Talk to Me About the Cut Down Lance

[Garanhir]

I've decided to leave my comfortable Early Middle Ages rut and expand my horizons a bit, specifically to the later Middle Ages. I keep seeing and reading references to the use of a cut down lance as an infantry weapon.

Tell me, O LAF hive-mind, what made this idea popular? What made it better than a bill, spear or pike? Convenience? Cost? Was it employed in some special fashion? There's a Claymore figure who seems to be holding his by the pointy end. Is that significant?

[Patrice]

As I understand it, there's no real difference. It's just that when your knights arrive on the battlefield and realize that they will have to fight on foot and not to charge on horseback, they can cut down their heavy lance (or rather, they tell their servant to cut it) so they will have a long weapon to fight on foot.

In games term it means that a weapon which has been paid in budget as a "knight's couched lance" then becomes, when the player decides it, a common infantry spear (or at least it's how I treat it in my rules).

[Charlie_]

It's an interesting question, something I've noticed since getting deeper into the period myself lately.

I may be wrong, but I think it seems to be a thing in the late 14th / early 15th century, where perhaps the idea of men-at-arms dismounting en-mass to fight was still a new concept (for some of them at least), and they didn't have dedicated infantry weapons? Later in the 15th century most men-at-arms would have no doubt owned a poleaxe of some sort or another, so were properly equipped when they had to dismount.

What made it better than a bill, spear or pike?

Well it pretty much was a spear. And a pike is pretty much a very long spear. How long these cut-down lances were when used, I'm not sure....

I found the reference to them used at the Battle of Sempach (1386) very interesting. Just looking in my Osprey The Swiss At War book now.... Apparently Duke Leopold had his knights dismount to face the Swiss, "not only on account of the terrain, but also because the Duke wished to prove the effectiveness of the dismounted lance against the halberd". It seems here the lances were used in the fashion of pikes and seriously out-fought the Swiss halberds at first.... until the Swiss managed to break into the 'pike' formation and cause carnage.
So this would suggest the dismounted lances used by the Austrians were significantly longer than the Swiss halberds. Though having just written that, I see the Osprey book at least doesn't refer to them as being 'cut-down' at all...

And when does a cut-down lance or spear become a poleaxe or whatever? Essentially just by adding  extra utensils on the end (axe blade, hammer, spike, hook, etc), and keeping it quite short. No doubt a more sophisticated polearm weapon would be more useful... But I'd argue they would be used for much the same reasons. In an era of fully-armoured men-at-arms fighting on foot, a short two-handed pole weapon of any sort would be considered very useful, rather than say a sword and shield, for armoured combat. Of course later on a more sophisticated poleaxe design would be much better, but a spear of some sort would do the job at first (especially considering the opposing men-at-arms would presumably not be equipped with more sophisticated weaponry).
What makes a short two-handed pole weapon useful for armoured combat, over a sword and shield for instance? Well assuming both combatants are fully armoured.... you are able to get up close, not worrying two much about your opponent's blade doing any real damage.... Most cuts and thrusts will glance off your plate armour. Then a shield is perhaps pointless, freeing up an extra hand, and two hands on a suitable weapon allows more control and flexibility. I imagine defeating your armoured opponent then is more to do with managing to get him off his feet and then getting your weapon between the plates of his armour (or taking him prisoner).
So before dedicated 'knightly' infantry polearms (poleaxes etc) for this purpose became widespread, I imagine an armoured man-at-arms forced to dismount would feel more comfortable with a two-handed weapon rather than just a sword and shield, and with no such weapon to hand shortening his lance into a spear would seem like a great idea.

[Arlequín]

I think Charlie has covered it for my money. However don't forget that the pole itself is a weapon in the hands of a trained man too; stave fighting had a long tradition and its skills were transferable.

While a well-armoured man had little to fear in particular physically from a spear, someone who knew what they were doing could have him on his back and claiming he could afford a ransom in seconds. A cut-down heavy lance had more weight/mass than a common spear, so was somewhat more useful. 

So for me cut-down lances are the first step towards men at arms wielding poleaxes a few decades later.

[Garanhir]

Thanks, everyone. You've been a big help.

[Bushbaby]

I am going to hijack this thread as it seem to have fulfilled it's purpose.

I have a question regarding lances. After a unit of lance armed knights had charged, what happened to the lances? Were they discarded or did they manage to keep them for another charge? Perhaps the squires had spares?

[levied troop]

I wouldn't be definitive about medieval warfare, but I don't think the concept of 'another charge' applied, the horses were usually exhausted after the first engagement and the organisation didn't really exist to rally, reform and charge again.  Once into the second 'round' of combat the lance is a liability and I'd assume it's discarded and the relevant side-arm (axe, sword, mace) is utilised.

No doubt spare lances, and indeed spare horses, were kept back by pages and therefore could be utilised, but I suspect it would take a couple of hours to sort out and rarely happened in large battles.  Smaller skirmishes maybe?

[Arlequín]

Yes that''s pretty much it, but by the Late 15th Century some are recalling, reforming and charging again, albeit without lances, which were discarded as soon as charge became melee.

[Patrice]

Once into the second 'round' of combat the lance is a liability and I'd assume it's discarded and the relevant side-arm (axe, sword, mace) is utilised. No doubt spare lances, and indeed spare horses, were kept back by pages and therefore could be utilised, but I suspect it would take a couple of hours to sort out and rarely happened in large battles.

That's also what I think. The lance would be lost in the first shock and you continue the melee with side-arms.

by the Late 15th Century some are recalling, reforming and charging again, albeit without lances, which were discarded as soon as charge became melee.

Yes, Late 15th century "coureurs" had lances and were able to charge, and although equipped as heavy cavalry they were very flexible and could even be used as light cavalry (whereas the 14th century knights were much heavier, and the 14th century hobilars and mounted sergeants were mounted infantry).

[Arlequín]

I prefer 'could fulfil some light cavalry roles'. There was a reason why true light cavalry, like the Stradiots, Jinetes and English Border Horse had such an impact.

Coureurs, Currours, Scourers and other names, seem to have been more like specialist scouts. Calais had about sixty spread across the whole Pale, in comparison to a few hundred men at arms of all varieties, many of whom were equally armoured, but seemingly lacked the skillset. The pay for these specialists fell directly between that of a man at arms and a mounted archer, except for their leaders, who got more than a man at arms.

The French, Breton and Burgundian experience might have differed, but I don't expect by much; England took its cues from European trends after the 1450s.

[levied troop]

Just to return to cutdown lances, I found the reference in Froissart.  On the French side at Poiters:

"... orders were given for everyone to dismount, except those who had been chosen....to break through the archers.  All who had lances were to cut them down to a length of five feet, in order to make handier weapons of them...."

I recall a 25mm miniature of two knights holding a cut down lance between them (my memory says Hotspur Miniatures?) but I can't find an image of it.

[Arlequín]

The "two men, one lance" thing, was apparently something Hawkwood's White Company did during their time in Italy. I don't recall it catching on.

Five feet makes for a very short infantry spear for a formation, but is about right for a personal close combat weapon and is about the length of later poleaxes. Putting that in context, it is also roughly the same length as a rifle with a bayonet.

[Patrice]

That would be old French feet, slightly longer than the British Imperial feet (because French people have longer body parts than the English?)
32.6 cm or 32.7 cm in the Late Middle Ages (although it could vary from place to place) and 32.5 cm in the 18th century.

Five French feet is still quite short for an infantry spear.

[Griefbringer]

The "two men, one lance" thing, was apparently something Hawkwood's White Company did during their time in Italy. I don't recall it catching on.

I have also seen suggestions that the whole "two men, one lance" concept is a mistranslation or misinterpretation of a somewhat unclear primary source.

In late middle ages, lance was also an organisational unit, which in late 14th century Italy tended to consist of two men-at-arms and a page. The alternative interpretation is that the writer intended to say that there were two men-at-arms per lance (organisational unit), rather than two men-at-arms wielding a single lance (combat weapon).

[Arlequín]

I'll accept that explanation without reservation. It makes far more sense than the other. 

A similar confusion exists with Edward IV's 1475 expedition; as the rolls only list 'spears' and 'archers'. We know 'spears' is a direct Middle English translation of the contemporary French term 'lances', but it is not certain whether it is used in the traditional sense of a single man at arms, or in the emerging sense as being short-hand for 'lance fournie'; a group of men headed by a man at arms (with valet, coutilier, mounted archers etc.).

English rolls from earlier always list men at arms, mounted archers and archers, but not in this case. Everybody else in Europe used 'the lance' or its equivalent as an administrative entity, but the English are typically thought to have not. However by the 1490s men at arms are usually listed 'with their custrell', so they are a lance in all but name.

English practice was for a 'captain' of a contingent to draw pay for it, pay out to the men at arms (who then paid their own 'man' or men) and the petty captains of archers. All the Crown would need to know was how many 'lances' and ordinary archers each commander had; hence the simple breakdown of spears and archers. Certainly mounted archers drew more pay than those on foot, so to group all archers together is not good book-keeping.

If this was the case however, what might an 'English lance' be? Continuity suggests at least a man at arms and a 'lesser man at arms' (custrell), but how many mounted archers?  A group of retinues raised in 1492 show no relationship between the numbers of men at arms and mounted archers and the appearance of 'demi-lancers' in them totally skews any comparison designed to work out a ratio.