Lances?

[philippewillaume]

Hello, Lafayette

I ride as hobby and professionally;

Throwing spear at a foam dear or a target
Cutting cabbages/oranges/ apples (With anything from a sword to a dagger passing by a wooden spoon)
Taking rings (lance spear sword)
Hitting a quintain
Stabbing a foam boar with a boar spear
Hitting people on the ground and on horse with a lance.

The notion of point and hope for the best or not time to fence is totally non sensical.

The only point of “fencing” with the medieval heavy lance is precisely during that going against each other in a charge.
All the pieces in lichtanauer tradition are just for that, you deflect his point so you hit him and he misses when you are running at each other. It does not matter if it is in battle or in the duel.
There is even Spanish text mentioning that the first piece I mention is forbidden in joust

As far as the use of both hands well, in liechtanauer you are using both hand quite often and this is in ringeck , von dantzig and von Speyer. So the use of the second hand is quite clearly indicated in the 15th century.

What do you mean by weight being too excessive? I have used 10-12 feet) lance and that did not flex under their own weight and you can use it with both hand or couched (According to scholars, 4.5 is the maximum practical length but I never tried)
May be we do have existing kontos in the from of the rumh (used by the Sassanids heavy cavalry), though getting our hand on one is an other story

Ps we do have extract of encounter between contus using cavalry and Gaul auxiliary cavalry not to mention the battle between the dying Roman Empire and the Visigoth. (hadrianopolis)

Pss the “Norman” were for all intent and purpose integrated to the “French” feudal culture and system. They were “Nordic/Scandinavian” only from ancestry; the ruling elite were “knights”. So they had more in common with the Breton knight that came with them than with Harald Hasdrada lots that landed near Stamford Bridge.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Not necessarily
The alano-gothic (and alike) tribes are coming from the same region as the Samarian and were used in the role of cataphract (feodoraty) by the declining roman empire (and settled all over Europe). Some historical evidence seems to point that they were using a “Samaritan” type of lance. Medieval lance did no need to evolve from a shooter one handed lance, long lance have been around for a while.

In the role of "cataphracts?" I'm afraid not--the equipment lists for the foederati units--at least the few that have survived--do not really seem to indicate "cataphract" (completely armored man and at least partially armored horse). Charging cavalry, yes, but not cataphracts.

And maybe I wasn't being specific enough about "Romano-Germanic." Vandals and Goths seem to have used the long Sarmatian lance at first, but by about the 6th century the Goths at least were noted in the Byzantine chronicles as using spears that were fit for both throwing and thrusting. And the most prominent of the successor kingdoms--that of the Franks--began with a heavy reliance on infantry, and their cavalry lances seemed to have evolved from (and in parallel to) their infantry spears rather than from the two-handed lances of the Sarmatians. Pictorial evidence seems to suggest that this Frankish lance with all its infantry provenance was the most direct ancestor of the medieval lance. We can't rule out other influences, of course, but they do not seem to pertain as directly to the medieval lance as the Frankish model does.

On a side note, It seems that you missed that bit where I said that I sued the word outside his historical context and that I wanted to make the difference between the 2-2.5 meter lance and the 3-6 meters lance used at least very late medieval cavalry.

Well, maybe I did miss that mention of out-of-context usage. However, since we're discussing the medieval European lance, perhaps we should be using terms that are more contemporary in context, such as the Spanish terms lanzon for the heavy, vamplate-equipped lance and lanza d'armas for the lighter, straight model.

The notion of point and hope for the best or not time to fence is totally non sensical.

The only point of “fencing” with the medieval heavy lance is precisely during that going against each other in a charge.
All the pieces in lichtanauer tradition are just for that, you deflect his point so you hit him and he misses when you are running at each other. It does not matter if it is in battle or in the duel.

I think this difference in opinion might have come from a difference in our horsemanship backgrounds. I do at least as much group drills on horseback as individual practice, and the few group "combats" I've participated in tend to bear out John Keegan's (and Dom Duarte's) opinion that a collision between two medieval cavalry formations (and by that I mean passing through, not the horses or men colliding against each other) is too fast and confusing to do much more than strike blindly at anything that goes past. Even in the approach stage, you'd be confused by the strain of having to choose a target among the many horsemen riding towards you, and then once you've chosen your target a shift or a flinching in the battle-lines would usually disrupt the alignment between you and him before the two formations can make contact with each other.

What do you mean by weight being too excessive? I have used 10-12 feet) lance and that did not flex under their own weight and you can use it with both hand or couched

By "excessive weight" I was referring to the lances on the upper end of the range of lengths used by the Mamluks. Some of these grew as long as fully twenty feet, and the Mamluks did not use arrets and grapers like the Europeans did so they had to make sure that the material was light in the first place. I wasn't talking about the medieval European lance at all.

Ps we do have extract of encounter between contus using cavalry and Gaul auxiliary cavalry not to mention the battle between the dying Roman Empire and the Visigoth. (hadrianopolis)

Then do provide us with the Latin/Greek quotations if you have them. Though I doubt this has much bearing upon the focus of our discussion on the medieval lance except if you can use them to prove a direct, immediate genetic link between the two-handed kontos and the medieval lance.

Pss the “Norman” were for all intent and purpose integrated to the “French” feudal culture and system. They were “Nordic/Scandinavian” only from ancestry; the ruling elite were “knights”. So they had more in common with the Breton knight that came with them than with Harald Hasdrada lots that landed near Stamford Bridge.

I wasn't talking about the Normans being different. I was talking about the Bretons being different from the general run of French and Norman men-at-arms due to the Alan legacy in Brittany. Even as late as the 12th century we still see mentions of the Breton men-at-arms skirmishing in a manner sufficiently distinct from the Franco-Norman norm to be worth a mention.

[philippewillaume]

Hello, Lafayette
I do not think we can use the term in the medieval context because the usage of the same world varies from in time and in places. So what I would have called lance may be a different object that any other.
For example for me the lance is really the 15th century lance as in the battle of san romano (i.e. without vamplate )
For example Ringeck uses the term gleffen and spear in is mounted section or John Tiptoff, in the 1466 Windsor tournament rules, uses the term spear when he is talking of tournament lances.
In France lance has been used to describe all the different type of lance through 400 years.
So how the hell can we be sure of what “lance” the other is talking about…

phil

[philippewillaume]

It is a bit like cataphract and feaodaretii. The terms stays but what it covered varied with time and region. (for vegetus cataphract is any type of armour…) but before him cataphract was used to describe any armoured horseman.

There is a lots of uncertainty of what the world cataphract covers in the historicall circles.
I think this is due to the fact that we are not really sure what the difference between, if any between clibanarii/sassanid cataphracts and the normal “roman” cathaphract.

Personally I think at the time of andriopole,
There is a clibanari (which marcellinus tells us are catatpharct cavalry) represented on a stone in Lyon museum and some graphito and horse harness found in Doura Europos, all represent a rider with segemental arms and leg defence with no shield and uses the lance with two hands. The horse is fully armoured.

I believe that when the horse is not armoured, it is referred at the time as equites scutarii and they have a shorter lance that they use one handed and a shield.

Units of infantry using a long lance were called lancieri (but in byzantim a lanciri is a armoured horse and horseman who has a long lance and no bows)

Sassanid/Persian “cataphract”seems to have an armoured horse a shield and a long lance.

As far as I can tell the feodaretii, were using their own chief and used their own equipments but in any case, the Alans, Avar, Sarmatian and Goth were feodarati and used heavy cavalry, and we know were used by the empire as heavy cavalry exactly likes the franks were used as feoderati infantry.
That being said federates in the 3rd century is way stricter than federate in the 5th century.

About the Alan they were quite present in France in Brittany (well Armoric) but as well around Orleans and Valence
The wisigoth were intalled in spain and the at least half of France )south west.
In any case the alano-sarmates (and the wisigoth for the last bit) are now believed to be the force behind the Frank cavalry (until someone comes up with another theory I guess)
In any case the Franc used a realatively long lance called “frame” combined with the Francisk and the Agon (same concept as a pillum).

What I am trying to say is that long lances were always present and that the mounted lance growing from a 2-2.5 one handed weapon does not really make sense. Long spear were used on horse and on foot from the antiquity By the roman and their enemies alike.

that being said historical document are scare for that period

phil

[philippewillaume]

Since you asked for sources, this is from the life of Crassus by Plutarch, (I do not have the roman text) at least it shows that Partian armoured cavalry was used against other cavalry

(p394) 7 Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy. But his struggle was an unequal one both offensively and defensively, for his thrusting was done with small and feeble spears against breastplates of raw hide and steel, whereas the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls, since it was upon these that Publius chiefly relied, and with these he did indeed work wonders.
8 For they laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from (p395)their horses, hard as it was to move them owing to the weight of their armour; and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly. These would rear up in their anguish, and die trampling on riders and foemen indiscriminately mingled.

phil

[philippewillaume]

The notion of point and hope for the best or not time to fence is totally non sensical.

The only point of “fencing” with the medieval heavy lance is precisely during that going against each other in a charge.
All the pieces in lichtanauer tradition are just for that, you deflect his point so you hit him and he misses when you are running at each other. It does not matter if it is in battle or in the duel.

I think this difference in opinion might have come from a difference in our horsemanship backgrounds. I do at least as much group drills on horseback as individual practice, and the few group "combats" I've participated in tend to bear out John Keegan's (and Dom Duarte's) opinion that a collision between two medieval cavalry formations (and by that I mean passing through, not the horses or men colliding against each other) is too fast and confusing to do much more than strike blindly at anything that goes past. Even in the approach stage, you'd be confused by the strain of having to choose a target among the many horsemen riding towards you, and then once you've chosen your target a shift or a flinching in the battle-lines would usually disrupt the alignment between you and him before the two formations can make contact with each other.

Yes that is exactly what i think does not make sense.

Since you are training, I am sure that you will have problem to stick a boar on the rein side of the horse in the beginning after 3 weeks training that will be a doodle.
The real issue is that one needs to be as comfortable on the horse as he is on his feet.
Of course you will move or accelerate at the last minute or may be change lead in gallop a few times to misdirect him
A good training for that is to play bull dog.

Some people have trouble jousting because they spend 80% of the time managing the horse when you want to spend 95% managing the lance.


Phil

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I do not think we can use the term in the medieval context because the usage of the same world varies from in time and in places. So what I would have called lance may be a different object that any other.

Which is why I'm suggesting us to pick a classification system that covers both the vamplated lance and the simple lance, like the 16th-century Spanish one. At least the difference between the lanzon (the vamplated, late-medieval lance) and the lanza d'armas (the light lance without vamplates) is quite obvious, and it's easily generalizable to earlier types of medieval/early Renaissance lances, whether those found later or earlier. In this way we won't have to artificially impose our own modern system of classification upon them.

(p394) 7 Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy. But his struggle was an unequal one both offensively and defensively, for his thrusting was done with small and feeble spears against breastplates of raw hide and steel, whereas the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls, since it was upon these that Publius chiefly relied, and with these he did indeed work wonders.
8 For they laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from (p395)their horses, hard as it was to move them owing to the weight of their armour; and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly. These would rear up in their anguish, and die trampling on riders and foemen indiscriminately mingled.

It's quite a vivid description, but lends no credence whatsoever to the theory of direct ancestral relationship between the pike-like ancient kontos and the medieval lance.

And was this Publius actually Publius Licinius Crassus, son of Marcus Licinius Crassus the triumvir? Because if so, we must not forget that this account of the Battle of Carrhae goes on to describe how his horsemen were eventually surrounded and massacred by the Parthians, and therefore we must lay some doubts upon Plutarch's description since there isn't that much likelihood that it actually came from the mouth of one who actually participated in the charge.

In any case the alano-sarmates (and the wisigoth for the last bit) are now believed to be the force behind the Frank cavalry (until someone comes up with another theory I guess)

Somebody has come up with another, more believeable theory--that the Franks obtained their cavalry tactics and techniques not directly through any Steppes source, but filtered through Roman sensibilities since their cavalry tradition was a direct survival and continuation of the Gallo-Roman military structures in the area. What they adopted wasn't really Gothic or Alan cavalry or anything. But late Roman cavalry.

In any case the Franc used a realatively long lance called “frame” combined with the Francisk and the Agon (same concept as a pillum).

The framea was an ordinary Roman spear. The angon too, was not only a similar concept but seems to have actually descended from the pilum. All of these were perfectly Roman weapons, and their adoption by the Franks does not necessitate any links with the Steppes or their two-handed lances. We must not lose sight of the fact that the framea was a moderate-sized spear used both on horseback and on foot and it was the same kind of spear we occasionally see being thrown in Frankish and Norman art. The same kind of spear wielded by the Norman men-at-arms, too, and also the same kind that survived as the lanza d'armas well into the 16th century.

So, while there are late-medieval techniques for wielding the heavy lance (the lanzon in Spanish), I suspect these came about as convergent evolution instead of a direct genetic connection with Parthian or Sarmatian techniques.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Yes that is exactly what i think does not make sense.

Since you are training, I am sure that you will have problem to stick a boar on the rein side of the horse in the beginning after 3 weeks training that will be a doodle.
The real issue is that one needs to be as comfortable on the horse as he is on his feet.
Of course you will move or accelerate at the last minute or may be change lead in gallop a few times to misdirect him
A good training for that is to play bull dog.

Some people have trouble jousting because they spend 80% of the time managing the horse when you want to spend 95% managing the lance.

I'm still not convinced. The best individual jouster in my little group--the one who can unseat me ten times out of ten--handles his horse and lance quite effortlessly in individual combat but still finds the same difficulties as the others in formation combat.

(For that matter, I'm sure you'll be able to unseat me nine times out of ten in an individual joust. In a massed charge? Not necessarily.)

Remember that group fighting on foot is quite a different beast from single combat on foot. On horseback it is at least twice as difficult, since we have to deal with the horses' herd instinct as well as our own human mass psychology. Try it. It's quite an enlightening experience--the fear is of an entirely different order from what you'd feel when facing only one other contestant on the jousting lists.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
It is not a matter of who is going to put who on his arse jousting, in jousting it is really a more a matter of set up that skill. In modern case you knock yourself over as much as the other guy knock you over.

Anyway, we used to do battle re-enactment (sic) the only thing you can do there is hoon towards the other group and go cross tign ting and then hoon go back.
As well we do melee (hit a fluffy toy on the top of the helmet).
That being said we all have full plate that have taken solid lance so we are not that worried.
You have more to fight on you own terms on horse as if you were on foot.


I have done experiment against 2 to 7 foot people. (Swapping lance and sword).
Basically when you have the longer weapon, you can tag them at leisure swooping in and out.
When the foot has the longer or equal weapon weapon, if they do not fight together, you can pick them one by one but if they play together after 2 it becomes very difficult for the horse man. But at least you usually can flee…

And I said we train by playing bulldog on horse.
you start with one being it and each time you touch someone not his horse he is it with you. So the number of tagged keep increasing and the number of to-be-tag decreased.(we do that in soft kit. May be you took my fighting on foot analogy to close to the letter, by nature fighting on a horse is much much more mobile that fighting on foot.


As a side not I am not sure that head to head change happens that often, usually sources (medieval to Napoleonic) indicate there was a flaking action or one side chickened out .
I can not recall on battle when two knight forces charged heads on onto the other, I have a few example of that with heavy against lighter horses. Do you have any thing on that in the US (Mexican or civil war not too easy to get doc in here?)
phil

[philippewillaume]

About lanzon
I do not think that they can be used that generically, because it is not preceise enough
What do you call a rumh? Or what do you call a heavy spear ? what do you call a heavy war lance in the late 14 and 15th when the vamplate was not used in war anymore..

For example
Lanza de armas I do not know if you are talking about a 19th century lancer type of lance (ie 2.5 meters) or to a long spear 3.5-5 meters.
And may be that is part of the problem

I mean what ever we call it, In the 15th (from illustration and text);
They use javelin (1.5-1.8 meters long)
They used “lance” (2-2.5 meters), that can be thrown or used to thrust.
They used “boar spear”2- 2.5 meters solely trusting weapon
A “demi lance” used for war would fall in the 2-2.5 meters implements (and Ringeck tells us how to use it in war/duel)
A “war lance” a long spear basically ie 3.5-to 4 meters (no vamplate) (ie in thalhoffer 59)
Another “war lance”, heavy butt, no vamplate with the grip close to the butt. 4-6 meters (according what sources you are using) (I talhoffer 67 or battle of an romano)

I think we may have the same type of mix up with the franks and the evolution of the horse man lance from a frank foot man spear or a contus/kontos/kontarion/ruhm.

I assume that we are talking about the frank confederation that were laetii 299 (not the Ripuarian Franks, who were an autonomous people.) and were totally integrated to the roman army.

As far as I understood the theory behind the contus/long lance always being there is that as such they must have been exposed to the Clibanarii and other Cathaphracts in the roman army and later with their Wisigotic neighbour or the Alan/Avars settlements. And so the Franck did not develop a cavalry by themselves they just assimilated the roman and feoderates heavy cavalry components to develop their own..

Historian defending this version of events usually supports that the angon/agon was a pillum(or an eveolution of) and the framea from the original throw and thrust weapon became more of a long spear (thrust only) for fantasins (like the lancierii who were foot soldier supposed to use a long thrusting lance)
In the Notitia dignitatum the Frank are presented as infantery (the lacierii as as well presented as infentery in the document).
As well the idea is that the Franck used “allied” heavy cavalry like at the Catalaunic fields (Wisigothic and Alan)) or Alan and Avars when fighting the Wisigoth. or in Poitier (Aquitaine post-Wisigothic heavy cavalry).

That being said we do not have any representation of Framea or angon (and as far as I can tell precious little of archaeology). Like every thing of those periods it is pretty much lots of theory and little hard evidence. So I can understand where you are coming from.
Personally I prefer the “contus” story because, it seems more logical to me and explain why the Byzantine and the Oyammid do not mention that the “frank” at the time of the crusade (or even under carolus magnus) are using shorter lance than their own cataphracts.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

As a side not I am not sure that head to head change happens that often, usually sources (medieval to Napoleonic) indicate there was a flaking action or one side chickened out .
I can not recall on battle when two knight forces charged heads on onto the other,

Not so much "onto" as "through" the other. If you've read John Keegan, he has a third interpretation besides decision without contact and contact by a stationary first rank--that is, a case where the two bodies of cavalry opened lanes through which they would pass each other, with the individual members attempting to strike as best as they could during the brief moment of contact before both formations rode clear of each other.

One source that mentions this is Dom Duarte's 15th-century work on mounted combat, available from the Chivalry Bookshelf. He explicitly mentions that, when fighting against other horsemen, a man-at-arms should expect to ride into and through and then clear the enemy formation through the rear. And then there is a mass of 16th-century memoirs and biographies, particularly ones from the French Wars of Religion. Blaise de Montluc's is just one of the most famous, beside that of Pierre de Terrail, Seigneur de Bayard; both of them mentioned explicitly that both lance-armed and pistol-armed cavalry were expected to ride into and through the opposing formation when facing other cavalry. Henry IV's training precepts and tactical orders also make explicit mention of this paradigm.

I think the 12th- century Regle du Temple also makes a mention of this, though not as explicitly as the later works. It was the expected behavior for mounted men-at-arms facing mounted opponents.

Of course, there were also examples of other modes of interaction. The mounted men-at-arms were trained to expect contact because it made them more aggressive, but when things went right they were often able to rout their enemies well before contact. If I'm not mistaken, the Battle of Guinegate was one such case--the French horsemen fled before the English had the chance to strike a blow against them.

About lanzon
I do not think that they can be used that generically, because it is not preceise enough

Lanza de armas I do not know if you are talking about a 19th century lancer type of lance (ie 2.5 meters) or to a long spear 3.5-5 meters.

Then go read some 16th-century Spanish sources! They explicitly compare the lanzon--which is the heavy medieval lance of the French and Spanish model, tapering from the vamplate to the point and meant to be used in conjunction with an arret and a graper--with the lanza d'armas, which was compared to the "Moorish" lance, between six and nine feet long and without vamplates. Most of them mention it in the context of the King mandating the replacement of the lanzon with the lighter lanza d'armas.

explain why the Byzantine and the Oyammid do not mention that the “frank” at the time of the crusade (or even under carolus magnus) are using shorter lance than their own cataphracts.

1. The Franks in Charlemagne's time still predominantly fought on foot. The most memorable encounter between them and Umayyad troops--the battle of Tours-Poitiers, that is--is usually cited along with an Umayyad historian's words about the Frankish foot fighting in solid formations "like a wall of ice."

2. By the time of the Crusades, the Byzantines were no longer using the kontos. Their cataphracts came from 9th-century antecedents, which was a revival mandated by the emperor Nikephoros Phokas, not a survival of the old forms from the 4th and 5h centuries A.D. The pictorial evidences we have of these later cataphracts--very few of whom were available to the Komnenian army of the 11th century--tend to indicate that their lances were no longer than those of the lighter kavallarioi, which was about seven or eight feet long at most. Both kinds of horsemen wielded their lances one-handed in conjunction with kite shields. And don't forget other illustrations that show the cataphracts being armed with maces instead of lances.

3. Don't forget that I mention the Mamluk manual describing the use of several different lengths of lances, from very short ones (below five feet) to medium ones (seven feet), long ones (ten feet), and pike-like models (over twelve feet, some going as far as twenty). If we go by the battle illustrations, the longest and the shortest lances do not seem to have seen much use. Most of the lances that appear in the illustrations are the ones in the middle range (seven to ten feet).

So, the conclusion is that it's not a matter of the "Frankish" lances being no shorter than the Byzantine/Muslim lances, but rather the latter being no longer than the former.

[philippewillaume]

Hello
I think you need to read other thing than 16th century Spanish sources then. It gives a slight slant on things.

You see the vamplate, in purely medieval sense, is a steel or leather protection for the hand attached to the lance.
In a modern representation it looks like that (sic)
http://members.shaw.ca/joust/1-2007.html

Historically, those are the few pictures of something remotely looking like a vamplate.
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... emId=11185 (guiron_le_courtois_c_1370)
http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... emId=11213 (Lancelot and the black knight)
or may
http://www.chronique.com/Library/Tourneys/Astley3.htm

In fact I believe that the tapering just after the handle is what you refer as “vamplate”. (It is very possible that this what the word actually meant in the 16th Spain but well).
This is what I think you are talking about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Paol ... lo_031.jpg or
http://www.fionline.it/paolouccello/pu/pu_home.htm
On those pictures (and on the vast majority in not all Italian drawing of that century, there is no “vamplate” but there is always that wooden “bulb”).
A similar type of lance used in Ucelleo’s painting seems to have been used in France (and Spain an England) in the late 15th early 16th. The meeting between Maximilian 1st and Henry VIII if England is a consistent representation of what lances were at the time. (http://www.museen-sh.de/ml/digi_einzBil ... 201146&s=2)

So when you spoke of lanzon having a vamplate; In a 16th century context, only something like the lance used in some German jousting (which a massive metallic vamplate) is what sprang to my mind.


In any case, At the same time of the Uccello paintings on san Romano (i.e. mid 1400) in France, lances were more slender but at least as long (and no Vamplate) http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... temId=6865
That is very common in French/Flemish painting of the first ¾ of the 15th century

Is that a lanza d'armas no it is not, it way too long.
We have a fair amount of picture with lances of that shape and proportions
We know form text of that period that at Agincourt for example French used “half lance” ie lance used on horse but broken in two (or in half according to who you read), that was supposed to be about 6-9 feets. (Wich give a lance of at least 12-15 feet.)
We know that something similar to “lanza d'armas” was used in France Plurivel (horse riding teacher to Louis XIII talks about a lance for rings (and you find that drawn as well in Saunier and La Guerriniere ).
Basically a lanza d'armas is very similar to 19th century lancer lance. (I.e. something between 6 and 9 feet i.e. 1.8 m to 2.6 m

i hope you now see what i mean.

phil

[philippewillaume]

Well
Surely you understand that head on is different to to go through. You can hit you opponent from the side or the rear and still go through them


The French were indeed reputed to do that. You are surely aware that from the few sources we have that knight were charging in collums only to expend before impact.( Erhard schurstab descibibg the battle of pillenreuth1450
5 knight at the point then, 7 on the second ranks 9 on the 3rd and 11 on 4th then 22 to 25 ranks deep and the last rank was composed of 14 knights ( to keep the to formation together). And this is a battle formation, not a march (well approach really at the last minute the column would expend in to a “haye” or line.
The moto for the knight was to stay close together (if we believe historical sources)
here is no way you can leave gap for rider to go through

a good book on the topic is medieval warfare by hans Delbruch (volume III is mediaval starting at carolus magnus, and volume II is the barbarian invasion.) it is difficult to find but it is very good (and full of original documents..)

Poitier was fought before Charlemagne time 732, before the francs developed a “proper” heavy cavalry on their own (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/732tours.html for few accounts) but even so we have capitularies or the summon of the abbot Fulrad whe know that horeman were suppose to turn up for military service with a lance (lancea a foot man was supposed to bring a hasta) sword a short sword a shield and a bow.
But I grant you that the capitularies are vague en contradicting enough to make them say on thing and it’s opposite.

Well I believe that as the mammellok described their lances, there was probably the same amount of type of lance in Europe.
Description of the turcopoles or the janites have them with a short lance (6-7feet) and javelin (five feets)
And anna kommena mentions at least once byzantians in amour with long lance when she describes the scarps with godfreys

phil

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Pillenreuth is a different matter entirely. The German wedge used there against Albrect Achilles (and in a latter battle by him) was a very deep formation that worked in a substantially different way from the French en haye way of charging in relatively shallow formations. Look at the account of the battle itself--it did not mention the men-at-arms expanding into a line; instead, it had them charging the enemy formation while remaining in the wedge.

If we need to take a comparison with later battles, then the German wedge was similar in philosophy to the French cavalry column at the Battle of Eylau. It was meant to stay as a compact, deep mass, and to break through by the collective push of the densely-packed bunch of men and horses. Definitely a different approach from the French method, which was amply described in the French sources I've referred to. Read Bayard in particular, since he has more information about the earlier wars.

BTW, Delbruck is horribly outdated. Read Contamine or Verbruggen if you want a more up-to-date and less conjectural view of medieval warfare.

And granted, Tours-Poitiers was a battle fought by Charlemagne's grandfather--but the institutional records indicate that in Charlemagne's time the Frankish army was still an infantry-heavy force with select levies (comparable to the Anglo-Saxon select fyrd) trained along late Roman models. Only after his death did the military infrastructure began to disintegrate in earnest, especially the foot since they needed the central support of the state in order to maintain their skill and discipline. The horsemen, being more decentralized in those things, were able to weather the institutional turmoil better and survive to become the men-at-arms of later Western Europe.

The point is that it's not a good time period to choose if we want a comparison between the length of Frankish and Byzantine lances since 1) the Frankish forces were still predominately foot and 2) were there any significant battlefield encounters between the two within this timeframe? I think not, since the only clashes I can remember between them happened earlier (in the 6th century) and much later (during the Norman conquest of Sicily and Naples).

As for Anna Komnena, what Greek word did she use? I doubt she really said kontos. "Long lance" could just as well have been the dory or the longkhos/longkhe depending on the translator, and both of these terms were generally used to describe the lance of normal length. If she had used kontos instead, the translator would probably have used "pike" in the first place.