Longsword14 has shown there is other archaeological evidence for shock action by cavalry above but we also have literary accounts such as Polybius:

Cavalry Engagement on the Ticinus
Next day both generals led their troops along the river
Skirmish of cavalry near the Ticinus, Nov. B. C. 219.
Padus, on the bank nearest the Alps, the Romans having the stream on their left, the Carthaginians on their right; and having ascertained on the second day, by means of scouts, that they were near each other, they both halted and remained encamped for that day: but on the next, both taking their cavalry, and Publius his sharp-shooters also, they hurried across the plain to reconnoitre each other's forces. As soon as they came within distance, and saw the dust rising from the side of their opponents, they drew up their lines for battle at once. Publius put his sharp-shooters and Gallic horsemen in front, and bringing the others into line, advanced at a slow pace. Hannibal placed his cavalry that rode with bridles, and was most to be depended on, in his front, and led them straight against the enemy; having put the Numidian cavalry on either wing to take the enemy on the flanks. The two generals and the cavalry were in such hot haste to engage, that they closed with each other before the sharp-shooters had an opportunity of discharging their javelins at all. Before they could do so, they left their ground, and retreated to the rear of their own cavalry, making their way between the squadrons, terrified at the approaching charge, and afraid of being trampled to death by the horses which were galloping down upon them. The cavalry charged each other front to front, and for a long time maintained an equal contest; and a great many men dismounting on the actual field, there was a mixed fight of horse and foot. The Numidian horse, however, having outflanked the Romans, charged them on the rear: and so the sharp-shooters, who had fled from the cavalry charge at the beginning, were now trampled to death by the numbers and furious onslaught of the Numidians; while the front ranks originally engaged with the Carthaginians, after losing many of their men and inflicting a still greater loss on the enemy, finding themselves charged on the rear by the Numidians, broke into flight: most of them scattering in every direction, while some of them kept closely massed round the Consul.



Histories. Polybius. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.

From here

Interestingly although it notes the cavalry as charging each other front to front it also notices men dismounting to continue the engagement. Now I am fairly certain this was simply because it had become a static contest however I have come across some in the past who have tried to argue that rather than deliberate it was the result of people falling off their mounts. Still even if you are convinced your cavalry cannot charge for toffee and do not wish to count trampling as evidence of shock action might note the case of the men ridden down in pursuit something for which a one handed spear is quite handy.

 

[RGB]

Okay so here's a bunch of thoughts in no particular order:

This is not only an in game-feature, there is plenty of art of Roman cavalrymen with a shield and a spear, possibly a Doru or a hasta (2-2.3 meters long). There is also art of them carrying Lances.

Conceptually it might help to think of how similar the foot fighting and the mounted fighting techniques were - and in some ways they were quite similar. There are actual manuals featuring wrestling and dagger moves that were presumably useful for renaissance horsemen. Now that we're thinking that way, are there any examples or infantry with a long spear and a secondary spear? Well, plenty. Pre-Marian Roman infantry, Germanic infantry into the Migration era, various elite Hellenistic light troops like the Silver Shields. One is the primary fighting spear, the other can be thrown or used instead of the primary for close quarters fighting. A secondary spear isn't much bigger than a specialised throwing dart, anyway.

And on horse you can carry more things anyhow. So there's that.

And I read some accounts in the High Middle Ages of Normans carrying Lance and a spear into combat (redundant...).

In the high middle ages and much later (into the early 1500s) in Spain, secondary spears were often thrown by hand (no cord like in classical times). So there's that again. The second part is HOW long poking things can be used on horseback.

What's the use of the one-handed spear for cavalrymen?

What use is a one-handed spear to an infantryman? Same here. You can block, parry, and counter with it very easily. It outranges swords. It is very very very very hard to stop when it's coming directly for your face or whatnot. It defends you from enemies riding up behind. Horses are much nimbler than people think. They turn on a spot and sidestep in any direction unless they have a lot of momentim. If ridiculously well-trained, they will outmaneuvre people on foot. The men on the horses are also fairly nimble and there aren't that many blind spots which they cannot reach with a sword (immediately in front of the horse and under the horse's belly, mainly). A one-handed spear would let you reach a man trying to escape you by lying prone (underhand) or stepping in front of your horse to scare it (overhand, same as lots of polaxe blocks).

There are two basic ways of using a lance or a spear on horse: one is to couch/brace, the other is to hold it in hand and then stab. Well, even the heaviest "jousting" lances have plenty of stabbing techniques illustrated in Renaissance fechtbuchs. You can hold one in one hand overarm, brace it over the opposite forearm to attack sideways, sweep it around defensively, angle it to strike with it on the "wrong" side of your horse's head, strike behind yourself, etc. So basically exactly what you get in manuals for 19th c. lancers who had to learn way more tricks their weapon could do than a cavalry sword, plus a little more.

A spear just does the first thing (couching) worse, and the second thing (fencing at close range) better. It's arguably better as a secondary weapon than a sword. And you can absolutely kill people with a thrust from a short spear. In fact, you can split skulls with a spear-blade just like with any cavalry axe if you swing hard/accurately enough. The spear is highly versatile, people knew how to use it in a variety of ways, and the surviving instructional literature reflects that.

A one-handed one allows the free hand to quickly use a shield you strapped to your back I suppose.

I can't vouch for every horseman in history, but I imagine it rested on a shoulder-sling just like lances did, or hung off the saddle when not in use.

Also, not every shield is the same. The Farousiyya (a 14th c. manual) talks a lot about fighting with both short spear and lance (mostly in terms of fencing rather than couching), and also assumes the rider would have a smallish shield, to protect the fighting hand (whether he is a lancer or an archer). This is exactly the same as the small shields worn by phalangites, or bucklers worn by infantry (or indeed horsemen all over the Eurasian steppe into the 19th c.). It offers active protection against melee weapons mostly wielded by other horsemen, combined with the primary weapon (the lance or spear used one-handed). If it saves your wrist from an arrow, that's just gravy. If it deflects a footman's spear attack, even better.

A bigger shield like the Normans used would presumably be more useful against couched lances or maybe arrows (defending the rider primarily). Once again I think the primary opponent was another horseman though I heard the long kite shape protected the leg on the opposite side of the sword-arm, so that could be meant to deal with infantry at close range.

I personally think the decline of the secondary spear probably has everything to do with armour becoming cheaper and better. Fencing with a short spear against a well-defended opponent is likely ineffectual. Instead you get tabar-style axes in Iran, maces/picks in Europe, konchars/estocs in the Renaissance, and ultimately pistols everywhere. The sword was retained because it weighs very little, can be worn without much burden, and is still useful at killing unarmoured infantry in pursuit.