Awesome info, thanks!

Yeah, as I understand it, the heavy lancer and the cuirassier with pistol were both used on the battlefields of the 16th century, one didn't simply replace the other.

It's interesting you mention the training. I've heard one of the issues with lancers in the Napoleonic Wars was to find people qualified for the role, and that a reason for the success of the Polish lancers was that they were already trained in their upbringing, compared to many Western cavalrymen only learning the basics of riding and swordsmanship in the army.

Finally. I often feel like I'm banging my head against the wall while trying explain those misconceptions. Lance were great weapons. It took great and *motivated* men to learn how to use them.

Problem was cavalry was not used in defence but in attack and pursuit. There was no point in heavy lances once armour became less important due to guns improving.

Yeap. During medieval era knights went for a war with few servants, which cared about their stuff. So in fact knight put on his armour (with a help of his servant), took lance and went fighing. Later, during era of mercenary armies everyone need to take care of his stuff alone....

As a tanker it was indeed giant relief not having to carry assault rifle with you, just pistol in the pocket

Yeah, I think it is often underestimated just how protective armor could still be against firearms, in the 16th and 17th centuries.

Agreed. There were a few instances in the early modern period where Polish lancers managed to exploit a gap in reorganizing pike formations and caused the enemy to rout. I mean, what else are you going to do when a dense group of heavily armed dudes on horses are riding around behind your lines unchallenged?

I always find it strange that cavalry did not seem to train troopers to perform the shock charge AND the caracole. Seems to be logical to teach two tactics, one for use on musketeers, the other for pikemen. Were horsemen in the 17th century that hard to train, or was it a horse training issue/ Anyone have thoughts?

" *the caracole approach of cavalry shooting pistols & riding away to reload had a dubious reputation* " Exactly. It looked good "on paper". " *committed cavalry charges were a risky but a potentially potent tactic* " Incorrect. The loses were *low* . Albeit expensive, since most of them involved losing or wounding a warhorse. Not so fun fact: In the sources they treat losing a horse or a retainer rider with equal importance. "Such and such lost a 'boy' and they shot his horse." At some point I thought they were somehow losing the non-combat servants, but no. Those were the people with the wings on their backs.

@@TheWhiteDragon3 I think there is sometimes an overestimation of pike vs cavalry, just like gun vs armor. Pike formations could become disordered, distracted or outmaneuvered, or caught off-guard, by cavalry or other units.

Yes indeed-is there a book on the subject available?

Forget about the eastern front. no one cares about russian human wave "tactics" that result in defeat or pyrrhic victories.

I am adding a comment just so I might hear the answer to the question. I am also a Marylander and remember watching a ring joust when I was a kid in the late 50s in Millersville, MD. I'm not sure what drew my parents there, was it on going and attracted them as we drove by or maybe a friends kid was participating? I don't know. However, I do remember seeing that arena still standing for years as we drove by often , but later, about the time I started driving, that land was developed as a minimall. I was never a part of Maryland's horse culture, but I am curious about it and would love to hear from anyone who knows more about the jousting arena that I mentioned. It was located at the intersections of the currant Benfield Blvd, Veterans Hwy and rte 97 in Milletsville, right about where the Benfield Pines ice rink is now located, thanks.

@@richardelliott9511 we had a horse in the 70's when I was a kid and I would find a long stick and pretend I was a knight. Of course I would lol. I did find out it takes an eye and strong hand to hit anything. My dad caught me at it and gave me a hollering, saying I'd end up putting the stick into my own chest. Probably right too, but that's the extent of my lance experience. The horse got old eventually and I had other things to do (like school and work lol). But there were times when I remember the feeling of getting it just about right too. Was always sorry I couldn't find a way back to it. But those ring jousters are pretty cool imo.

@@Book-bz8ns it sounds like you had quite a good time facing that challenge.

@@richardelliott9511 I'll never forget it. Was every kids dream.

Not a problem anymore, tanks can keep up with horsemen just fine now.

So, did stand around waiting for tanks everything they saw barbed wire or heard a machine gun?

Why would tanks and cavalry have the same objectives in the first place? Tanks are meant to breach trenches and small fortitifactions.

@@satyakisil9711 Tanks tend to be supported by a lot of infantry. Having them on horses instead just means they can carry more stuff. Equip them the same but the horse is carrying some extra things. Same roll.

WW1 tanks were basically just a mobile pill box. If you can move the pill box close to the enemy, even it breaks down, it's basically (very roughly) analogous to a hammer and anvil (envelopment with cavalry). The enemy will have to move out of its position, and when infantry is on the move, they're more vulnerable to cavalry. It's very abstract though - infantry squads could still leap frog to new pre-arranged positions that cavalry might not break into. And leap frogging is basically a turtle tactic, which can make it difficult for cavalry, especially if the infantry have good bases of fire (ie. man portable automatic weapons of their own, which many did by the end of WW1).

Medieval lances did not weigh up to 14 kg. They were much lighter. Also the kopia was not designed to outreach pikes, and in most cases in which husaria attacked infantry with pikes the pikes were longer - and even then the husaria were succesful in many cases.

I dont know much medieval weaponry, but from my experience as a technician using ladders to climb places, my educated guess is that a 14 kg 6.2 m long lancer would be impossible to lift with one arm if you tried to lift from one of the ends 14kg may not sound like a lot, but if its a long object, like a ladder or in this case a lance, it can become very heavy, especially if you try to lift it from one of the ends instead of the center of gravity Ofcourse the lance would have been heavier at point of pickup, so to help with the center of gravity, but still, 14 kg lance sounds so heavy to me and I am a big guy 240 pounds. I dont think I'd be able to hold something like that even with both hands let alone manuever on a horse My guess is that these lances would have to be no more than 7 kg in weight, and up to 5 meters in length, in order for the strongest of the soldiers to properly wield them on horseback. But something like 4 kg weight, and 3 meter length sounds alot more realistic for the average guy. But thats just my couch expert opinion from constantly working with ladders...

@@artyomarty391 : You are absolutly right. It would not be possible to use a weapon with this weight, even for very strong persons. And to be even more specific: there was of cause not only one type of medieval lance. Over the middle ages, the length and the weight of lances varied. In the earyl medieval times lances of knights were for example in the average shorter and lighter than the lances of the polish hussaria. Because of the differences within this time, it is very difficult to compare the lance of the hussaria with the "medieval lances", because the later varied so much. So one should compare them to late medieval lances for knights. But even then, this lances did never weight 14 kg. Never.The longest and heaviest lances used were 5 - 6 m long and had a weight of 5 - 7 kg. But this there the heaviest ones. For a comparison: lances of norman knights in the early middle ages had a length of for example 2,5 m and a weight of 2 kg. And this were also medieval lances. But from weight to length they were much nearer to the later polish lances which were shorter and lighter than to the hussarias lances. In the average even late medieval lances were shorter and not heavier than the hussarias lances. For example they reached 4 - 4,5 m length in the high middle ages and were even then shorter than the hussarias lances, at around the same weight or slightly more weight.

A lot of cavalry units, particularly western units, discarded their sabers or cut them down to being a sort of trench knife, because they never used them in combat. Melees between mounted troops were almost unheard of, one notable exception being at Brandy Station.

@@brucetucker4847 To have a mele fight on a horse you need a loot of skill and a loot of training... you are literally talking about people that got none of that. Polish soldiers in 1939 got no issue with cuttting German soldiers in half from a horse with a sabre. Was that a main tactic? Nope, but if you use cavalrymen with skill and with proper tactic then it is giving drastic effects against infantry units that do not expect cavalry charge from side because humans have no chance against a galloping horse, and at that time the rider could instantly make deadly wound to a soldier standing right next to the soldier that was abut to die under horse hoofs. There was Polish partisan cavalry units that was very effective against German and Red Army units even late stages of WW2. From wikipedia article about A. Plich codename "Góra" later "Dolina": "After Soviet partisans became hostile towards Polish units loyal to the Polish government in exile, the Soviets dealt several blows to the Poles, arresting most of the local Polish commanders. In December 1943 Pilch reorganized the Polish partisans in the Nowogródek area. He made a controversial decision to accept a ceasefire with the Germans, and concentrated solely on engaging the Soviet partisans. The ceasefire with the Germans had been criticized by the high command of the Armia Krajowa, which ordered Pilch to renounce it; he, however, chose to ignore those orders. In June 1944 his unit, numbering about 1,000 men, retreated west in face of the Soviet Operation Bagration. At that time, Pilch negotiated an agreement with the command of the Armia Krajowa, which accepted him back into its ranks in return for the end of the ceasefire between Pilch forces and the Germans. He continued fighting in the ranks of the AK against the Germans, primarily in the Kampinos forest area, supporting the Warsaw Uprising. On the night of 2 September 1944 his partisan group carried out a successful attack on formations of SS RONA stationed in the village of Truskaw. The SS battalions were defeated and scattered; 250 SS soldiers were killed and 100 wounded, while "Dolina"'s unit suffered only ten killed and ten wounded." I never heard about Polish soldiers making knifes from sabres, that is just ridiculus and breaking in half a well made sabre is not easy as it should be made from good quality spring type of steel. For Polish sabre from 1934 to be allowed to be used by Polish army: "In order for a saber(model from 1934) to be qualified for "service" in Polish army, it had to meet the following conditions: - pierce a 2 mm thick sheet of metal with a point by dropping the blade from 2 m - cut a 5 mm diameter steel bar on a lead backing five times without damaging the blade - withstand the test of hitting the back and face of the blade against a rounded hardwood trunk without cracking the lining or damaging the blade - the blade based on wood and subjected to manual pressure several times on both sides could not deform - the scabbard placed flat on two sleepers, loaded with a weight of 120 kg, could not show any deformations or cracks.

Absolutely. Also, I think the very fact that pikes became so prominent on the battlefield in the 16th century, is testament to just how powerful and devastating heavy cavalry had become, and continued to be, by that time.

Sometimes they were even equipped with long guns.

Brings us back to the advantage of pistols being easier kit to equip a unit with that they can carry themselves. The Hussar often carried two pistols to use after breaking the lance, multiplying the impact of the charge significantly.

The Savoy Cavalry against the Soviets used swords, that was later than the Polish Lancers en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Izbushensky#:~:text=The%20Charge%20of%20the%20%22Savoia,the%20Don%20and%20Khopyor%20rivers.

Why would lances be so expensive? Spears are often mentioned as being cheaper than swords in the Middle Ages, and lances seem far less complex compared to pistols. Maybe fancy ones like the hollow Polish lances were expensive, but why wouldn't a simple spearhead on a wooden pole be relatively inexpensive?

@@fridrekr7510 If we are speaking of what was referred to in this video as heavy lances then even the Western European ones were partially hollowed, glued, painted et cetera. In general making one is quite labour intensive. And you need lots of them for every lancer. Even if individually they are cheaper than pistols they end up more expensive in use as one rider can go through multiple lances in one battle. Also, lances are anything but simple pieces of wood. That's probably one of the biggest misconceptions about them.

Yep, my impression reading some contemporary treatises was also that the authors lamented the decline of the lance. It's a skill issue. It's hard to use a lance and most aristocrats (let alone commoners...!) did not have sufficient training anymore. Apart from that, authors also agree that a lancer needs a better (more expensive) horse than a lowly cuirassier. There were no real drawbacks to lancers. A lancer without a lance (or who has broken his lance) is still a cuirassier...

@@MaximilianM-eg2zg You are absolutely right. While writing my original comment I didn't have enough time to touch all those points. Thanks. To address another point from the video. Range. Pistols didn't really offer a greater range than lances. The effective range of an XVII century pistol was only about three meters. Some cavalry lances in the XVI and XVII centuries exceeded 6 meters. Both Polish and German sources state such numbers.

In early stages of Thirty Years War last german heavy lancers appeared. A note: When there was a war against the Turks, up to 1790s german heavy cavallymen weared all Armour pieces, still remaining in arsenal, as protection against the arrows of turkish/ tartaric mounted archers.

@@brittakriep2938 That's very interesting. I suspected that there were still heavy lancers deployed in the early 1600s, but I wasn't sure.

@@brittakriep2938 Was the Wallhausen hevy Lanzierer not more are theoretical thing? Or where they realy used in the 1600s ?

@@killerkraut9179 : As far as i , Brittas boyfriend, know , at start of Thirty Years War the very last ones appeared , but only in small numbers, and came out of service very fast. Also at start of Thirty Years War still a number of Bidenhänder was used, they had been still in inventory. When a war starts there still some soldiers with dated Equipment , which is replaced by modern one or given to rearline auxillaries.,

@@seanbeckett4019 : See my second comment.

No Polish cavalry charged German tanks in 1939! That was a Fascist propaganda myth. Polish cavalry at that time was mostly horse mounted infantry for rapid movement, but fighting on foot.

@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Yes that was nazi propaganda see Charge at Krojanty . Polish cavalry used also light anti tank guns in WW2.

That was explicitly the goal for Gustavus Adolphus' cavalry. Armed with pistols for the charge, or during the ensuing melee.

Polish husaria used hollow lances upto 6.2m long weighing only 3kg. Body armor weighed a further 12-15kg. Thus , large, heavy horses were not a precondition as a husaria rider would weigh only about 100kg with his armor and weapons.

​@@michaelmazowiecki9195: Heavy horses are not needed because of the weight of the lances, but to generate power in the attack and to increase the close combat value of the lance. It does not matter if the lance weighs 3 kg oder 4 kg or 5 kg. Any horse can carry a rider with a lance, the weight of the lance is irrelevant for the horse. But with a lighter and smaller horse the heavy lance has a much smaller combat value, as the power for the thrust does not result from the lance itself, but from the weight and speed of the horse, therefore a thrust with a heavy lance is much more effective from an heavy horse. Also 100 kg is a heavy weight for an horse. If you have an heavy strong horse, it can carry that weight much more easily. Especially for the horses of the husars it is interesting imo, that they were used in battle only if they are at least 5 years old, and usual after an rigoros training of 7 years. Also every husar had around 3 - 6 fighting horses (and additionally further more transport/draught horses). Every of this 4 warhorses (average) was worth between 5 to 10 times the anual income of the husar, so overall in the average the horses alone represent up to several decades of income. No wonder hussars were in the noble class. They were the only ones who could afford such expenses. Good thing money wasn’t what motivated a hussar to fight. He did it for country and glory. I will end with an old polish saying from this period: “A Pole without a horse is a body without a soul.”

@@ulrichreinhardt8432 horses for rhe husaria were specially bred from crossing Polish tarpans which were very fast and resilient but small, with breeds from the Balkans and Caucasus but not Arabs. The resulting horses were relatively light compared to western heavy cavalry horses, tall, fast, strong and resilient, able to survive on poor quality fodder. Their export was strictly illegal, forbidden and severely punished. Due to the period of the Potop, the nobility became much poorer and could not finance the production of the Polish cross breed so there was a decline in the quantity and quality by the end of the 17th century. Carrying a weight of 100kg was relatively not extreme when compared to western armored cavalry such as Swedish Rajtars or French Cuirassiers who used more massive horses closer to the western tradition of medieval heavy cavalry.

​@@michaelmazowiecki9195 : The battle horses for the husaria were not bred from crossing tarpans with eastern horses, alhthough this is claimed sometimes today in the net. This is a missunderstanding because at the height of the polish republic it became usual to name native polish horses tarpans, despite them beeing not of the tarpan wildhorse origin. They were in the average smaller than western heavy cavalry horses, but not that much lighter and quite near to medieval destrier horses. Moreover the size of an horse is not the main criteria that make it an heavy cavalry horse. The battle horses of the husaria were very strong and muscular, and as you said it, resilient, able to survive under harsh conditions and they were by all acounts quite remarkably agile for such a strong muscular horse race. Also one have to mention, that not all horses of an husaria were battle horses. Like medieval knights centuries before him they had always several horses with them, and some of them of another kind of race, for specialised tasks. Usually they had at least one courser with them and in many cases the rode their coursers into battle instead of their battle horses, especially against lighter and more agile enemies. So the polish husaria were much more in the western tradition of medieval heavy cavalry than the heavy cavalry in western european countries at this time. Moreover even french cuirassiers were not that heavy if you look at the equipment. They for example did not weight 100 kg. By the way: rajtaria (reiters) were used in sweden, but were an typical german cavalry, even in foreign countries quite often from german origin and they were not an heavy cavalry! They used lighter horses than the husaria (Ringerpferde). So this is completly wrong. An better example and comparison would be lancers and especillay demi-lancers. But Reiters used smaller horses and were lighter than the husaria. You can read here about them: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiter

PPS: I did some research about the use of the word reiters / rajtars in poland in this time. The word was used for every kind of western style cavalry! So it could mean Heavy Cavalry and also Light Cavalry. In this time many germans fought in the polish armies as cavalry, which is unknown today in poland and germany too. Some of them fought as typical german reiters, but others were for example lancers, demi-lancers oder Cuirassiers. There are explicit historical sources in which persons of this time for example named a german unit of cuirassiers as reiters. That is the resaons why today sometimes reiters are thought to be heavy cavalry in poland. But any western style cavalry would be called reiters. Also about the polisch horses: according to all historical sources the battle-horses of the hussaria were described as big, muscular and strong. Authors from this time said, that they were bigger than turkisch horses, much stronger but not as fast. Because of that the poles did beginn to cross there horses with turkish and especially with arab horses to make them faster. This mixed horses were called Turks and were more expensive im comparison to the ordinary hussars horse.

I mean, i think that being on horseback definitely helps with carrying all that stuff, especially since they had ways to mount lance for charges iirc

Hussars were elite, absurdly expensive, but universal troops (heavy-armed horsemen with a lance, saber, pistol and bow must be universal). However, due to their price, most Polish cavalry units (unlike in the movies) were troops other than hussars. The hussar was usually used like a fist blow, , breaking the enemy ranks at the climax of a battle. EDIT: Hussar units were dismantled mostly because of their price, not prowess.

If we are going to use only western europe there are a couple examples : Hobilars-mounted infantry, would usually dismount to fight , used short spears , welsh were paticularly adept at this Mounted archers-early on they were actual archers , fought dismounted , later on they evolved into light cavalry (armoured and carrying lances) even later they became indistinguishable from the gendarmes Mounted Crossbowmen-popular in germany , italy and poland , fought on horseback Border horse-border between england and scotland , light cavalry , used lances

That's not exactly true. You can reach to the ground with a sword.

A hoof can. ;)

There are feats where people show off by riding past something on the ground and stabbing it with a sword as they go. It's absolutely possible if more difficult.

@@101Mant ye i wanna see u pull that off reliably on a battlefield

Polish Hussars solved this problem by using very long thin swords (koncerz). Some of them carried both a saber and a koncerz that was really meant as a backup lance.

considering they mostly fought guerilla style raiding wars with the Native tribes between the civil war and WW1, that is not too surprising

​​@@SnarkyZazu "Guerilla" style tactics were employed by European Settlers of N.A. - from the 1600's as they adapted to the environs & martial tactics of N.A. Indigenous peoples.

​​​​@@SnarkyZazu Well documented from early settlers/colonizers through the North American War For Independence from England. Significantly Pre-Dating your statement.

Perhaps but the plains natives used lances.

@@rachdarastrix5251 No. Not Perhaps. Well Documented Fact.

A fair amount of cavalry never made that transition.

It probably didn't, they've just mostly shifted to crossbow, just like on foot. Mounted crossbowmen were very common kind of troops in Central Europe in particular.

Yup. To give an example, in XVIIth century Poland, a battle horse could cost as much as a few villages including all of the buildings and peasants living there.

I'm no expert, but it seems your question assumes a lance point always ends up transfixed in an opponent, which may have happened on occasion but was not the case in many instances. Most of the time the point just slashed or ripped through only part of the target, or just grazed them.

Well, if all of your guys kill one each of their guys, in an even fight that's their army gone. Since most forces will rout way before you get to that point, this strikes me as one of those problems that seems bigger than it is. And lancers would have swords or whatnot as sidearms, which they would take out after the lance is stuck in someone.

Nicely curved armour will redirect the enemy's point significantly more than non-nicely-curved armour. That doesn't mean it's going to work anything like all the time. "Worth doing" is not the same as "foolproof". And a lancer is going to know how that stuff works--he's wearing it himself, he practices with people wearing it all the time, he's going to try to aim to minimize the effect.

Not really. Often the lancers had the biggest, most powerful horses, combined with heavy armor, so they were an excellent counter to horse archers. The way the mongols for example dealt with european knights during battles was to use the horse archers as bait, drawing the knights away from their infantry. Which allowed the Mongols own heavy lancers to surround them. However, if the Mongolian Lancers were not fast enough, the Knights would catch the horse archers and butcher them