"Why no British lancers?" Topic

Pardon if this is a silly question, but I didn't see anything in the search.

The book I am reading currently mentions that the British adopted them post-Napoleonic wars after enemy lancers leaving an impression, so I am curious why they didn't have them prior?

Thank you in advance!

I think the Poles really kept the lance going in Europe and French adopted them after all the Polish legions and Russia and Austria with large Polish populations kept them. Britain did a lot of things differently than the continent.

They did briefly. A unit of French exile lancers if I remember.

Probably saw them as foreign.

Damned un-sporting way to fight, wot wot?

Bunch of foreign Johnnies!

They kept winning battles, so why change anything?

db

Using a lance requires a skill set that did not exist among the British cavalry at the time. Once the skill set was available we see lots of British lancers.

I must be among the few folk here who ever heard a first hand account of lancers in action. It seems they could kill very quickly.

+1 Extra Crispy!

It's a play-balance thing. The British had to give up 12-pd guns and armored cuirassiers and forswear lancers in order to get an increment in volley fire.

After the middle ages there was no great tradition of lance usage in the British Isles. Some Scottish light cavalry were still using them in the mid-17th Century, but by 1700 they had fallen out of use. There was little experience of the lance thereafter and it was seen as an old and arcane weapon in an arm that was never that strong in Britain. (Also one of the reasons there were no British Cuirassiers.) The training burden was seen as uneconomic. After 1815, the experience on the Continent of both enemy and allied lancers inspired their formation in Britain and thus formed a base set of skills. Also, the lance was seen as very stylish.

Let's not forget that Napoleon was himself pretty sceptical about lances. The Polish light horse were raised in 1807 as just that, like the Belgian light horse. They got their lances in 1810 (?). If I remember rightly this was after Napoleon was impressed by the performance of the Austrian Lancers in 1809.

The Polish Light Horse became lancers during and/or after Wagram. They made their famous charge up the pass at Somosierra as light horse.

The Lancers of the Vistula, however, were lancers from the beginning of their existence.

The British were likely impressed with lancers because of Albuera and what happened to the Union Brigade at Waterloo when they were flanked and overrun by Jacquinot's lancers.

They did briefly. A unit of French exile lancers if I remember.

Probably saw them as foreign.

Edwulf- the Uhlans Britanniques served in the Duke of York's army in the Low Countries.

Renée Chartrand summarised them thus:

A mounted corps of two squadrons, each of two companies, raised in Belgium from 2.II.1793 by Louis, Comte de Bouilé mostly ex- soldiers of Armee Royale with some Swiss and Germans.

They were described in the 'Memoir secret d'Allonville' thusly: "I have never seen a worse gang of bandits than the Hulans Britanniques… This corps and the Hussards de Rohan were a scourge of the districts which they laid waste instead of defending."

There is little talk of their skill with the lance per se, but as skirmishers they provided good enough service in action against the enemy. A troop of 30 accompanied Maj. Gen. Cathcart in his attack against the French at Geldermalsen, on the River Linge, 8th January 1795:

"The Hulans charged the advanced guard of the enemy, and pursued them to Buremalsen, where they killed some men, and from whence they brought back prisoners, under cover of the infantry, which flanked the road…"

It didn't require much to kit a light cavalryman out in Hungarian rig and call him a 'Hussar'- apart from the cost- whereas, as has been pointed out, it required considerable training to produce a light dragoon (lancer).

Lancers could be effective against enemy caught at a disadvantage, but the lance also had its limitations. I think we have to accept that while the experience of facing lancers in battle, at Albuera, Quatre Bras and Waterloo, may have had some practical influence on the decision to equip the 9th, 12th, 16th, and 17th Light Dragoons as lancers after the war, if we consider who was on the throne, the tastes of the age and the increasingly impractical uniforms inflicted on the soldier throughout the 1820s and 1830s, it is as likely that the British lancer regiments were created simply because that Polish get-up looked so damn fancy.

For my Napoleonic "French" in the Peninaula, I formed a 4-squadron light horse "regiment" using 1 squadron of Lancers (Vistula, Berg, and [incorrect] Westphalia), plus 3 of hussars and/or chasseurs.

I never was able to game them with an attack with the lancers in the center, flanked by 2 squadrons of hussars/chasseurs, with the 4th just behind them. Lancers were at best in the first encounter where their longer weapon could deliver enemy casualties, but had to worry about their flanks. No lances in their second rank provided swordsmen to continue the engagement.

GdeP

Probably a money issue. After all, the Royal Navy soaked up so much money, none was left for expensive lances.

Wood isn't cheap.

Lancers could be effective against enemy caught at a disadvantage, but the lance also had its limitations. I think we have to accept that while the experience of facing lancers in battle, at Albuera, Quatre Bras and Waterloo, may have had some practical influence on the decision to equip the 9th, 12th, 16th, and 17th Light Dragoons as lancers after the war……

In the same campaign, Genappe showed the limitations of lancers – crushed by the Household Cavalry after fighting off some British hussars. I seem to recall British officers commenting on how easily the point of the lance could be turned by a good swordsman, and how ineffective the lance was once a melee had got going (hence lancer units frequently had sabres only in the second rank). Overall, I have always had the feeling that British officers who had faced lancers were NOT that impressed by the weapon.

……if we consider who was on the throne, the tastes of the age and the increasingly impractical uniforms inflicted on the soldier throughout the 1820s and 1830s, it is as likely that the British lancer regiments were created simply because that Polish get-up looked so damn fancy.

I think this is quite an important point; the way that the Belgic shako was ditched (after what, one year?) in favour of the bell-topped variety – something the Duke had commented on (very negatively) with the light dragoons in the Peninsula – is indicative of this. We should probably also consider the fact that many of the newly converted "lancer" units were either sent to India, or already out there, where they were facing hordes of lance-armed enemy cavalry.

G'Day

There were some British observers that wondered if the Household Cavalry would have been as effective…had they not been charging down a slope into the lancers…who had left the protection of the buildings on their flank…

Or could they have done better in the same situation as their brethren lights who were unable to make an impression on the lancers…even while they charged into them…in the end refusing to charge the lancers.

At The Battle of San Pasqual 1846…Mexican lancers did a number on the US mounted force due to the rain and powder being wet…of course the next day when the powder was dry…it was the Mexicans who were on the receiving end.

Best Regards
Art

We should probably also consider the fact that many of the newly converted "lancer" units were either sent to India, or already out there, where they were facing hordes of lance-armed enemy cavalry.

Funnily enough, I was wondering about that, Super Max, so I had a look.

It turns out that the 17th Light Dragoons who were in India when the conversion to Lancers was ordered, earning their General Service clasp for the 3rd Mahratta War, did not convert till their return home in 1823, where they remained for thrirty years, eventually gaining the title 'Bingham's Dandies.' The next time they saw action was in the Crimean War in that charge.

The only lancer unit to leave for India reasonably soon after conversion was the 16th Queen's, in 1822 – tradition states as punishment for offending King George IV. They first saw action at Bhurtpore in 1825 and then successively in the First Afghan Campaign, Gwalior and in the Sikh Wars, gaining a notable battle honor at Aliwal They returned home in 1846 and saw little action for the rest of the century.

The 9th Queen's Royal went out in 1841 remaining till 1859, seeing service in Gwalior, the Sikh wars and the Mutiny. after fifteen years at home, they next saw action in Afghanistan in 1878.

The 12th didn't arrive till 1854, after three years at the Cape, only to be called back to serve in the Crimea before returning to India in time for the Mutiny, returnng home in 1859.

My point being that three out of four of the lancer regiments remained bandbox corps for some considerable time before seeing action. Obviously, discussion of their achievements in the field when first using their lances in anger, belong elsewhere.

Many historians say using a lance is a hard thing to learn, yet many others Russians too mass produced Uhlan regiments, but maybe thats a answer.

In my experience, it's easy to learn, but hard to master – just like swordplay, musketry, and riding

cause "That's not cricket!"

You can get closer to the enemy with a sword (it's shorter).