Parthian/Sassanid heavy cavalry use bamboo lances?

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Well... I would both agree and disagree: The Lance in that image is being held, but there's no indication of it being held in a couched position.

Good image though. Is that a nasal on his helmet?

[daryush]

Dan, that particular depiction is likely a fake - it doesn't follow the normal Sasanian touretics *at all* and the material culture depicted is strange also.

However, couched lances are shown at Khalchayan so it's highly likely that a couched technique was used by some. The Khalchayan lance is not the huge kontos but a much smaller weapon, and dates a few centuries before the Sasanian era.

[Urselius]

The development of the true couched lance technique required both the stirrup and the high cantled war saddle - this happened in the late 11th century. The trick for spotting true couched lance use in pictorial sources is not looking at the elbow but at the feet. When the legs are shown straight and the feet very forward with the heel lower than the toes in the stirrup - then a couched lance-based equestrian combat riding posture is being shown.

In earlier lance use the lance was held with the elbow somewhat bent if the lance was grasped in one hand or if held by both hands the rear arm was flexed in this way. This allowed the arm to absorb the reactive force of any thrust in a measured way - enough resistance to produce a wound, not so much as to unseat the lance-wielder. Look at the famous image of Alexander the Great at the Battle of Gugamela:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battl...etail1.jpg

[daryush]

Early Kushan, top image, Khalchayan. This lance is undeniably couched.

http://www.xlegio.ru/netcat_files/Image/...fig-05.gif

[Renatus]

Early Kushan, top image, Khalchayan. This lance is undeniably couched.

http://www.xlegio.ru/netcat_files/Image/...fig-05.gif

The problem with this image is that I believe that it is reconstructed from fragments, so we may not be able to tell what is genuine and what is speculation.

[Urselius]

Did early cavalry ever tuck their lances under the armpit? Yes I'm sure they did, it is a useful way of relieving the hand and forearm of the weight of the lance, and can also steady the point. Did they charge to impact with the fully locked-in couched lance grip? No, because with an inflexible arm they could not absorb the reactive force of impact generated by a charging horse and remain seated. The use of two hands to wield a contus is, in essence, proof of this. A cavalryman able to use a couched grip does not need to use two hands to employ a long heavy lance. The contarius used the lead hand, like a snooker player does a cue, to control the lance point, and also to support the weight of the lance, the rear hand and arm to deliver the thrust, or absorb the shock of a strike made using the forward momentum of the horse if charging at speed. That they could not employ a truly couched lance does not mean that early lancers did not have effective techniques.

[Dan Howard]

Stirrups do nothing to mitigate against lance impact. Read the link I posted.

[Alanus]

If you read Simonenko, he makes an argument for the use of couched lances by Sarmatians. Personally, I think he's correct. If not Sarmatians, then also Sassanians , Romans... not to forget the Chinese. A lot of ancient iconography is stereotyped, the old two-handed position. But the reality, I'm convinced, was different. The "only with stirrups" idea went out with full-screen movies. It's a Blue-Ray generation, folks. :whistle:

[Alanus]

The lance was too unwieldy for cavalryman to use especially Sassanid cavalrymen when they have to use bow, sword and mace or battle axe.

What? :woot:
Huh? :???:

Bamboo was certainly around... and in the right size.
The first silkworm eggs to reach Europe were presented to Justinian by a couple of Christian monks who smuggled them out of China inside bamboo shafts deceptively used as long walking sticks. 8-)

[daryush]

The lance heads from Central Asia and NW India are all HUGE and weight a lot - a lot more than lance heads used in the medieval era for couched lances. The two handed grip was used for better balance, aim, and to help take the weight. A couched position *can* be used with such heavy heads but it is unweildy, although smaller heads were certainly in use and have been excavated which could be used couched. Some artwork from Panjakent is highly suggestive of a couched lance technique.

From iconography there appear to a be a variety of lances. Kontoi, which are thick, long, heavy, with large heads and must be used with two hands; lighter lances which are carried with one hand; narrow two handed long lances which appear to be common among the Arabs and the Tibetans.

Stirrups are not essential for lance impact - a well built saddle is the most important factor. Horned saddles were popular throughout Asia (other than China and India) which would have done the job nicely.

[Urselius]

If the couched lance technique had been in use for many centuries by many different peoples how do you account for the superiority shown by the heavy cavalry of the Normans and other Westerners against Byzantium from the 1060s and against the Middle Eastern Muslim peoples from the First Crusade onwards? Please do not say armour, because Western armour at this time, though heavy, was not as diverse or effective as the armour used by their Byzantine and Muslim foes.

The Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena stated: "For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon". Franks were obviously doing something that contemporary Byzantine cavalry were not.

[ValentinianVictrix]

If the couched lance technique had been in use for many centuries by many different peoples how do you account for the superiority shown by the heavy cavalry of the Normans and other Westerners against Byzantium from the 1060s and against the Middle Eastern Muslim peoples from the First Crusade onwards? Please do not say armour, because Western armour at this time, though heavy, was not as diverse or effective as the armour used by their Byzantine and Muslim foes.

The Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena stated: "For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon". Franks were obviously doing something that contemporary Byzantine cavalry were not.

Was it not the case that Byzantine cavalry were dual-armed and relied on mainly bow fire, whilst western cavalry lacked bows and relied on their initial charge breaking the enemy?

[Urselius]

Was it not the case that Byzantine cavalry were dual-armed and relied on mainly bow fire, whilst western cavalry lacked bows and relied on their initial charge breaking the enemy?

This was not the case by the late 11th century, when Byzantine heavy cavalry were dedicated lancers, they did not usually carry bows. Bows were employed by specialist horse archers usually recruited from steppe nomads, such as Cumans, Pechenegs and Uzes, from the Seljuk Turks or from peoples with nomad ancestry settled within the Empire such as the Vardariots and the Moglena Pechenegs.

Early in his military career Emperor Alexios I Komnenos countered Norman knights with his own kataphraktoi, but they were repeatedly broken and routed. Later on he used various stratagems aimed at avoiding direct contact between his heavy cavalry and Norman knights, reserving his heavy cavalry for counterattacks. During the reigns of his successors John II and Manuel I this disparity of effectiveness seems to have narrowed and disappeared, the only reasonable conclusion is that the Byzantines adopted the Western way of fighting in this period. This is confirmed by Manuel I organising jousts against Westerners, in which he personally excelled.

The couched lance technique was not merely tucking the lance shaft under the arm. If you think that the couched lance technique was in use from Antique times onwards then it really cocks up military history big time, as I have argued above . If Western Europeans had not evolved a new and very effective fighting technique for heavy cavalry in the latter half of the 11th century, then you need to do some quite disreputable logic chopping to account for historical facts.

Here a 13th century image of Richard I of England shows the characteristics of the full couched lance technique:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RichardSaladin.jpg

Note: the lance is supported for essentially all its length by one arm (large old lance head too!) and the shaft is right up, locked into the armpit, the legs are so straight they are almost depicted bending forwards, they are held pushed out to the front, the heel of the foot is lower than the toes. The cantle of the saddle is very tall and envelops the riders hips completely.

[Dan Howard]

If the couched lance technique had been in use for many centuries by many different peoples how do you account for the superiority shown by the heavy cavalry of the Normans and other Westerners against Byzantium from the 1060s and against the Middle Eastern Muslim peoples from the First Crusade onwards? Please do not say armour, because Western armour at this time, though heavy, was not as diverse or effective as the armour used by their Byzantine and Muslim foes.

The Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena stated: "For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon". Franks were obviously doing something that contemporary Byzantine cavalry were not.

Their mail was superior to that of their opponents and it covered more of the body. Their horses were larger and better trained for shock tactics.

"He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt." [Alexiad, VIII.8]

[Dan Howard]

...the legs are so straight they are almost depicted bending forwards, they are held pushed out to the front, the heel of the foot is lower than the toes.

How does pushing the legs FORWARD do anything to mitigate against the impact of the lance? Read the link I posted. This type of stirrup arrangement helps to stabilise the rider during the charge and helps when laying about afterwards with a sword but the feet go forward and up at the moment of impact; that is, OUT of the stirrup.

If the couched lance technique had been in use for many centuries by many different peoples how do you account for the superiority shown by the heavy cavalry of the Normans and other Westerners against Byzantium from the 1060s and against the Middle Eastern Muslim peoples from the First Crusade onwards? Please do not say armour, because Western armour at this time, though heavy, was not as diverse or effective as the armour used by their Byzantine and Muslim foes.

The Byzantine princess and historian Anna Comnena stated: "For a Frank on horseback is invincible, and would even make a hole in the walls of Babylon". Franks were obviously doing something that contemporary Byzantine cavalry were not.

Their mail was superior to that of their opponents and it covered more of the body. Their horses were larger and better trained for shock tactics.

"He furnished them abundantly with arrows and exhorted them not to use them sparingly, but to shoot at the horses rather than at the Franks. For he knew that the Franks were difficult to wound, or rather, practically invulnerable, thanks to their armoured coats of mail. Therefore he considered shooting at them useless and quite senseless. For the Frankish defensive arms is this coat of mail, ring woven into ring, and the iron fabric is such excellent iron that it repels arrows and keeps the wearer’s skin unhurt." [Alexiad, VIII.8][/quote]