"Last use of Lancers in England" Topic

Does anyone knows when did the English armies stop fielding lance armed cavalry? From what I've read, demi-lancers and border/light horse armed with lances were popular up to the reign of Elizabeth (Also, it seems that the pensioners would still theorically serve with lances by that time). Was it after her death? Or did the lancer cavalry continue to exist during the first years of the XVII Century?

Weren't there lancers in the Sudan?

If you mean just English armies, and not any British army, then it is likely that some light horse still carried the lance/spear into James' reign but unlikely beyond that.

Scottish cavalry continued to use a light lance/spear up until the Civil War.

I think that lancers went out of favour after Elizabeth – but in 1822 the British army re-introduced the use of lancers (for example, converting the 17th Light Dragoons to the 17th Lancers – whose tradition, I believe, is continued in the Queens Royal Lancers)

I'm not sure when they disappeared in England, but certainly by the ECW lancers only seem to appear in Scottish forces, none in England. AFAIK the British army didn't actually have any lancer regiments until 1816, when some light dragoon regiments adopted the lance.

Britain still had lance armed cavalry through the Great War, I believe they were phased out in the 1930s along with the rest of the horse units.

I think about the time pointy sticks stopped going through armour.

There were no "Does anyone knows when did the English armies stop fielding lance armed cavalry? From what I've read, demi-lancers and border/light horse armed with lances were popular up to the reign of Elizabeth (Also, it seems that the pensioners would still theorically serve with lances by that time). Was it after her death? Or did the lancer cavalry continue to exist during the first years of the XVII Century

Your time frame is so ridiculous I can't be bovvered.

Aside from your misunderstanding of English as opposed to British and the United Kingdom!

Yeah, you shouldn't have "bovvered" to say that.

English/British, a common misunderstanding, particularly amongst non-British.

Would there be the same reaction had the query been on 'Scottish' as opposed to 'English'?

I can't see what has twisted duncanh's knickers – didn't he notice that this was posted on the Renaissance boards ? All the comments about the re-introduction of the lance in the 19C are irrelevant.

The comments would have been different if they had asked about Scottish armies because people do not get them wrong by referring to them incorrectly when they should know better, particularly in a forum where history is a major interest of many of the participants.

@duncanh

It is probably just as well that you can't be 'bovvered' because you don't appear to know the first thing about it. At the time the original poster is referring to there was no Britain or United Kingdom and he is perfectly correct to talk of English armies, which did indeed feature lance-armed pensioners, demi-lancers and border horse.

You are accusing the original poster of conflating English with British when he has done no such thing.

If you are going to fly the flag try to ensure that you have got the thing the right way up.

Yes, prior to 1707 there is no 'United Kingdom', it's England or Scotland. So ducanh, it's pretty clear that you have no frickin' clue what you're talking about.

-Will

Guys, I' m sorry If I offended anyone. I just tought that "English armies" was a good way to talk about the military forces of the Kingdom of England during the Tudor and early Stuart períodos (the "renaissance"). I'm also asking about the traditional "heavy" lancers of that period, and not the polish-inspired lancers of the XIX century.

And guys, do you know if there is any mention of english demi-lancers or light horse lancers during the reign of King James I?

Hi Don,

There were still some lancers around right up until the start of the civil wars. In 1638 a countrywide muster of the trained bands was recorded, with types of cavalry noted. Some counties had lancers, the data is shown in the osprey ECW cavalry book and I've added the info to the bcw wiki here link eg see Buckinghamshire.

What I'm not 00% clear about is whether the lancers were light or heavy, but I think heavy is certainly a possibility. Perhaps some of the english horse might have had lances during the bishops wars but there's no mention in the ECW as far as I know. Certainly the scots and some Irish horse used lances all the way through the ECW and confederate wars.

Apologies for typos, phone not pc!!!

Thank you Timbo! That's really interesting!

Right up to the start of the Civil Wars the drill and horsemanship manuales show cavalry equipped with lances, it also shows them in 3/4 plate, take from this what you may.

The Scots used them through out the Civil Wars.

Mounted Police Forces in Britain use to train and do displays with lances, (I saw Merseyside Police in the 1980s training with lances)

"didn't he notice that this was posted on the Renaissance boards "

On the front page it appears under 'British Wargaming'.

I am afraid them mysteries of Tudor demi-lancers are beyond me, however along with our boys in blue using lances mentioned above iirc 1st Cavalry Divison was still equipped with lances in Palestine in 1940 before it converted to being an armoured division.

After another look I think mac is on track, some of the counties in the 1638 list reported x lancers and y light horse, implying that the lancers were heavy, just. As illustrated in the contemporary drill books. Not conclusive of course, glad to hear more! By the way in 1643 3 rotten lances were taken from Oxford tb stores into the royalist magazine in Oxford, so there's some corroboration for the presence of lances at least.

Play nicely, children. Also remember that Scots used lances during the ECW, not just until the ECW.

To be fair everyone is except for duncanh, and even he would've been spot on if it wasn't for the fact that he was wrong on every count….

Great info from Timbo though – I didn't realise the lance was still in English use quite so close to, or possibly even in to, the civil war.

There is a big difference between appearing at a local muster armed with a lance and actually intending to use that in battle.

Whilst it is probably quite possible to get contemporary evidence of the use of lances/spears (and even other pole weapons) in border warfare and in Ireland well into (and possibly even beyond) James's reign, I don't know how likely their use would have been in formally raised forces.

My memory tells me (and it may be lying) that the armoured cavalry on both sides at the start of the ECW were described in some sources as 'Lancers' but I know of no description of them fighting as such.

My pre-cursor in the earlier post was an acceptance that the question may have been broader than it appeared and I tried to cover both bases.

My memory tells me (and it may be lying) that the armoured cavalry on both sides at the start of the ECW were described in some sources as 'Lancers'

Never heard of that anywhere before.

worth remembering that the imperialist cuirassiers in the first half of the thirty years war (and mebbe later) had as part of their official equipment a lance! it was just part of the mindset that the heavy horseman was at heart a lancer.

every once in a while a small body of men may have even carried them in battle, apparently including bodyguards sometimes. but the vast majority did not bother, as it was just an incumbrance to carry the big stick when you could just blast a smoking hole in the other guy ….

it may be the same with many english cavalry formations, the lance being something they were supposed to carry, in theory/on paper, but of course no one ever did…..

Dear Heinz, where did you find out about Imperialist cuirassiers being supposed to have lances? That is something new and exciting to me!

Imperial Cuirassiers were not supposed to have lances, there is no evidence for that to be found in the documents or in published research. On top of that the Germans had abandoned the lance in the 16th Century which meant that the skills to use it was no longer known by the potential recruits. And last but not least Cuirassier armour is not designed to be used with a lance, it lacks the essential lance rest that was attached to the breast plate and the pauldrons are symetrical and too large to allow for the lance to be properly couched.

The Borders supplied English light lancers pretty much until until King James suppression of the Border clans. I suppose that after hangings, exile and general disarmament the Riding Families were not in great shape for military action.

I suppose the death of Elizabeth would be a reasonable cut off for fielding of English lancers.

Timbo is right that the ECW Scots and Irish continued to use lances but I cannot recall any English ones.

Crusoe (sp?) still includes a lance as EHC equipment. Just my two groats' worth.

I don't mean Robinson!

from pavlovic's book on imperialist cavalry:

"Cuirassiers (also termed lancers or pistoleers) were the heaviest cavalry, successors to the medieval knights who had been rendered almost obsolete during the 16th century by improved infantry firearms and tactics. They derived their name from the largest piece of armour still employed, the breast- and backplate or cuirass. Although their importance had been greatly diminished by social change and military developments, it was this cavalry type which usually provided bodyguard units, such as the 200-strong single company of lancers who formed Graf Wallenstein's Leibgarde in 1627. The heavy cavalry lance had already almost disappeared; some cuirassiers still carried them at the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, but they had generally been replaced as the primary weapon with a brace of wheellock pistols."

he then shows an image of a period illustration of complete equipment of a cuirassier just before the TYW and it includes a lance. the caption from pavlovic:

"Front and rear views of a cuirassier's armour, weapons and saddle, from Wallhausen's Kriegskunst zu Pferdt, published immediately before the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War. Note that the armament still includes a lance in addition to the sword and saddle-pistols."

this is from memory but wagner's book also says that imperialist cuirassiers were theoretically lancers though they never used it……

note i did not say that they carried it, in fact i said the opposite. what i did say, and that this text and image supports, is that the idea that the heaviest cavalry were supposed to be lancers lived on long after the fact said no…..

Armoured lancers of many different types managed to use a heavy lance competently and effectively long before the introduction of a lance 'rest'. You won't find them on the armour of Polish Hussars or on French 100YW men at arms so it is hardly an 'essential' item of kit.

I don't know about other countries but, in 16C England, the term 'lance' was pretty well any 'pointy stick thing' carried by a horseman. Not saying they were all or always called Lancers though as I don't think they were – Prickers was one term used for those with a light lance/spear – quite evocative that name.

"Heavy lance" covers a number of diffrent designs, what we are discussing are the heavy western lance used in the early 17th Century, not the weaponry used by Polish Hussars or at Crecy in 1346.

But let's look at the two examples you mention.
Polish hussars were able to do without a lance rest because they used a light lance that was mostly hollow. (Only the part below the "apple" was solid wood.)
14th Century lances were designed diffrently from those used for most of the 15th Century and during the 16th centuries. You need only to compare the Luttrel Psalter (C.1320-40)

with the the 1435-1460 "Rout of San Romano" link to see how much the design of the lance had changed.

Since both English and French fought mostly on foot by the later half of the 100YW they were slower to adopt the lance rest than the Germans or Italians. (In Germany it appears already in 1386) But by the 1430's it appears on French and English armour as well and by the last decade of the war it is standard equipment at least among the French.

And because the new type of heavy lance is so superior to the older styles it becomes standard in Western Europe and all heavy cavalry armour is made to allow for it's use with asymetrical pauldrons and a lance rest attached to the breastplate.

And neither the Poles nor the French had pauldrons that prevented a lance from being properly braced in the arm pit, something which is a standard feature on Cuirassier armour from the TYW period.

No Daniel, YOU were discussing such a lance, I wasn't. A fact that should have been obvious from the content of my last post if not earlier.

A 'Lancer' is a horseman who uses a lance as an impact weapon – rather than a lighter lance/spear that may be used in other modes of fighting, particularly in a melee or against foot.

Any lance suitable for that purpose is 'heavy' in context and has been in use since ancient times. The Polish lances didn't seem to have had much trouble penetrating western armour, however light you claim they were – you may not be aware that a tube is actually stronger than a solid cylinder.

You may not be aware that period observers noted that the Polish lance was was frequently ineffective against 'Western' style plate armour due to it's fragile nature. A good example of this is Chemnitz who observed the battle of Dirschau 1627 from the Polish side and noted how the lances achived little against the armour and how the ground was littered with broken Polish lances. Another is Horn describing how Lithuanian hussars charged into Finish cavalry during the battle of Treiden only to break their lances with no effect on the Finnish breastplates.

I would be most interested in the period sources showing that "Polish lances didn't seem to have had much trouble penetrating western armour" given that I have found no such accounts during my extensive reading on the subject of the Commonwealth's wars with Sweden. (The only other 'western' enemy fought by hussars were the Habsburgs during the short of 1587-88)

Heinz,
For your quotes it seem that you are using the Osprey Men-at-arms about the Imperial Cavalry which was written by Vladimir Brnardic and illustrated by Darko Pavlovic? If so that is a bok which suffers from numerous errors due to the gaps in the authors research. There are a lot of odd claims in the book, not only about the use of the lance but on page 22 the reader is told that Pappenheim formed his men into 1000 strong squadrons with files that were 100 men deep(!) Oddly enough these enormously deep formations have gone unnoticed by the contemporaries which fought against Pappenheim.

Another example of errors in the book is the image you refer to (page 18 in the book) which is from Wallhausen's "Kriegskunst zu Pferd". When you read the text of KzP Wallhausen clearly states on page 27 that figure 2 shows the arms, armour and equipment of a_lancer_ so to refer to it as showing a cuirassier as the Osprey does is clearly an error. If one continues to read Wallhausen it becomes clear that he shows the equipment of a cuirassier in a later image which like that of the lancer is clearly labled in the text for the cuirassier chapter. As long as you read the text there is no possibility of confusing the two. (See images below taken from my digital copy of KzP)

In addition the choice of Wallhausen as a source is a bit odd since Wallhausen had no connection to the Imperial army nor did he hold any significant rank in the armed forces he claimed to have served in. (Highest recorded rank was as Hauptmann in Danzig.) He was also held in low regard by contemporaries due to his fondness of impractical formations and manouver that may have looked good in theory but were impossible to carry out in practice. A much better choice would have been the cavalry manuals that were written by senior officers like Giorgio Basta who was a Generalfeldmarschal in the Imperial army or Ludovico Melzo (Melzi) who was Lieutenant-General of the cavalry in the Army of Flanders. These are no-nonsens guides to early 17th Cavalry and filled with hard won experience. Then you have official Imperial documents like the highly detailed "Lands-defensionsordnung" issued for the Habsburg lands in 1612 which contains a wealth of information regarding the equipment, training and tactics used the cavalry.

Last but not least you have the preserved "Bestallungen" kept in the War Archive in Wien which in detail describe the equipment to be used by the unit in question, you will not find a trace of any lance armed cuirassiers in them. (The exeption being of course the few actual lancer units like the company in Wallenstein's guard)

can you point me to a published source that corrects their errors? because guys claim books are wrong on the internet all the time, doesn't make it so. :-)

But when Daniel does so there is normally a good reference available.

Dear Heinz, if you look for Daniel's posts, you'll ser that he always backs his claims with lote of sources. And in this case of the Wallhausen manual, the caption posted by daniel refers to the figure as a "Lanzierer".

As for a published source correcting the errors of the mentioned osprey books, I'm afraid there isn't any good and comprehensive work about the imperial armies of the TYW, as mentioned to me by some people here at tmp ):

Let's see Heinz, I provide you with references to four 17th Century sources (not counting the Bestallungen) including actual images of the text of one text (which is more than the Osprey does)and your reply is that unless I provided you with "published sources" I'm at best ignorant, at worst a liar?!

I'll give you a free hint, when some one starts to reference sources including archive material from the actual period it is usually a sign that they might actually have a clue about the subject.

Well you can start by picking up Wrede (listed as "further reading" in the Osprey) and read the section about cuirassiers and the Pappenheim regiment. Had the authors actually done that rather than simply listed the book to pad their bibliography they would have found out how cuirassier regiments in Imperial service were organised and equiped as well as the not so minor fact that there never was a Pappenheim cuirassier regiment in Imperial service.

Next pick up Wertheim & Elster to learn the actual details of Pappenheims cavalry regiments, Stadler provides some additional details but is not required reading.

If you need more sources than Wrede about the complete lack of lances in Imperial cuirassier units have a look at Junkelmann & Wertheim as well as "Sveriges Krig 1611-1632" by the Swedish General Staff. You can also read the articles by Kelenik on the Habsburg army development just prior to the TYW.

For actual tactics there is not substitute for reading the actual period texts, look at Basta & Melzo as well as the Lands-defensionsordnung.