The insidious thing about assumptions is precisely that you don't see that there's any opportunity for confusion.
In any case, it's extremely understandable that @Fabius Maximus thought you were talking about the lance, because you were responding to a post specifically about how the lance was reintroduced and specifically linked the uhlan and lance in the following statement,
In light of this, it would be completely reasonable to read the subsequent summary of the spread of the uhlans as intended to discuss the spread of the lance, either specifically or because there were parallels (i.e., because the lance was adopted as a matter of fashion). You specifically introduce this summary as having something to do with the "mass adoption of the lance as a shock weapon"; so does it or doesn't it? And if it does, what are we supposed to take away from it, in one sentence?
Thank you, that's a better summary than I could have managed myself.
There are plenty of examples where even non-experts, with the benefit of hindsight, can identify things that "experts" thought was a good idea or a bad idea which turned out to be a bad idea or a good idea; the Space Shuttle, for example, or the RBMK reactor.
Or indeed the use of the lance itself -- lancers didn't become common in Western European armies till the Napoleonic period, but there's no obvious technological or tactical reason why they'd have been ineffective before then. It just seems that generals didn't really think of the idea, or if they did, they didn't push for it.