[Jean Thibodeau]

Lloyd;

I have a nice breast and back plate set from Allan and I'm looking forward to seeing or hearing about how it holds up to destructive testing.

I'll be chearing for the plate though: Plate to Lance " Is that all you've got "

Seriously, break a lance not a leg or wrist.

[Daniel Staberg]

Matthew,
Your quite right that the lance rest doesn't appear until the last part of the 14th Century, I was just pointing out the fact that they were not a feature used soley on tournament armour. The earliest examples I've been able to find with a quick search through my sources are a couple of effigies of German knights from the 1380's as well as a small statue of St. George commissioned by the duke of Burgundy around 1380-1381.

Koch's assertion that cavalry 'charged' at a slow pace basicly at the walk is highly suspect to me, however I've been unable to locate a copy of his book so i'm not sure what he bases this theory on. Just about every other historian I've read including Oman, Verbruggen, France and Nicolle to name a few have the knights/cavalry charging at faster gaits such at the trot or at the gallop. I.e the same paces as used in the 17th&18th Centuries.

A cavalry charge was seldom as fast as conventional wisdom would have it, high speed made it difficult to keep the formation in good order and would disrupt most units which attempted to charge at high speed for more than a few dozen meters. To judge by surviving manuals most charges built up speed by at a the lower paces and the gallop was only used for the final 10-20 meters of the charge if it was used at all. The impact of the hardships of an active campaign also reduced the ability of the horses to charge at high speed.

Regards
Daniel

[Jason Daub]

Actually, charge distances and speeds were fairly high once the last remnants of the caracole tactics of approx 1600-1745 were discarded, we can see that the transition back to the armee blanche resulted in a vast change in charge distance and speed.
If we use the Prussian cavalry as an example, on 3 June 1741 Leopold of Anhault-Dessau made the first mention of the charge at the gallop, which was to be the last 30 paces before contact. The distances would swiftly go up. On 17 March 1742 the "Selowitz" instructions were issued and the gallop was increased to 100 paces. The 1743 regulations stated that the charge was to begin at a "fast trot" and end at a full gallop "while keeping a compact order", the full speed attack would be "born" in July 1744 when the cavalry was directed to begin the gallop at 200 paces from the enemy and "towards the end of their course the horses were to be given their head".
In 1748 the distance at the charge was increased to 700 yards (trot:300 gallop:400)
In 1750 it was increased to1200 yards (trot:300 gallop:400 and full speed:500)
In 1755 it was increased to a total of 1800 yards
P.S. To answer the actual subject of this thread, I would have to say... not too sure

[Jean Thibodeau]

Jason;

My guess would be that the increased range, rate of fire and accuracy of field artillery would make crossing the distance to the ennemi force as quickly as possible desirable once the decision to charge was made.

In earlier times one might take it slower until getting into first bow range, then javeline and finally handweapon range: No damage taken until very close up.

Running into an intact pike square supported by muskets or bows at full gallop might just be a faster way to die.

A fast charge against 18th century infantry with long lances against much shorter than pikes bayonnet armed troops might benefit from the extra " Élan "

[Jason Daub]

Jean,
I also would have made the assumption that a part of the long charges was to cover the battlefield as quickly as possible, however Frederick the Great also said to the Comte de Gisors in 1745 "I make the squadrons charge at a fast gallop because then fear carries the cowards along with the rest-they know that if they so much as hesitate in the middle of the onrush they will be crushed by the remainder of the squadron. My intention is to break the enemy by the speed of our charges before it ever comes to hand-to-hand fighting: officers become no more valuable than simple troopers in a melee, and order and cohesion are lost."

What we have to remember also is that the comparison of what we know today and intellectually is different from what was known then and on the battlefield with all of it's visceral reality, it would take, as mentioned earlier in the thread, a very brave or very drunk man to stand his ground against a charging horseman. If you look at the drill and regulations worked out in the 17th and 18th century what you will see is not just a set of directions for loading a musket or for battlefield movement ,but also a way of giving the infantryman a "corporate identity", a set of reactions that have become like muscle memory so that he reacts when his officers and sergeants tell him and not before. Even with that, the sergeants went into combat being just as likely to have to bayonet a man who was turning away, as the enemy.

I think that what would be found if we were to able to observe 14th and 15th century battlefield tactics is something that is a lot faster moving and sophisticated than we as a group are willing to give the time credit for. Just because we have trouble handling horses at these speeds and in groups does not mean that they would have, just because we know intellectually that a horse will not charge into something that it can't see it's way through does not mean that you will remember it when faced with the reality of a line of horsemen thundering down at you; remember the saying "the morale is to the physical, as ten is to one".

I think if we are to contine with the discussion of battlefield tactics and the wonderful world of the cavalry charge , we should split this off as a new topic.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Jason;

Good points and also educational.

There is the cold logic of speed and mass but the psychological effects of a charge by those doing it and those opposing it are also important.

The Idea of " Élan " a kind of psychological momentum would seem to have also infuenced the nature and speed of a charge.

At it's more insane examples the belief in Élan could produce really bad outcomes for the charging cavalry: the charge of the Light Brigade maybe ? or cavalry charges early in world war one ? And I think there were charges by Polish cavalry against tanks at the begining of WWII !

Even with infantry, WWI generals would loose 100,000 men in futile charges against artillery and machine guns.
The belief in Élan was particularely strong with the French Generals: Also the belief that failure was due to cowardice and not to bad or obsolete tactics .

Oh, getting back to your point, early cavalry charges may well have been much faster than supposed by Koch.

And, yes this is drifting away from the original topic. ( Couldn't resist a bit more drifting )

[Gordon Frye]

One of the things to keep in mind also vis-a-vis the charge is that different nationalities practiced different tactics at different times. In the 16th Century at least, the French gendarmerie was supposed to keep their speed at the trot until the last 50-60 yards or so, then break into the gallop for the final rush to inflict as much shock upon the enemy as possible. Now this rather short distance was, I firmly believe, due to the fact that most of the gendarmerie's horses were barded, and even a destrier carrying he weight of an armoured man-at-arms and full armour himself would be fairly winded after a sharp gallop of much more than that. Besides, you need to reserve sufficient strength for further charges as necessary.

The "caracole" was certainly done at the trot, due to the problems of formation, etc. and in many ways this bastardized cavalry tactics for some time. However, innovative cavalry leaders such as Henri VI of France, Gustavus Adolphus and Oliver Cromwell were thoroughly convinced of the utility of speed and violence in the charge. Henri used pistoliers almost exclusively, but they used the pistol to blow a hole in the opposing ranks, and went in with the sword and their second pistol. Gustavus on the other hand (dealing mostly with more lightly armoured opponents) sent his horsemen in at the gallop with "armes blanche", reserving he pistol for the melee and the route, as did Cromwell. It was the latter who recommended the charge be made "Loose reined and bloody spurred", boot-top to boot-top, and in the words of John Coffee Hays of the Texas Rangers in 1847 "Let the bone and muscle of your horses be your weapon".

It is astonishing in many ways that the stately trot remained the European standard for the charge for so many years however. With even men such as Turreine (sp?) advocating the gallop, the trot remained. Perhaps it was to retain the formation. Believe me, as noted above by others (good points, Jason and Daniel!) it is HARD to retain formation over any sort of distance at the gallop! ESPECIALLY if you are using the "en hay" line rather than the column (just as Napoleon figured out with Infantry). It has been my experience in dealing with large groups of Cavalry (upwards of 300) that the Column is far superior for retaining formation and control, but definitely can get "bunched up", while the line waves and wiggles, but is much more fluid (which is in fact the problem AND the strength of the formation!)

(There is also the notation by one of my favorite authors, Francios de la Noue, who mentioned that he felt that the reason for the use of the "en hay", or linear formation by the gendarmerie using the lance was not only that the lance could be in general used more effectively in that formation, but moreso that no gentleman would be willing to serve in any other than the first rank! There is often more to such military details than mere usefullness and efficiency, so this is probably closer to the truth than one might suspect).

Great conversation going on here though, thank you gentlemen for all of the great opinions and information being presented, I am thoroughly enjoying this thread!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Daniel Staberg]

Gordon,
The cavalry of Gustavus doesn't seem to have galloped in the attack, I've researched the army of GIIA for some 10 years and have yet to findprimary source which describes his cavalry as attack at that pace. Belvie me I've tried to find it but so far the idea about Gustavus usign the chareg at the gallop is a myth created by 19th/and early 20th Century historians here in Sweden. It's worth noting that the trot remained offical attack pace of the Swedish cavalry for most of the 'Age of Greatness', only being abolished in 1676 and it was still used as late as 1704.

Gustav II Adolf's (GIIA) tactics were indentical to those of Henri IV which isn't strange since GIIA had a older half brother (Karl Karlsson Gyllehielm, the bastard son of Karl IX) who was sent to France to learn the military trade under Henri. Gyllehielm described in good detail the tactics he wanted to introduce into the Swedish army, tactics which are identical to those employed by Henri&Gustavus.
The Swedish cavalry retained the use of the pistol by the first rank (and sometimes second rank) well into the 1670's, at becuase they had to fight polish hussars or Imperial/Leaugist cuirassier. Using a sword agianst either is a bad choice, the hussar will spit you on his lance before you can reach him while the sword won't dent the 3/4 armour of the cuirassier. In fact Gustavus is recorded as suggesting that his cavalry stab the horse rather than the armored cuirassiers when in the melee.

The pistol has an got a bad reputation it doesn't deserve as cavalry weapon, mounted pistol tactics were never as linked to the caracole as some writers would have us belive. La Noue gives a very graphic and accurate description of the pistol at it's best in his paradoxes. La Noue is one of my favourite authors too, his hands on experience as expressed in his writings make him a wonderfull source about 16thC cavalry.

You have a realy good point on column vs line, I'm no horseman but I imagine that it must be far easier for inexperienced troopers to keep in formation in a column than in a line? In the Swedish army a 5-6 rank deep column was in use 1600-1630/31, then a 3 rank line line was adopted. My belief is that the rapidly expanded Swedish cavalry force of the 1620's lacked the kind of well trained and experienced troopers needed to mantian a thin line formation in lees than idela circumstances. After all you can't double the number of cavalrymen each year 3 years in a row without some problems with the quality of the training.


But know I'm getting OT, perhaps a kindly moderator can split the thread into a new topic? Then we could discuss all we wanted without hijackign the trhad any further

/Daniel

[Gordon Frye]

Daniel;

Wonderful to find a kindred spirit who also loves de la Noue! Indeed, his "paradoxes" are some of the most insightful passages in military thought, and the work of a man not only of great experience but no little ability to ponder and think things through. That Henri IV was willing to spend what was, literally a "Kings Ransom" to ransom him out of a Spanish prison says not only a great deal about the man himself, but about the regard which Henri IV held him in. Amazing man, old Francios was!

I am very interested in your statement that the Swedish cavalry never advanced to charge at a greater speed than the trot! I certainly cannot question your research, as my own has been somewhat perfunctory, but it certainly flies in the face of modern English historiography. But that it is a result of 19th Century Swedish historians may very well be the case, as in that age of Nationalism there was a great deal of imbellishment of history! Very interesting information indeed, though.

This does make sense of course, in that Maurice of Nassau, whom Gustavus II Adolphus was also a student, seems to have checked his cavalry similarly and kept it at a trot in contradiction to all (to us) rational thought. But the reasons may well have been to keep the order imposed upon them, and that the violence of the charge was thought to have been replaced by the violence of the discharge of their pistols.

Thanks for the info on Karl Karlsson Gyllehielm. I had of course suspected as much, but had not had that information. Very interesting!

You definitely make the excellent point that the Pistol is a weapon much berated by historians, and underappreicated because of this. But as I certainly harp on in this forum, the weapons available at the time (pike, lance, sword and musket) were either ineffective against good quality plate armour, or the heavy cavalryman could stay out of effective range as he so chose to do, until the moment of actually initiating the charge. Thus against his own kind, the heavy Lancer was almost impervious (though his horse was not), as he was against the pikeman (many are the cases in which fully armoured gendarmes on barded horses rode completely through pike squares, to pop out the other side unharmed), and the musketeer could only bring the heavy cavalryman to task at a time and place of the horseman's chosing, not his own. Thus the only serious threat to the heavily armoured gendarme was the pistolier, who's weapons not only could prove fatal to the gendarme, but who could bring the battle to him as well.

I have been digging a bit into the Swedish/Polish conflicts, and indeed, it seems as though the fairly heavily armoured Hussaria was quite capable of inflicting defeats against the Swede's! Their long hollow lances would quite outrange any Western heavy lance, and their armour was as effective against swords as the Western armour was... thus the best weapon was the Pistol which only had to outrange the lance by a foot or so! Of course the Pole's retained the speed and violence of the charge, in coming in at the gallop, but then they were also possessed of a warrior class born to the saddle, and of a high degree of training in their martial arts, rather than being for the most part conscripts with far less training or esprit de corps.

Something of note too is that the English likewise reduced their columns from 5-6 as in the days of Henri IV to 3 during the Civil Wars of the 1640's. I belive that part of it has to do with the fact that they no longer had true heavy cavalry to deal with, who charged in at the gallop using the lance. Part of it also was probably the ease in which you may train men to a 3-rank column, rather than a 4-5 rank column (though that is easier than the 2-rank column! Paradoxes again!) But what is not in question is that both Cromwell and Prince Rupert, who had learned his craft on the Continent during the first two phases of the 30-Years War, charged in at the gallop with swords rather than pistols. Interesting stuff there! But of course by then heavy plate armour was for the most part a thing of the past, and a sword was once again a somewhat useful weapon, whereas 50 years before it was not.

Anyway this is becoming a full thesis here, so I shall save any readers further eyestrain by holding myself back from further comment! Thanks again, Daniel, on all of your great information on the Swedes! It's stuff that is just hard to find in my rather anglo-centric means of research!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Jason Daub]

Gordon,
As Daniel has stated, as far as we know the cavalry of Gustavus Adolphus did not charge home at the gallop, I believe it was Earnst Lloyd in "A Review of the History of Infantry" (1907) where the idea entered english military history.

I would also think that a factor that we would should look at in addition to the difference that you mentioned about a warrior class as opposed to a conscriped cavalry, would be the quality and quantity of horseflesh. The central horsebreeding areas of Europe were able to turn out huge quantites of high class cavalry mounts that nations like Sweden would be unable to match.

I also recall reading somewhere that the caracole was developed for use against the Turks, who were on the whole individually much better warriors than the Europeans in the second half of the seventeenth century. Instead of allowing your lines to become disordered and allowing the combat to become a series of individual duels, ride forward at the trot boot-to-boot and volley your pistols at once and turn away or advance with the sword without disordering your lines. I may be off base with this but I recall it from somewhere- Nosworthy?

[Dominic Dellavalle]

Well, while this thread has gone in a variety of directions from the initial few posts I couldn't be happier. Certainly a lot of discussion, debate, and learning has come from it. While I didn't post much after my initial thread, I've had the luxury of sitting back and taking in everything that has been said.

Again thanks to everyone that contributed. It's the reason I come back day after day

[Daniel Staberg]

[Gordon Frye]

[Jason Daub]

Gordon,

The theory is one that I stumbled over in "The Anatomy of Victory, Battle Tactics 1689-1763" by Brent Nosworthy, in it he is presenting a brief overview of tactics leading up to the period he is discussing. The sources that he mentions are Major-General Warnery, "Remarks on Cavalry" and Jean Roemer, "Cavalry: Its History, Management, & Uses"

As for the caracole, it perhaps makes sense that it was developed for use against an opponent with a different approach to tactics than the "standard" European army of the period. La Noue certainly did not have a high opinion of it for use against lancers, stating that "the perfect Reiter do never discharge their pistols but in joining, and striking at hand,they wound, aiming always either at the face or the thigh. The second rank also shooteth off so the forefront of the men-of-arms squadron is at the first meeting half overthrown and maimed." Given that la Noue estimated the effective range of a wheel lock pistol to be about three paces there is probably a reason out there for its development. The question is, why? These were the first professional soldiers in modern European history, they must have had a reason for coming up with it beyond "the horses look pretty moving in nice neat lines" (paraphrasing of course, the sarcasm is all mine ). Tactics that don't make sense are usually PAST THE END of the reason that they were developed by a good long while, if you look to the beginning there was a reason they were developed. Infantry firearms outrange and have a higher density on the battlefield than pistols, lancers were able to ride through pike squares on occasion, field artillery could break pike squares apart, unprotected arquebusiers are targets to be ridden down, what necessitated the development of the caracole???

It is questions like these that keep me up at nights muttering to myself (I have a very understanding wife )

As for your point about the horse itself being a weapon I could not agree more, nothing makes you realize the difference in scale between a man and a horse as being shoulder checked out of the way by an upset gelding and landing on your arse 10 feet away with 3 cracked ribs and a bloody nose.

As for everything else, you are giving me a large reading list!

-Jason

[Jean Thibodeau]

Just a little speculation that Gordon may confirm or contradict about the possible uses of the Caracole:

The tactic might resemble what javeline armed light cavalry might use against infantry holding a position to harrass the infantry, tempt them into advancing and getting out of formation, cause a continuous rate of casualties to soften up an infrantry line and at least affect it morale, keep it distracted while your own infanty moves up or to mask other manouevers.

Also force the opposing Cavalry to intervene, possibly setting up a trap by your own heavy Cavalry.

Against pike squares insufficiently supported by missile troops it would permit giving casualties without taking any as long as one stayed beyond the reach of the pikes.

Firepower at any one time may not have been great but continuous fire over an extended period of time may have been diificult to ignore even for the musket armed troops. ( Hard to concentrate reloading your musket when pistols are going of in your face without pause. ) ( After a short time the smoke may have made the longer range and relative accuracy of the muskets no longer a factor. ) ( Lots of wild guessing here. )

The Caracole would have been only one tactic amoung many possible ones by pistol armed cavalry I assume, and might be used only for a short time when conditions favored it as the tactic to use.

A comparison might also be made to horse archers of the Parthian or Mongol variety

[Daniel Staberg]

To understand the caracole one should remember that it was originaly devolped by the mounted arquebusiers of the early 16th Century as a way to deal with the problems of reloading on horseback. The pistol armed Reiter then developed out of the mounted arqubusier. Indeed during the 1540's and 1550's units of Reiter style cavalry are called both "Reiters" and "Harquebusiers"/"Arquebusiers". The caracole seem to mostly have been a way for ligtly armed&armored cavalry to deal with the pike heavy infantry formations typical of German warfare. Landskench units seldom had more than 1/3 of the unit shot armed even in the 1560's and often had 75-80% pikemen/Halberdiers). The Swiss pikemen at Dreux suffered cruely when they tried fo face of agianst the reiters with only 10% of their nubmer amred with firearms.

Most of the German nobility was quite poor and could not afoard full Gendarme-style equipment and had previously served as more lightly equiped lancers. However agaisnt the French they were outmatched and while succesfull in the Peasant wars of the 1520's they lacked the punch and protection to take on formed units of pikemen. a solution was to adapt firearms, especilay the pistol once it became available in large numbers. Early pistols were cumbersome so only one or two were carried and many "Reiters" still used a boar spear as an additional weapon.

When I've researched the major preser5ved German manuals it's clear that Caracole was intended for use either against foot (mostly pikemen) and also by arquebus armed cavalry against other cavalry. The harqubusier qwas supposed to provided supporting fire just prior to the 'shock' attack of the pistol armed Reiters who were supposed to close to point blank range before they opend fire (ie "in joining, and striking at hand"). La Noue noted that the Reiters were at their most dangerous when mixed with the enemy "for then they be all fire".
However not all Reiters/Pistoleers were "Perfect" and instead fired prematurely and the entire charge fo the unti broke down into lots of useless firing which maý have taken the shape of a poorly executed caracole.

It's worth noting that the Austrian army and it's allies did return tu firearm based tactics agiasnt the Turks in the late 17thC/18thC wars. Carbine and pistol fire woudl be employed to break up the turkish charge and units manouver in tightly formed squadrons and at a slow pace. As had been noted the turkish sipahi was probably a better mounted, equiped and trained individual fighter and care was taken not to allow them to exploit these advantages.
When facing the French during the same period the Austirans charged home at the trot with the sword.

Regards
Daniel

[Gordon Frye]

Jason;

Thanks for the info on Nosworthy, I'll have to check into that one! As I noted, very interesting thesis! And yet another fellow here who can quote de la Noue! Gads, I'm in the company of scholars here, and all the happier for it!

And Jean, I do think that you have an excellent point in that the caracole may well have been for other than simply an offensive tactic, and, as Jason noted may well have been used past it's prime. De la Noue and others suggested that it was an excellent tactic for training purposes insofar as keeping units together etc., but I have yet to find a commentator who praises it. Yet it was used pervasively thoughout the last half of the 16th and well into the 17th Century for some reason.

One thing that your comments DO bring to mind, however, is that one of the main uses of heavy cavalry from the beginnings of the 16th Century was, as done by Francios I of France at Marignano against the Swiss, using his gendarmerie not so much as the decisive weapon in and of themselves, but as a means for holding the attentions of a pike-square, and thus holding them in place, while you brought your artillery to bear on them. Then the serious killing would begin. Francios used this quite effectively at Marignano (1515) against the Swiss, and tried it at Pavia (1525) but managed instead to put his gendarmes between the Imperialists and his artillery, thus screening the Imperialist infantry, while exposing his own to their fire.

At any rate, it is just possible that the primary use of the caracole was in fact against Foote, who though they possessed firearms of much greater range than the pistol would be held quite helpless in the face of the Artillery. Sort of a "Rochambeau" (or is it "ro-sham-bo"? Rock-Paper-Scissors in any event) situation. None of the Arms was effective against one or both of the others, but in combination, they could easily defeat the third.

What is certain in all of this however is that no matter what, the commentators of the era weren't impressed with the caracole. One French author (can't recall if it was de la Noue, Tavannes or D'Aubigny at the moment) made the note that the Germans were "All Fire" when you faced them... but once you got used to the sight and sound of it, there wasn't a lot of substance. Henri IV's Cuirassiers were of Fire, Smoke AND "arme's blanche".

Oh, and as a note, most of the 16th Century commentators thought that a "pace" was equal to 5 feet, i.e. the Roman Pace, as opposed to a modern pace of 3 feet. Thus de la Noue's "Three Paces" for the proper range to fire a pistol was 15 feet... awfully darned close, but better than 9 feet! But as I enjoy pointing out, all you have to outrange with a pistol is a lance!

Daniel; you make some excellent points as well, especially that the 16th Century Infantry wasn't nearly as well ornamented with firearms as we might wish to believe. Oman was a good hundred years off when he suggested that the Spanish Tercio's were 1/2 armed with firearms by the 1530's. In fact it wasn't until the Ordnance of 1636 that they were so armed. The Dutch were leaders in increasing the numbers of their "Shotte" (though the French must also be given credit, as often they recruited far more arquebusiers than pikemen), while the rest of Europe followed suit.

I very much appreciate your comments on German noble Horse, too, BTW! It helps a great deal in making sense of the almost immediate change over from Lance to Pistol by the German Horse, while the French took another generation at least to make the change. BTW, there are also some manuals (I know of one by Philip zu Salms) from the late-15th/early-16th Century in which the column is the prefered formation for German Horsemen. I have no idea as to whether anyone followed these ideas, but Oman goes into some detail concerning them, and there was even a "Spitzer" formation, with a wedge-shaped front. Although I have learned a fair amount about French and Burgundian Horse from the period, German and other Continental Cavalry has been harder to track down for me. I appreciate your information on this!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Jason Daub]

Daniel,

Thanks for clearing this up for me, copies of the original German manuals are not exactly easy to find here in Alberta, for the most part our scholarly debates focus on burning questions such as "would the 1980's Oilers be able to defeat the Soviet teams of the 70's?"(deadly serious hockey debate among aficianados of the game)

Gordon,

Once again the historical record proves that our ancestors knew what they were doing on the battlefield and that western military science did not disappear with the fall of the Western Roman Empire and magically reappear with Gustavus Adolphus, Turenne, Marlborough, Prince Eugene et al.

[Matthew Kelty]

I was crawling through some of my books last night, and came a cross a few images you folks might appreciate. They are from the Armeria del Palacio Real de Madrid, (the Imperial Hapsburg collection):


16th Century Saddles:

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/cgi-bin/i/i...150-01.jpg

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/cgi-bin/i/i...6th-01.jpg


16th Century Lance heads:

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/cgi-bin/i/i...SC1-01.jpg

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/cgi-bin/i/i...SC2-01.jpg

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/cgi-bin/i/i...SC2-02.jpg


Hope you enjoy...

Matthew

[Gordon Frye]

Great stuff, Matthew! Thanks for posting those pictures. I especially like the second saddle... the lance-holder gizmo is particularly interesting! One would assume that it somehow can be used to help hold and steady the weight of the heavy lance while in the charged position as well, but perhaps it's only for carrying the lance, hard to tell. ( At the risk of being flippant, it rather reminds me of a coffee-cup holder on a riding mower )

Speaking of heavy lances, the middle photo of lance heads is a great illustration of the armour-piercing heads for heavy lances! LOTS of tons-per-square-inch coming down to the point of that thing.

Cheers,

Gordon