stress for grip/torso/saddles during couched lancing

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I worded that poorly. I meant that the rider's strength is the determining factor in how much of the horse's momentum gets transferred into the lance. Changing to a bigger/faster horse will do nothing if the rider isn't strong enough to take advantage of it.

Which, from the gaming point of view, immediately raises the question of how strong "strong enough to take advantage of it" is for given varieties of horses.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Richard Alvarez wrote a very good paper a few years ago demonstrating that the amount of energy delivered from a couched lance had nothing to do with the momentum of the horse and everything to do with the strength of the rider

Well, perhaps also the acquired momentum of the rider? The horse's strength pushes it forward and then the momentum the horse generates pulls the saddle forward and imparts momentum to the rider clinging to the saddle.

Riders effectively gain the Move of the Mount so to speak, but the issue is how the mass of the mount (HP for collisions) might matter.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

- even when using the two arrets in question. In order for the horse's momentum to come into play, the rider would have to be locked into a fixed position and be made of a completely rigid material. In reality, the rider acts as a buffer between the horse and lance.

Since the arret is meant to be worn on rigid torso armor, I think maybe you sort of get that effect?

As the arret pushes force against the breast plate and it begins to get knocked backward, it's going to hit the higher cantle of the war saddle which should halt that backward tilt, and what stops the cantle/saddle from moving backward is the horse it's strapped to.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I worded that poorly. I meant that the rider's strength is the determining factor in how much of the horse's momentum gets transferred into the lance. Changing to a bigger/faster horse will do nothing if the rider isn't strong enough to take advantage of it.

"big men on big horses" is a phrase that leaps to mind. If we model lances as slams, there is an incentive to maximize velocity, which requires reducing the encumbrance of the horse. We see this in modern horse racing, with Jockey's being the butt of jokes about being short or small.

However, Historically, I don't think this is something we see, do we? If we don't see this in the historical and material record, that would suggest that lances may not work according to the slam mechanics, right?

[Donny Brook]

I'm not sure exactly how this fits in, or what consequence it might have for analysis, but I remember at one point reading that before lances, couching and high cantle saddles were a thing (think Alexander's cavalry) it was the practice to NOT drive a spear with the full force of the mount, but rather to sort of hold it lightly and even almost release at the point of impact, letting the independent momentum of the spear itself do whatever damage it would do. The rider would tighten his grip after impact to carry the spear away, en passant. Later on, stirrups and better saddles (and probably much more robust horses) allowed for more use of mount and rider momentum to be applied.

[Verjigorm]

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

I'm not sure exactly how this fits in, or what consequence it might have for analysis, but I remember at one point reading that before lances, couching and high cantle saddles were a thing (think Alexander's cavalry) it was the practice to NOT drive a spear with the full force of the mount, but rather to sort of hold it lightly and even almost release at the point of impact, letting the independent momentum of the spear itself do whatever damage it would do. The rider would tighten his grip after impact to carry the spear away, en passant. Later on, stirrups and better saddles (and probably much more robust horses) allowed for more use of mount and rider momentum to be applied.

I doubt this. Various horse mounted peoples were described by contemporary records as being able to drive a lance through two armored men. Persian cavalry were alleged to tied their lances to tie their lances to their horses. For hundreds of years prior to the invention of stirrups, we have accounts of men on horses with long pointy sticks charging people, and sometimes, successfully.

My personal opinion is that Stirrups empowered both mounted archery, and mounted close combat. When you swing a sword, or throw a punch, you use the entirety of your body. With stirrups, you can "stand" in the saddle, almost like you were on solid ground. Without stirrups, you have to cling to the back of a horse with your thighs.

[Rasna]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I doubt this. Various horse mounted peoples were described by contemporary records as being able to drive a lance through two armored men. Persian cavalry were alleged to tied their lances to tie their lances to their horses. For hundreds of years prior to the invention of stirrups, we have accounts of men on horses with long pointy sticks charging people, and sometimes, successfully.

My personal opinion is that Stirrups empowered both mounted archery, and mounted close combat. When you swing a sword, or throw a punch, you use the entirety of your body. With stirrups, you can "stand" in the saddle, almost like you were on solid ground. Without stirrups, you have to cling to the back of a horse with your thighs.

Parthian and Sassanid Persian cataphracts used a long (4 to 5 feet) heavy lance called "kontos" with both hands and they mounted the strongest horse breeds available at the time. Although their technique wasn't effective as the later under-armpit couched lance, I suspect that the weight of the kontos by itself makes possible to achieve similar results than a lighter lance held in a couched position, at least in terms of force of impact.

Edit: if I remember well, Ammianus Marcellinus described the Persian cataphracts as being capable to drive a lance through two unarmoured men and to pierce successfully two layers of mail armour with a lance charge hit.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

I doubt this. Various horse mounted peoples were described by contemporary records as being able to drive a lance through two armored men. Persian cavalry were alleged to tied their lances to tie their lances to their horses. For hundreds of years prior to the invention of stirrups, we have accounts of men on horses with long pointy sticks charging people, and sometimes, successfully.

My personal opinion is that Stirrups empowered both mounted archery, and mounted close combat. When you swing a sword, or throw a punch, you use the entirety of your body. With stirrups, you can "stand" in the saddle, almost like you were on solid ground. Without stirrups, you have to cling to the back of a horse with your thighs.

Yep. Alvarez covers this too. Stirrups do nothing for couched lance combat. At the point of impact, the feet are actually pushed OUT of the stirrup. Stirrups let the rider stand in the saddle, which makes it easier to lay about with a sword and to shoot a bow. They were invented by horse-archer cultures after all. It is the war saddle that made couched lance combat more effective, not stirrups. This is covered in LTC2.

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Rasna

... and to pierce successfully two layers of mail armour with a lance charge hit.

He just says "armour", he doesn't say what type.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I worded that poorly. I meant that the rider's strength is the determining factor in how much of the horse's momentum gets transferred into the lance. Changing to a bigger/faster horse will do nothing if the rider isn't strong enough to take advantage of it.

I think that makes a lot of sense.

I don't really like the RAW way Couched lances work in the system I tend to run a house rule along the lines of:


Rather than the full Horse's ST used by itself for the impact calculation.

Instead the Horse's ST + the lower of the Rider's DX based Ride skill or ST based Jousting skill (but allowing the various harness based mods to add to either skill), all divided by 2.


Which is probably too simplistic for what's likely a far more complicated situation than that suggests, but good enough for gameplay


(I also think act actual full on couched lance attacks are pretty rare in combat, and a lot of the time it's just ordinary stabbing attacks with spears)

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Verjigorm

"big men on big horses" is a phrase that leaps to mind. If we model lances as slams, there is an incentive to maximize velocity, which requires reducing the encumbrance of the horse. We see this in modern horse racing, with Jockey's being the butt of jokes about being short or small.

However, Historically, I don't think this is something we see, do we? If we don't see this in the historical and material record, that would suggest that lances may not work according to the slam mechanics, right?

Thing is there are other potential advantages to both big men and big horses when it come to mounted combat in general. You mentioned encumbrance larger horses can take heavier loads, hell even their own armour at some points. Big men are well bigger and stronger this brings it's own benefits not just for couched lances but combat in general.

This type of horse is massively important and specialised war horses* were the product of very selective breeding in order to get a mix of desired traits.

Thoroughbred race horses might be very fast (especially on nice even race tracks) but they're really high maintenance, not very hardy can't take big loads and frankly won't do well on campaign. At the other end of the spectrum shire horses may well be the biggest strongest horses out there but are not fast and have their own health problem and limitations being on campaign.

Don't get me wrong even the best war horses were still a compromise between these desired goals and were of course massively expansive resources

The other thing is sheer individual top speed isn't always going to be that effective, because if you are in a formation and your charging you going to want to stay together, i.e. overall maintainable formation speed. On top o0f that you are likely going to be riding around more than just that last full speed charge. So a horse that can only charge and then blow itself is going t be limited use on battlefield

On top of all this as mentioned earlier even for a formation that employed impact charges on the battlefield it's unlikely that will be the only form of combat they will see, so you need a horse that can manage the rest as well.



*and the majority of horses used on the battlefield (or even more so just taken on campaign) down the ages likely weren't this!