Does use of the couched lance predate middle ages Europe?

[Old_Scratch]

And how much of an impact did it really have on warfare? The "invention" of the couched lance in medieval Europe is one of those things that just sounds either misleading or entirely inaccurate, like the "invention" of the longbow.

A couple books I've seen put it as a major turning point where cavalry became nigh unstoppable. But did it really have that much more of an effect than an uncouched lance, or was the couched lance even a new invention?

Some authors tie it in with stirrups and specialized saddles which made it possible, but that never really sounded right to me. Cavalry charges were nothing new, so how can stirrups or simply bracing your lance under your arm really make that much of a difference?

Here is an interesting read on the subject where the author does numerous tests using doing couched lance charges both with a saddle and stirrups and without, and the results are interesting, I think.

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

I have to agree with the article that shock cavalry tactics, and even the couched lance were nothing new by the middle ages and weren't unknown or impossible in the classical period. What do you think?

[Flavius Nevitta]

1st: stirrups are overrated....greatly overrated...

2nd: a good saddle is indeed important, but these were around in antiquity (well at least the Romans, Gauls and Parthians had them)

3rd: the arch of Orange shows Roman cavalry with crouched lance...

[Mangalore]

I could imagine the stirrup might have made the couched lance more popular however by allowing a stable platform to use melee weapons from. With a couched lance losing the lance becomes imo more likely, if fighting with a melee weapon is less efficient and risky, this might make one less prone to forgo the longer reach and lethal thrusting spear (piercing capability vs. cutting sword). With stirrups you have the stability and can even elevate yourself for a blow, thus increasing the capability and flexibility with which to use a shorter melee weapon. It thus becomes easier to kill scattered survivors after a charge with one pass with a sword or sabre strike. Aka, it would make less sense to make a couched lance attack if you cannot switch to wholesale melee or if it leaves you more vulnerable if you do.

Otherwise I guess stirrups are simply for greater comfort, melee and archers.

[Old_Scratch]

3rd: the arch of Orange shows Roman cavalry with crouched lance...

I'm not familiar with this particular depiction, but I have seen Roman cavalrymen on monuments and tombstones usually depicted as wielding their lance overhanded, or in an underhanded thrusting motion. I'd be interested to see a classical period depiction of a couched lance though, I'll see if I can find it.

Of equal importance, the stirrup allowed the rider to brace himself at the moment of impact and to couch the lance, relying on the horse's full momentum to deliver the blow. Further improvements like the deepseated saddle with built-up cantles, even means of locking the lance in place, virtually welded the rider to his horse.

But it was the stirrup that transformed cataphracts into knights and thereby changed the course of military history in Europe.

The article I posted provides some very good evidence against this. Stirrups only provide lateral support, which are useful for horse archery or fighting a close in melee. But as far as a couched lance charge stirrups are not needed. The author also does a charge without even a saddle for a test and isn't unhorsed. Of course the cavalrymen of the classical period would have had saddles, but you see what I'm getting at. I see feudalism and the class structure as more influential of middle ages warfare than any developments in the equipment of the cavalryman.

Edit #2:

Also, as an interesting aside, the Norman cavalry on the Bayeux tapestry, using both saddle and stirrups are depicted as charging infantry with their lances held overhand. So, it must have been similarly useful to the couched lance.

[konny]

Also, as an interesting aside, the Norman cavalry on the Bayeux tapestry, using both saddle and stirrups are depicted as charging infantry with their lances held overhand. So, it must have been similarly useful to the couched lance.

There are figures (I remember to have counted two) on the BT with crouched lances, but yes, the majority of knights hold the lance overhand and many clearly in a throwing motion. The background is that the charge with crouched lance came into use around this time (late 11th Century). Since the beginning of the 12th Century most images either show all knights with crouched lances or all fighting with swords, what hardly anyone uses on the BT.

Also around 1200 the term "dextrarius" appears in the sources, meaning special trained warhorses that support the charge with a crouched lance held over the left neck of the horse by shifting to the right side (dexter) when gallopping.

The secret behind Hastings, and all earlyer knight-battles, is that those early knights either threw their spears or used them to stab from above, but made no formed headlong charge with lances crouched like the later knights. That way William was able to do several successive attacks with his knights, what would have been more or less impossible with later knights' armies.

Another thing of note is that the 12th and early 13th Century was the high time of the knights. In this periode they were absolutly dominant on the battlefield and other kinds of fighters aren't even named in many occasions, even though we know they had been present in the army. This seemed to have been first of all the result of the new tactics.

Another effect of this new tactics was that it a) required a livelong training to be preformed with some chance of success and b) required a special trained horse, as named above. This would also be the secret why so many knights fought on foot on the Crusades when they had lost their horses: there were many horses in Asia, but none trained as a European dextrarius.

This again widened the gap between the professional full time soldier, the knight, and any levy or part-time horseman who simply could afford a decent armour and a (any) horse.


So, the bottom-line from my POW would be that this new tactics changed combat dramaticly and a huge impact, not only on warfare, but also on society for the next two centuries.

[Old_Scratch]

Also around 1200 the term "dextrarius" appears in the sources, meaning special trained warhorses that support the charge with a crouched lance held over the left neck of the horse by shifting to the right side (dexter) when gallopping.

Some horses are better for shock combat than others, true, but I think any horse hearty enough for battle will allow a rider to perform a couched lance charge.

The secret behind Hastings, and all earlyer knight-battles, is that those early knights either threw their spears or used them to stab from above, but made no formed headlong charge with lances crouched like the later knights.

I've never heard of knights throwing their lances, but as you'd said, the Bayeux Tapestry shows both couched and overhand use of the lance, so it was certainly known about and used by 1066.

Another thing of note is that the 12th and early 13th Century was the high time of the knights. In this periode they were absolutly dominant on the battlefield and other kinds of fighters aren't even named in many occasions, even though we know they had been present in the army. This seemed to have been first of all the result of the new tactics.

This isn't entirely true, and I think comes from this overemphasis on the introduction of stirrups and specialized saddles. Mounted knights had their share of both successes and defeats. Common soldiers weren't usually named because they were commoners and not worth naming. The nobles were who the writers of the time wrote about, especially if they were in the employ of said nobles. Many times there is only vague references to what the common soldiers did, and most of the time their casualties aren't even recorded. A single noble killed in battle on the other hand would have been well recorded though. So it doesn't have so much to do with the effectiveness of new cavalry technology or cavalry being unstoppable, but the importance of the nobles and their actions.

This again widened the gap between the professional full time soldier, the knight, and any levy or part-time horseman who simply could afford a decent armour and a (any) horse.

The difference between a sergeant or mercenary and a knight was essentially class and wealth.

So, the bottom-line from my POW would be that this new tactics changed combat dramaticly and a huge impact, not only on warfare, but also on society for the next two centuries.

If indeed the couched lance was a new technique starting in the 11th century, then I still don't see how it would affect much in battle and even less in society. For a handgun comparison, it would be like switching from a revolver to an automatic. One had some advantages over the other, but they did basically the same thing and it didn't make the original obsolete.

Sher Kahn, I've read that too. In his memoirs, Usamah ibn Munqidh makes it clear that the European couched lance technique was known to the Muslim world, but not particularly popular opting instead for a thrusting spear. So this would further my belief that the couched lance had it's uses, but was situational and not all dominating.

[konny]

Some horses are better for shock combat than others, true, but I think any horse hearty enough for battle will allow a rider to perform a couched lance charge.

We are not talking about different kinds of horses, but differently trained horses. Of course, you can train any Asian heavy breed to be used as a destier, but you cannot simply take any untrained horse for that.

I've never heard of knights throwing their lances, but as you'd said, the Bayeux Tapestry shows both couched and overhand use of the lance, so it was certainly known about and used by 1066.

Take a second look at the Tapestry: there are even full armoured men (i.e. knights) on foot shooting bows. It is simply that there was no universal way of knightly combat until the choke with couched lance became it in the late 11th Century.

Common soldiers weren't usually named because they were commoners and not worth naming. The nobles were who the writers of the time wrote about, especially if they were in the employ of said nobles.

This is a misunderstanding: With "named" I didn't meant that "Harry, Paul and John" appeared in a record of a battle alongside William Marshall and the Earl of Hereford, but that often enough the sheer existence of anything but knights wasn't found worth recording in the 12th Century. Take the orders for reinforcements for his Italian armies by Barbarossa for example: those only count knights. Archers, light horsemen, foot soldiers and the like, that certainly were part of these armies, are not mentioned.

Another thing is taking a closer look at the battles in W-Europe fought in this periode: In most occasions the chronicals agree that the true encounter was rather short and decided by the charge of the knights.

The difference between a sergeant or mercenary and a knight was essentially class and wealth.

A mercenary knight is still a knight. Sergeants, noble serveants and the like fighting as knights is late MA (1250+), the periode after the one I am talking about.

If indeed the couched lance was a new technique starting in the 11th century, then I still don't see how it would affect much in battle and even less in society. For a handgun comparison, it would be like switching from a revolver to an automatic.

This new technique was highly effective, in particular against other cavalry that would try to stand or even counter this charge. The knights (i.e. professional fully armoured lancers) became the dominant factor in European military for the next two hundred years, in a way that, as outlined above, other fighters are often not even mentioned.

The formed charge with couched lances is not something that every band of half-way decent horsemen would be able to master just that way. It required a livelong training for both the rider and the horse. And that made the different: The armoured mounted levy that still existed in the 11th Century, and comparable forces, would stand no chance against the same, or even considerable smaller, number of knights. Those professional full time lancers that way became the low nobility, which developed during the 12th and early 13th Century.

Even after that, the armoured lancers usually won the field throughout the 13th Century when the conditions were half way acceptable. It took in return the developement of new infantry tactics to turn the tide against them.

[MaximiIian]

There are figures (I remember to have counted two) on the BT with couched lances, but yes, the majority of knights hold the lance overhand and many clearly in a throwing motion.

Well, considering the "shield wall" infantry tactics of the Saxons, overhand or javelin motions with the lance/spear would probably work better in that situation. And, as you said, the couched lance was used as well. It just depended on the scenario.
I do not doubt that the couched lance was used prior to the middle ages; however, depending on the situation and infantry tactics, it might have had limited usefulness and thus was not depicted very often.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

3rd: the arch of Orange shows Roman cavalry with crouched lance...

The expression is "couched lance". And I've heard this claim before, but never been able to find this depiction anywhere on the images of the Orange Arch. Evidence please.

[Flavius Nevitta]

The expression is "couched lance". And I've heard this claim before, but never been able to find this depiction anywhere on the images of the Orange Arch. Evidence please.

oh yes sorry my mistake (English is not my native tongue so don't be too harsh when it comes to spelling errors and such. I'm sometimes too lazy to doublecheck or simply mix up some expressions).

I'll search and post it here if I find it online.

@OP: In general Roman cavalry is shown with the spears overhead like others stated.


Edit: found it here The soldier in question is on the left side. From the left: a barbarian, a roman horseman in the back, Roman soldier in front of him and the soldier in question is next to them attacking a barbarian.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Edit: found it here The soldier in question is on the left side. From the left: a barbarian, a roman horseman in the back, Roman soldier in front of him and the soldier in question is next to them attacking a barbarian.

If you mean the second Roman cavalryman from the left, I can't see any indication of a lance. In fact, he seems to be holding a spatha.

[Flavius Nevitta]

If you mean the second Roman cavalryman from the left, I can't see any indication of a lance. In fact, he seems to be holding a spatha.

oh you mean the thing across his chest? hmmm yes, looks like he's drawing it right now... I had read this before and when I looked at the pic in the book (sorry I really can't remember what it was...I think Junckelmann: Die Reiter Roms), i thought there might be some additional metal pieces missing.

But now that you point this out, I guess you're right. Thanks for correcting.

[Old_Scratch]

Edit: found it here The soldier in question is on the left side. From the left: a barbarian, a roman horseman in the back, Roman soldier in front of him and the soldier in question is next to them attacking a barbarian.

Thanks for posting that, but it does look like he is either holding or drawing a sword. Even if it was a couched lance it would be the only classical depiction of it that I know of meaning it was at best very rarely used, if it was at all.

So, if it was possible for pre-stirrup cavalry to perform couched lance shock charges as the author of that article convincingly claims, then why was it seemingly never used until about the 11th century? Even then, it wasn't exclusively used. It's not a complicated maneuver and even if it wasn't used it was certainly known about. Was it simply not as useful as the overhand way? It seems to be of limited use to me since it's pretty much a one use weapon with a very limited range of motion. Rather than stirrups, perhaps something else changed in the 11th century that required the rider to wield a longer lance requiring him to couch it? Perhaps it was better at unhorsing other riders, which is what the targets of interest for a knight would be. Just speculating.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Edit: found it here The soldier in question is on the left side. From the left: a barbarian, a roman horseman in the back, Roman soldier in front of him and the soldier in question is next to them attacking a barbarian.

He's clearly in the process of drawing his sword.

(Ooops, TG already said it).

[Homeros]

The cataphract of the late Roman Empire incorporated all the essentials of medieval shock cavalry save one - the stirrup. It was this device that provided lateral stability. Prior to the stirrup's introduction any blow to the right or left was likely to unhorse a lancer. Of equal importance, the stirrup allowed the rider to brace himself at the moment of impact and to couch the lance, relying on the horse's full momentum to deliver the blow. Further improvements like the deepseated saddle with built-up cantles, even means of locking the lance in place, virtually welded the rider to his horse.

But it was the stirrup that transformed cataphracts into knights and thereby changed the course of military history in Europe.

[Entropy Judge]

A ... general question, I guess. Would the type of armor affect whether or not the lance/spear was couched or held overhand? Is the armor used by knights of a sort that would affect the thrusting motion of an overhand strike and lead to the use of a couched blow due to comfort?

[Sher Khan]

Fairly certain one of Usama ibn Munqidh's memoirs mentions the couched lance and its uses and shortcomings.

The couched lance's true use, in reference to an actual fight, was in its reach. The technique allows the rider to grip and level the lance far behind the lance's natural center of balance. The grip also allows for better chances of keeping hold of the lance when making a pass. However, in games of maneuver, the couched lance is powerful but limited in application to a direct charge.

[conon394]

One might also consider the horse in question as well. The Romans did not have the large cold blood mixed lineages that were developed in Europe later - or rather to put it another way the Horse is a piece of technology as well and circa 1100, it had some 500 - 600 years of new development and new blood lines.

Just from personal experience the stirrup becomes rather useful as a means of getting on a 16 hands+ Frisian vs a 13 hands horse (particularly if you can't master Xenphon's snappy spear vault method)

[Randarkmaan]

Fairly certain one of Usama ibn Munqidh's memoirs mentions the couched lance and its uses and shortcomings.

He mentions it, yes. IIRC he mentions how the Franks use it often and he acknowledges that it is a very useful technique that the Muslims should use more often, though it seems that its use among Muslim cavalrymen was not non-existent, he refers to the technique as the 'Syrian attack'.
He also mentions how Muslim cavalrymen wield lances two-handed (as many heavy cavalrymen did in the ancient world, though it is likely stronger in the 12th century due to the increased stability afforded the rider by the stirrup), noting it also as a very powerful lance-thrust. IIRC He mentions having seen it pierce two-layers of mail and coming out the other side, as well as having seen a cavalryman kill two knights with one such lance thrust.

Anyway, as far as I know it seems that the Normans seem to have been pioneers of the use of the couched lance, at least as far as its wide-spread adoption and effective use on the battlefield goes. This seems to have happened somewhere in between the middle 11th and late 11th century. Though the Normans seem to have borrowed the concept of the heavy lance from the Byzantines they fought against and for, the way they (the Normans) later came to implement it made an already fearsome weapon even more fearsome. A Byzantine source describing the charge of Norman cavalry facing a Byzantine army recounts in awe how their charge was so powerful it could smash through the walls of Babylon (or some other ancient city, don't remember which).

[Old_Scratch]

Well, I found an classical period source for couched lance use. Both quotes are from the Aneid by Virgil (70-19 BCE). The Latin verson is also available if anyone here speaks Latin and disputes the translation.

Oppos'd to these, come on with furious force
Messapus, Coras, and the Latian horse;
These in the body plac'd, on either hand
Sustain'd and clos'd by fair Camilla's band.
Advancing in a line, they couch their spears;
And less and less the middle space appears.

His flaming sword: Aeneas couch'd his spear,
Unus'd to threats, and more unus'd to fear.

I've also found a lot of period artwork showing both couched and overhand lance use against infantry and cavalry.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Interestingly the iconic image of St. George is almost always show in an overhand position. Later 19th century depictions will show him with lance couched though.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: