Greger wrote:
Stuart wrote:The point is that if we look at the development of the lance by cavalry, we see the same pattern of development that produced the rapier. A switch from a heavy, clumsy weapon to one that is much lighter and more agile. This tends to indicate a widespread pattern of development that was ocurring across Europe.
What should be considered about the lance as utilized by the various forms of lancers that appeared during the time of napoleonic wars is that it was intended primeraly as a first strike weapon. When properly employed by a skilled user, the superior reach and speed of the lance in comparison with the saber or other cavalry sword almost always worked in the favour of the soldier so equipped. After the initial clash the lance most often proved cumbersome and unwieldy in the close quarter melee, prompting most lancers to drop there lance in favour of a secondary saber.
Additionally, lances weren't great for the primary tasks of light calvary in the era, which was chasing down enemy infantry whose ranks were broken (usually because they were fleeing or just generally ill-disciplined while moviing, or else are skirmish troops and artillery crews) and preventing them from reforming/killin' the bastards. A cutting sword is optimal here, as you want to be swinging at them as you move past and the very last thing you want is to get bogged down because you got the point of something stuck in a body. When English horsemen were asking for pointier swords, they were misinterpreting their own role on the battlefield, though of course there were problems aside from that, like how poorly trained British calvary were in comparison to their infantry and the fact they spent half their time chasing better equipped and disciplined dragoons up and down spain instead of fighting in their intended role, creating the impression there was a great deal of calvary against calvary fighting going on when it was really just the French soldiers breaking off and fading over and over.
Lancers were an anachronism by the napoleonic war, still in service not becuase of utility but misconception. Well disciplined infantry would see off calvary with ease, and calvary should have been kept in reserves, but a lot of commanders never realized this and consistantly sent their horses forward to "disrupt the enemy formation", which didn't tend to do much more than get light calvary units tangled up in front of everyone. Lancers were used to kill off horsemen
who never should have gone out in the first place and the core of both armies, the infantry, remained untouched, as there was honestly little difference in effect between a lance and a sword against infantry. Smart commanders kept their calvary in reserve and only brought them out to deal with skirmishers regular units couldn't go deal with, chase down fleeing soldiers, and attack artillery crews that had been left open as the enemy formation broke down.
Lancers were superfluous. Their role was to kill of enemies that didn't actually pose much of a threat in the first place, and the only got play because, as Wellington said, "Our officers of cavalry have acquired a trick of galloping at everything. They never consider the situation, never think of manoeuvring before an enemy, and never keep back or provide a reserve." The only place they would actually have a role on the field would be to prevent light calvary from doing their work if the line actually did break down, but at that point the battle is most than likely lost anyway.
) beats either. The point is that if we look at the development of the lance by cavalry, we see the same pattern of development that produced the rapier. A switch from a heavy, clumsy weapon to one that is much lighter and more agile. This tends to indicate a widespread pattern of development that was ocurring across Europe.
