Why do cavalry spears get shorter and shorter?

[Carpathian Wolf]

Just comparing the Companion Kontos spear with the 18th century cavalry spears that are like 4 feet long. Why is this?

[torongill]

Have you measured the spears of the infantry that the respective cavalry had to fight? The spears of the polish lancers were 8ft, IIRC. the whole idea of the kontos is to have more reach than the enemy, which in the 18th meant you need to have a rifle to outrange the infantry. The cavalry on the other hand had sabres and swords, meaning that even a 8ft lance had more reach. But the real problem of the spear is that you need to hold it in your hand, a large part of it is wooden and it's impossible to parry with it.

[Radosław Sikora]

Have you measured the spears of the infantry that the respective cavalry had to fight? The spears of the polish lancers were 8ft, IIRC.

It depends which Polish lancers you mean. Polish 'winged' hussars used 6m lances also in 18th c. Ulans used much shorter lances for many reasons:
1. shorter lances where much cheaper than long hussar lances (contrary to hussar lances, ulan lances were not hollowed)
2. shorter lances didn't require as much time of training as long lances required
3. contrary to long hussar lances, short ulan lances could be use in melee (BTW, using short lance it was possible to parry enemy blows)
4. contrary to hussar lances, which could be used only once, short ulan lances didn't break in a hit, thus they could be use many times

Of course short lances had also disadvantages:
1. hussars could impale ulans (or any other kind of lancers ecquiped with a short lance) some 4m before ulans could do anything to hussar
2. hussars could charge even pikemen (when pikemen disappeared from battlefields, such long lances weren't necessary, but it happened only in 18th c.)
3. hussar lances were much better than ulan lances vs armoured enemy (for example vs enemy cuirassiers)

Generally - short lances were much better for worse trained and poorer soldiers. They were also better for scout/light cavalry. Long hussar lances were better in pitched battles.

[konny]

18th/19th Century lancers used lances against infantry not cavalry. The lance had the advantage that you could reach to the ground with it (without dangerously leaning out of your saddle). That way ulans could, for example, reach for artillerists hiding under their cannons and the like soldiers cowering on the ground. And also for that reason the lance wasn't required to have been longer than that.

[Radosław Sikora]

18th/19th Century lancers used lances against infantry not cavalry.

Why do you think so? 18th-19th and 20th c. lancers used lances against every kind of enemy. Also against cavalry.

[Carpathian Wolf]

I just keep thinking how poor quality the later cavalry was compared to the earlier one. I mean imagine entering combat with 18th century cavalry against some heavily armored cataphracts. I mean I know the cost to benefit ratio would be in favor of the 18th century cav. But I just think that if the armies even used light cavalry variants of the medieval age they would have a supreme cavalry advantage.

[Kagemusha]

I just keep thinking how poor quality the later cavalry was compared to the earlier one. I mean imagine entering combat with 18th century cavalry against some heavily armored cataphracts. I mean I know the cost to benefit ratio would be in favor of the 18th century cav. But I just think that if the armies even used light cavalry variants of the medieval age they would have a supreme cavalry advantage.

You are forgetting one crucial thing. Gunpowder. The role of cavalry had changed at that point quite radically.For example dragoons would just shoot the "catatanks" into pieces. If your role was to scout, attack skirmishers and artillery for the most time. Attacking infantry also, but your armor wouldnt be able to save you from musket balls. So why wear one?What was the need for heavy armor? heavy armor would protect you from edged weapons, but wouldnt save you from being shot.

[Radosław Sikora]

You are forgetting one crucial thing. Gunpowder. The role of cavalry had changed at that point quite radically.For example dragoons would just shoot the "catatanks" into pieces.

Only in theory . In practice most of European armies changed tactics of their own cavalry (and dragoons) in 18th c. and instead of shooting, they charged with a cold steel. Christopher Duffy in his book 'The Military Experience in the Age of Reason' stated:

'By the middle of the eighteenth century a consensus was being reached on one of the most enduring debates about cavalry action, namely whether cold steel should be preferred to the use of firearms. The majority now favoured an unchecked charge of cavalry relying on shock and the sword.'

but your armor wouldnt be able to save you from musket balls.

Which armours do you mean? 18th c. cavalry armours? They were tested by musket balls. And they (maybe not all, but many of them) protected from musket balls. You should remember that 18th c. musket balls didn't have as high cinetic energy as for example early 17th c., while 18th breasplates were thicker and often better quality (steel instead of iron) than breastplates in 16-17th c.

So why wear one?What was the need for heavy armor? heavy armor would protect you from edged weapons, but wouldnt save you from being shot.

1. to protect from all kinds of weapons and balls (excluding cannon balls)
2. to increase your morale

That armor also meant a much slower speed of advance, which given the much greater distance between enemy armies meant more time under enemy fire, tired horses and lowered combat effectiveness.

Speed of advance depended on horses and tactics of particular cavalry. It didn't depend on armorus. A weight of an armour in 18th c. was only a small percent of a total horse load.

Anyway, I agree that gunpowder would be a decisive factor in theoretical competition cataphracts vs 18th c. cavalry. Why? Only because cataphracts didn't know 18th c. guns, while 18th c. cavalry was accustomed to them .

[Odovacar]

Only in theory
1. to protect from all kinds of weapons and balls (excluding cannon balls)
2. to increase your morale

Armour doesn't protect you from bullets, only from a specific distance.

Only in theory
Speed of advance depended on horses and tactics of particular cavalry. It didn't depend on armorus. A weight of an armour in 18th c. was only a small percent of a total horse load.

I don't see the reason in this. Already in the 17th century most heavy cavalry dropped armour with the exception of the lobsters. Only the cuirass remained up to 19th century. Cavalry commanders complained that the riders will not take on the armour anyway, they make them cumbersone.
Full armour affects speed of course. A cuirass though would be not a significant decrease in speed.

[Frankie88]

It's not about the size of your spear it's what you can do with it.

[Radosław Sikora]

Armour doesn't protect you from bullets, only from a specific distance.

There were armours which protected from musket bullets too. And not only from a big distance. One such example is described in Ottoman source (written by Silahdar Mehmed aga). The Tartars captured some Austrian cuirassier. The man claimed that nothing (any bullet) can pierce his cuirass. Then Tartars tested his armour shooting to the cuirassier from a close distance. And indeed, nothing could pierce the armour.
This is a single example, but there is much more sources which confirm that armours protected also from musket balls. I know even a couple of examples when armours protected from cannon balls (although probably from a bigger distance).

I don't see the reason in this. Already in the 17th century most heavy cavalry dropped armour with the exception of the lobsters. Only the cuirass remained up to 19th century. Cavalry commanders complained that the riders will not take on the armour anyway, they make them cumbersone.

Yes, armours could be cumbersome. And yes, we can see the decrease of using armours in 17th c. But it doesn't mean that armours didn't protect from balls.

Full armour affects speed of course.

18-19th cuirassiers didn't use full armours. They often used only breastplates and helmets. The weight of armour was reduced, but the remained pieces gave better protection from bullets than for example 15th c. full armours.
18-19th c. cuirassiers used heavier horses than light cavalry, not because cavalrymen used armours, but because the cavalrymen were generally taller and heavier (there was selection of men to cuirassiers). Heavier horses are generally less agile than lighter ones.

[Kagemusha]

Only in theory . In practice most of European armies changed tactics of their own cavalry (and dragoons) in 18th c. and instead of shooting, they charged with a cold steel. Christopher Duffy in his book 'The Military Experience in the Age of Reason' stated:

'By the middle of the eighteenth century a consensus was being reached on one of the most enduring debates about cavalry action, namely whether cold steel should be preferred to the use of firearms. The majority now favoured an unchecked charge of cavalry relying on shock and the sword.'





Which armours do you mean? 18th c. cavalry armours? They were tested by musket balls. And they (maybe not all, but many of them) protected from musket balls. You should remember that 18th c. musket balls didn't have as high cinetic energy as for example early 17th c., while 18th breasplates were thicker and often better quality (steel instead of iron) than breastplates in 16-17th c.



1. to protect from all kinds of weapons and balls (excluding cannon balls)
2. to increase your morale



Speed of advance depended on horses and tactics of particular cavalry. It didn't depend on armorus. A weight of an armour in 18th c. was only a small percent of a total horse load.

Anyway, I agree that gunpowder would be a decisive factor in theoretical competition cataphracts vs 18th c. cavalry. Why? Only because cataphracts didn't know 18th c. guns, while 18th c. cavalry was accustomed to them .

Charging Cavalry was usefull battle decisive force untill the gunpowder weapons phased out the pike. After that it could surprise infantry in some occasions, but with the advancement of muskets. In normal charge against prepared infantry the infantry would have only needed to shoot the horses beneath the riders. As there was no horse armour capable stopping musket balls.More heavily armored horses and riders would have only made it easier for the infantry to do that. Cuirass in itself was usefull protection for cavalry right untill rifles made it obsolete, the most use being against cold steel of other cavalry.

The concept that armour would be inheritently best solution to protect people from death in wars applies only to warfare where most of people are killed by cold steel. When warfare is based on use of projectiles, armor becomes less necessary. Such warfare existed already before the age of gunpowder. Just take a look at steppe warfare, where hgih velocity projectiles made it a good deal to trade armour to speed by discarding most of armour.

[Radosław Sikora]

Charging Cavalry was usefull battle decisive force untill the gunpowder weapons phased out the pike.

What are we talking about? About decisive force of battlefields? Or about usefulness of particular tactics for cavalry?

[Angrychris]

mobility over impact.

[torongill]

That armor also meant a much slower speed of advance, which given the much greater distance between enemy armies meant more time under enemy fire, tired horses and lowered combat effectiveness. Of course against a not so well disciplined enemy infantry and trained own cavalry, a few steel-armored cataphtacts might indeed prove to be very capable square-breakers, but that would require very good cooperation between the different branches of cavalry and in the end might prove unsatisfactory, because the costs of equipping, training and upkeep for such a horseman could have been equal or greater to a cannon and its crew.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Thanks Frankie.

It's interesting how cavalry actually went back and forth with the advent of gunpowder. First they became more heavily armored, and then less and less armor but made use of a pistol. And then the pistol got dropped in exchange of a spear and even less armor.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Not really. The reason good armor wasn't made on the steppe was for the lack of good material. When there was good material to be found, the nobility used it.

[Kagemusha]

Not really. The reason good armor wasn't made on the steppe was for the lack of good material. When there was good material to be found, the nobility used it.

Please show me armour other then plate that can stop the arrows of nomadic composite bow, even which is matter of debate. The armour used by the nobility was there to stop edged weapons, as their role was to charge, thus engaging in hand to hand fighting.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Please show me armour other then plate that can stop the arrows of nomadic composite bow, even which is matter of debate. The armour used by the nobility was there to stop edged weapons, as their role was to charge, thus engaging in hand to hand fighting.

Stopping an arrow isn't super hard. Even the misconception that mail is easily penetrated by arrows is incorrect. They take a small piece of mail, hold it up against a wall, and shoot it at close range in a perpendicular angle and say "there, proof!" Mail works, people wouldn't use it if it didn't. Like wise composite bows aren't the super weapon they're so often made out to be. They're good weapons but they don't negate armor.

[Kagemusha]

Stopping an arrow isn't super hard. Even the misconception that mail is easily penetrated by arrows is incorrect. They take a small piece of mail, hold it up against a wall, and shoot it at close range in a perpendicular angle and say "there, proof!" Mail works, people wouldn't use it if it didn't. Like wise composite bows aren't the super weapon they're so often made out to be. They're good weapons but they don't negate armor.

Your source? You know these things have been tested to death. I am sorry but i have to take your opinion with bit more then pinch of salt. I was not talking about some short selfbow. Check your facts. You can quite easily even find tests shooting arrows to bodies made of ballistic gel covered with armour.