7
Michael John Harbinson
The light lance or lancegay was one of the most ubiquitous weapons used throughout centuries of warfare in Europe and beyond, from ancient times well into the modern era. This article traces the development of the weapon during the medieval period in its broadest sense, though drawing on its earlier and later manifestations. It offers a detailed analysis of a major category of weapon that has received far less attention than more glamorous but shorter-lived arms such as the heavy war lance and the longbow. It demonstrates that the maneuvers of the light lance and the tactics commonly associated with Napoleonic and later periods were familiar to medieval warriors and outlined in contemporary literature. The lancegay was a flexible and enduring weapon, favored by all classes of society, that could be deployed quickly both on horse and foot. Despite some variation in nomenclature, it is possible to demonstrate how the lancegay was utilized by different groups during and beyond the medieval period. Its carriage and manipulation are examined together with the tactics and riding skills that enabled it to achieve its full potential within a light cavalry role.
As with many weapons from the historical past the lancegay requires considerable explication, not least because of the confusing terminology that surrounds it. Although known by several different designations, the lancegay was essentially the light lance of ancient origin, commonly used throughout the whole of the Middle Ages, which preceded, was used alongside, and finally superseded the more renowned heavy lance. The lancegay reached the height of its popularity during the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, being much favoured in the Renaissance. It was succeeded by the light cavalry lance which, largely of a similar design, remained in use well into the early twentieth century. During the Late Middle Ages, the lancegay achieved a social status not dissimilar to that of the sword as well as acquiring a lethal reputation.
David Scott-Macnab has written extensively about the weapon’s origin within a linguistic, literary, and political context, noting the complications caused by “false etymologies and speculative interpretations.”1
There are, however, many scattered references and much disparate information that have yet to be brought together. Moreover, as the medieval light lance was in many ways similar to its ancient counterpart and nineteenth-century descendants, a comparison with classical sources and later writings can help to elucidate its full potential. The intention is to trace the development of the lancegay within this framework, examine the groups who carried the weapon, explore their tactics, and to determine why the weapon retained its popularity.
Description and Terminology
The lancegay was a light lance made of stiff ash, around ten to twelve feet in length, although later versions could be longer.2 The shaft was round without a handgrip and needed to be sturdy as one too pliant would be shaken by the movement of the horse, making it more likely to fracture and more difficult to maintain a steady aim.3 The lance head, originally shaped like a sage leaf with a sharp point and two cutting edges, became considerably elongated and more pyramidal to counter improvements in defensive armor.4 Pietro Monte, writing in the late fifteenth century, considered that the weapon should have “a long firm blade.”5
An early modification to the light lance was the adoption of the butt-spike or l’aresteuil, a sharp-pointed iron socket fitted to the base of the shaft.6 Although the term l’aresteuil or l’arestoel first appears in French literature of the twelfth century, the concept of a butt-spike fitted to a thrusting spear was an ancient phenomenon.7 It was fitted to Greek cavalry lances and the hoplite spears from which they derived.8 Polybius’ remarks on the deficiencies of early Roman cavalry show the value of this innovative addition. He considered their lances unserviceable, being too slender and lacking butt-spikes. He noted, however, that they rapidly adopted lances after the Greek fashion, which not only ensured an effective first blow as the lance was now stronger but also guaranteed that the weapon could continue to be used simply by reversing the shaft and striking with the sharpened butt.9 Butt-spikes were also used by the Celts and Saxons and were present on Byzantine cavalry lances.10 The adoption of a butt-spike gave the lance balance, allowing it to be held comfortably towards the middle of the pole, so that the weapon could easily be reversed if the point was broken. Furthermore, the warrior was now furnished with the ability to strike with either end, an action facilitated by the lightness of the shaft.
Ancient and medieval butt-spikes varied considerably in design, ranging from a simple metal cap, or hollow spike, through to a fully-fledged spearhead, such as on the weapon depicted at Kinch’s Tomb in Macedonia and those shown in Fiore de Liberi’s Flower of Battle (c.1410).11 Unfortunately, l’aresteuil is seldom shown or is given only token representation in contemporary illustrations, apart from its depiction in the Flower of Battle, where Fiore refers to “the well-tempered steel” of the butt being as good as that of the point.12 Duarte I of Portugal (c.1434) acknowledges the presence of a sharpened butt-spike when recommending that for practice both ends of the lance should be capped.13 When describing the lancegay, sixteenth-century sources emphasize this feature, indicating that the weapon was furnished with sharp, well-steeled points at both ends: a design associated with synonymous weapons such as the archegaie, génétaire, zagaye, and javeline.14 However, whether the butt-spike was a universal feature of medieval light lances is unknown, although its presence on partisans and poleaxes is well documented.15 Unfortunately, apart from some representations in art and architecture, there are no surviving examples of what might be specifically termed a lancegay from the medieval period.16 The majority of the evidence is, therefore, textual.
Although the term aresteuil is rarely found after the thirteenth century, its key feature is explained in the romance of Eric et Enide (1180): “the point of the lance was turned behind, so that the aresteuil was in front.”17 As Buttin notes: “One might use the lance in this manner when there was insufficient space to exploit its length or when the lance was broken and the remaining portion with the steel-tipped butt-spike was held in the hand.”18
The Gesta Willelmi states that Duke William used the aresteuil in this way at Hastings (1066), describing him as more fearsome than those whose lances were intact.19 Examples from the twelfth and thirteenth-century chansons de geste confirm the effectiveness of the butt-spike, demonstrating that it could kill or unhorse an opponent:
“Vès ci ta mort dans l’arestoel
De ma lance, se ne t’en vas.”20
“Unless you flee, you will die here on the aresteuil of my lance”
“D’un arestuel l’a si ferut
Que del cheval l’a abatut.”21
“He was struck so forcefully with the aresteuil that he was knocked from his horse.”
Buttin considered that being struck with l’aresteuil might be regarded as a degradation or chastisement: “He will strike the vassal with the aresteuil.” This accords with the similar use of the hoplite butt-spike in non-lethal punishment or mock combat, as earlier versions of the spike lacked cutting edges along the sides.22
There were other advantages of the butt-spike applicable to both ancient and medieval weapons. The metal covering at the base prevented wear and deterioration of the wood that might lead to splintering and fracturing of the shaft. It also enabled the lance to be stuck into the ground, which aided mounting and dismounting, and allowed the weapon to be ready for deployment while the troops were waiting or resting.23 This had the advantage of preventing horses being struck by spear points or butt-spikes during mounting, a cause of “the greatest confusion” and delay.24 It also ensured that the lance point was kept sharp. As Antoine de Brack (1789–1850) noted, the Cossacks, whose lances lacked butt-spikes, left their weapons with the points lodged in the ground, with the result that they became rusted and blunt, and were easily deflected by clothing.25 As the lancegay was pointed at both ends, it could easily be fixed into the earth as a defense against cavalry, as happened at Valmont (1416), where a large English foraging party was caught by the French.26 Finally, the auxiliaries, who followed the men-at-arms, used the aresteuil to deal the coup de grâce to those who had been unhorsed.27
While reversing the light lance to strike with the butt-spike was generally a simple task, this was not the case with its heavier counterpart. Although heavier medieval war lances were initially fitted with l’aresteuil, the practice was soon abandoned.28 The butt-spike proved its effectiveness throughout the Middle Ages, particularly in the hands of genitors and stradiots. Moreover, the butt-spike, or shoe, as it was later known, continued to be used on many light cavalry lances until the first half of the twentieth century. During the First World War, it was deployed by British cavalry to “very good effect.”29
Pennons and gonfanons could be attached to the lance below the point, the former denoting knights and the latter barons.30 Fluttering pennons were used to frighten enemy horses, who would rear or turn, exposing their riders to attack. However, they often warned an adversary of a hostile approach, enabling outriders or coureurs to count their number and assess the size of the advancing force. Consequently, they were often lowered when nearing the enemy.31 Pennons also telegraphed the rider’s intentions to his opponent and made the lance more difficult to handle in windy conditions, bending the shaft and sometimes causing it to break unexpectedly. They also made the lance more difficult to carry on the march by tiring the right arm.32 De Brack recommended that they should be removed when on the road and attached only when it was necessary to be recognized.33
The light lance could be carried in several ways, being either inclined on the shoulder, rested on the foot, or placed into a pot or godet which was attached to the stirrup or saddle, a method which continued in use through to the twentieth century.34 It could also be held in the lowered hand position or fastened to the saddle by a looped strap called a chandelier.35 Duarte did not recommend carrying the lance across the saddle bow due to its tendency to snag on bushes and branches.36
Until the beginning of the fourteenth century the terms glaive, épieu, stave, and lance were applied equally to both heavy and lighter weapons, making it difficult to distinguish between them. Lances could, however, be differentiated by their function, as the actions of throwing, brandishing, or shaking were impossible with the heavier weapon that could only be held in the vertical position before being couched beneath the arm.37 To brandish the weapon, brander, it was held with the right arm raised above the head, thumb pointing towards the rear, ready either to make a cast or deliver a forceful downward blow at the neck or chest. Alternatively, to shake the lance, branler, the shaft was gripped with the thumb facing forwards on the lowered arm. It was then brought backwards and forwards in “a swinging thrust,” to give power to the final strike, aided by the forward movement of the horse.38 This swaying movement of the lance or balancement, was described by the Latin verbs vibrare or palpare.39 Greek hoplites used the same technique, gaining additional momentum by a final run into contact.40 An advantage of the lancegay was that, having sharp points at both ends, it was possible to alternate between these two positions without the placement of the hand and thumb being changed, while it could also be held rigid, couched beneath the shoulder.
Thus, when Sir John Graham charged the English archers at Neville’s Cross (1346), shaking his lance, we can deduce that he was furnished with a lancegay.41 Similar evidence comes from the early romances. In the twelfth-century Chanson des Saxons: “each one spurred his horse and brandished his lance,” while in the Roman de la Rose, Generosity of Spirit brandished the haft of her lance and threw it at the villain Rebuff.42 At Rouvray (1429), the Gascons twirled their lances in front of them hoping to deflect the English arrows and protect their horses.43 Such actions were impossible with a heavy lance, which until the mid-fourteenth century had to be rested on the fewter prior to couching: “lance levée sur le fautre.” When the development of the high medieval saddle made this impossible, the weapon was rested on the rider’s right thigh, an en garde position known as “la lance sur la cuisse.”44
As the fourteenth century progressed, the term “lance” became exclusively reserved for the heavier weapon, while its lighter counterpart, which could be manipulated freely, became known as l’archegaie, a term which appeared around 1307, being utilized up to the first quarter of the fifteenth century. L’archegaie had a diverse orthography, being also known as archegaye, archigaie, arcigaie, arzegaie or harsegaye, as well as being “polysemic to the point of confusion.”45 Despite various false etymologies, such as the association of arch with archery, the word is now recognised as being of Moorish origin deriving from the Spanish azagaya.46 Gay described it as “the lance of the stradiots with metal points at both ends.”47 Archegay is a relatively late addition to the English language; according to the O.E.D. its first appearance was in Lord Berners translation of Froissart (1523). Scott-Macnab, however, has documented an earlier occurrence.48 Around 1383, l’archegaie transitioned by assimilation and elision into the lancegay which was, as the lexicographers confirm, essentially the same weapon,49 lancegay being the term current in England while archegaie was mainly used in France.50 Sometimes lancegay was written as two words, suggesting a derivation from “lance-aigüe,” meaning sharp spear, as opposed to the blunt-headed tilting lance, a theory dismissed by Scott-Macnab as “ingenious but demonstrably erroneous.”51 Hewitt considered lance-aguë as the lancegay, a weapon identical to the zagaye, the light North African spear, citing the Roman de Rou (c.1160–70) as an early reference.52
The first mention of launcegay or launcegaie pertaining to England occurs in an Anglo-Norman document relating to the Acts of Richard II (1383), being subsequently used to describe the weapon of Chaucer’s Sir Thopas (1390): “He worth upon his stede gray/ And in his hand a lancegay,”53 The term also occurs in the fifteenth-century “Gest of Robyn Hode,” where a knight rides out “a launsgay in his honde.”54 The lancegay developed eponyms from the groups of light horsemen who were accustomed to use it, demonstrating a wide geographical distribution. L’archegaie used by Spanish jennets was called in 1480 a “javeline ou génétaire, autrement appellée javeline d’Espaigne.”55 The weapon carried by Venetian estradiots or stradiots was known as l’estradiote: “a light lance, like the javeline, designed to be used exclusively in the hand.”56 This last term was of short duration, for although estradiots were employed into the early 1600s, in later texts their weapon was referred to as a zagaye.
The term javeline first appeared in the fifteenth century and was, as Buttin noted, simply another designation for the light lance or archegaie/lancegay, being the principal weapon of Burgundian coustilliers.57 An archival document of 1474 considered the javeline equivalent to the lance génétaire or Spanish lance and, therefore, as historians have noted, similar to the zagaie.58 In Tudor times the javeline was often referred to as a “half-pike” or “horseman’s stave,” and, as with the lancegay and demi-lance, commonly used as a metonym for the horsemen who carried the weapon.59 The javeline was not the missile now termed a javelin, but a pointed lance with a long shaft used for thrusting that could sometimes be thrown, a weapon synonymous with the archegaie/lancegay. The first English documentation of the word utilized in this sense occurs in the context of The Field of the Cloth of Gold (1520), where Henry VIII departs from Guines with “lx of his gard on horsbacke, with javelyns.”60 To avoid confusion, I have used the French javeline to distinguish the thrusting weapon from the modern javelin. Moreover, while the different nomenclature reflects chronological and geographical variation, the archegaie, lancegay, génétaire, javeline, zagaie, and half-pike were all essentially the same weapon and will henceforth be treated as generally interchangeable.
The demi-lance also appeared in the early fifteenth century, possibly as an alternative term for the archegaie/lancegay/javeline, as a text of 1414 suggests: “the suppliant with a lancegay or demi-lance smote the knight through the chest.”61 Molinet (1495) describes stradiots having a shield in one hand and a demi-lance in the other, again suggesting a weapon similar to the lancegay.62 However, if the terms were ever synonymous, they were soon to diverge. Whereas in earlier Burgundian ordinances coustilliers were equipped with a javeline, that of 1471 indicates a move towards a different weapon, suggesting that they should be armed with a javeline in the manner of a demi-lance, furnished with a handgrip and an arrêt de lance.63 The latter, a leather ring that encircled the lower end of the shaft, was positioned behind the hand grip, so that the weapon could be engaged in the arrêt de cuirasse.64 Such modifications, including the tendency to expand the shaft just above the handgrip, would significantly alter the balance of the weapon, limiting its use to the couched position. The Roles normands, Caux et Gysors (1470) clearly distinguish between the two weapons. “Demie-lances” are mentioned four times, with three being owned by men in “corset complet,” all of which are carried by pages, in contrast to most of those bearing javelines.65 Henry VIII’s statute of 1509 for a retinue of spears suggests that a coustrell, the English equivalent of the coustillier, could have either weapon.66 Later Tudor texts, however, indicate that the weapons were utilized in different ways even though their bearers might be mounted in a similar fashion.67 Demi-lance, originally a standard metonym for a light horseman armed with the weapon, in the later sixteenth century came to refer to those in three-quarter armor placed “next in degree and account unto men-at-arms.”68 They were to be mounted on “puissant horses for the shocke,” carry “long, strong lances” and in a similar manner to their heavier counterparts, charge by lifting the lance from their thigh and placing it in the rest.69 Clearly the demi-lance had become a very different weapon from the javeline. Despite a confusing tendency to designate those not in full harness as light horse, light horsemen proper were usually called “javelins,” “prickers,” or “chasing staves.”70
Weapons – Thrust or Thrown?
There is a long history of thrusting weapons being utilized as missiles and vice versa.71 Thus, although Greek cavalry commonly carried two javelins, Xenophon suggested that the second weapon should not be thrown but used at close quarters as a thrusting spear.72 A warrior, however, was unlikely to dispense with his primary weapon unless he had recourse to another or access to a secondary weapon such as the scimitar or sword carried by stradiots and coustilliers. Hence, the references to archegaies being thrown in sea fights from the safety of tall ships or from the ramparts of besieged towns where the weapons could be readily replaced without undue risk. During the sea battle between the English and the Genoese (1342), the latter, whose ships were taller, threw down iron bars and archegays upon their opponents.73 At the siege of Harfleur (1415), those on the walls defended themselves as best they could, killing many of the besiegers with “leurs arballestres et archiguayes.”74 Moreover, how the weapons were deployed was not just dependent upon the type of conflict but also on national and cultural norms, so that in medieval Spain, the archegaie was often used as a missile.75
Nonetheless, while the archegaie/lancegay/javeline could be thrown, the weapons principally intended for this purpose were usually referred to as javelots or dards. Unfortunately, the frequent association of the archegaie/lancegay with these weapons has led to its misclassification by modern writers as simply “a light throwing-spear,” or a “type of dart.”76 This seems surprising considering that Hewitt had identified that the primary purpose of the weapon was for thrusting: “the great lance of the knights” was “too cumbrous for ordinary use: consequently, we find that another kind of spear (the lancegay), which seems to have been occasionally employed as a dart was in vogue at this time.”77 The génétaire, or jineta, has been similarly defined as “a medium spear, used on horseback and on foot, and designed to be suitable for use in one or both hands as well as for throwing.”78 This important dual function was recognized in the fourteenth century by the poet Eustace Deschamps:
De croquepois de fer, de lance
D’archegaie qu’on jette et lance.
De faussars, espaphus, guisarmes,
Puist il avoir plaine sa pance.79
The croquepois de fer is a type of bill, and, like the lance, used for thrusting, as are the odd assortment of weapons which occur in the third line, while the second line clearly refers to a weapon which one can throw and use in the manner of a lance.80 Sometimes l’archegaie is placed in apposition to weapons thrown as missiles but it also occurs among weapons used exclusively for thrusting, as at Najera (1367), where King Henry’s men fought valiantly: “de lances, de guisarmes, d’archegaies, d’épieux et d’épées.”81 In the accounts of the Frères Bonis (1326) the archegaie is positioned between lances and darts, which tends to substantiate this double action.82 The weapon’s duality is also confirmed by somewhat different accounts of the death of King Frederick of Bohemia, slain by the Saracens at Prague. In the metrical version of the fourteenth-century Roman de Mélusine, the weapon is thrown, but in the prose original, the king appears to be slain by a thrust: the Saracen, “holding an archegay with a sharp, broad, iron head, seeing that King Frederick was causing havoc among his men, rode towards him shaking his archegay and directed the weapon against the king with such force that he was pierced from side to side.”83 Moreover, in a text of 1414, dealing with a case of manslaughter, a knight, who had repeatedly provoked his assailant, is killed with a single thrust of an harsegay to the chest, his antagonist riding off still holding the weapon.84 Ekaitz Gallastegi has pointed out that Castilian jennets frequently used their lancegays for stabbing, as well as deploying them in “an improvised couched position.”85
The primary throwing weapons of the medieval period and beyond were gavelocs (javelots) and darts: weapons which we would now term javelins.86 Darts, a shorter version of the javelot, tend to be associated with Spanish troops, but were used in many medieval armies. The Chronicle of Geoffroi de Gaimer (1136–40) suggests that they were responsible for the death of Talifer and his horse at Hastings.87 The Bretons were considered highly experienced in their use during their struggle against French annexation. The weapons were also the traditional missiles of the Irish, whose skill with “petites javelines” and darts was noted from the siege of Rouen (1418–19) through to Elizabethan times.88
Length and weight differentiate the lancegay from these weapons. The dart was shorter than the javelot, and the lancegay longer than both.89 Unlike the lancegay, javelots and darts had barbed heads, delineating their primary function as throwing weapons. They were commonly used to gall horses as the point was difficult to extract. Darts were characteristically provided with fletches or metal vanes to stabilize their flight: “gavelocs enpennez,” and “enpennées et en ferrée de long fers.”90 In skilled hands, such as those of the young Perceval, darts could prove deadly and a hauberk could be penetrated “as easily as a cauliflower leaf.”91 Such romanticized hyperbole was not entirely without foundation, the duke of Lancaster being impressed by the penetrative effect of Castilian darts (1385).92 As gavelocs and darts were effective missiles, there would appear to be little need for a weapon with a longer shaft that did much the same thing, unless it also served another purpose. The key difference, therefore, and one crucial to its success, was that the lancegay and its cognates the archegaie and javeline, in addition to possessing l’aresteuil, had the appropriate length to be commonly utilized as thrusting weapons, which enabled them to be deployed in a variety of ways.
Who Carried the Lancegay?
In Europe, the light lance continued in use alongside its heavier counterpart, its function as a light cavalry weapon reinvigorated following contact with the lancegay or azagaie of the Spanish Moors and Venetian stradiots. The Moors were mounted on small, hardy Andalusian horses known as genets, originally brought over from North Africa in the eighth century.93 Their riders were called génétaires or jinetes, taking their name partly from the horse and partly from their weapon, the génétaire.94 Their riding style was completely different from that of European men-at-arms, who rode with the legs extended and angled slightly forward, with the rider braced against the cantle of the saddle. This position, known as à la brida, was designed to deliver and resist the shock of the couched lance. The horse was mostly governed by the bit and spurs with limited input from the legs, now regarded as essential for control in modern riding. In the jennet manner, chevaucher à la genette, the knees were bent and the stirrups short, bringing the calves much closer to the sides of the horse, allowing the greater control necessary for the sudden twists and turns of skirmish and light cavalry actions. The jennet saddle and snaffle bit assisted this process, the former having a relatively low pommel and cantle, while the latter had shorter reins which communicated directly with the horse’s mouth.95 The Spaniards adopted the same type of light cavalry as their Moorish opponents, using the same weapons and tactics. Henry IV of Castile (1454–74) was a great advocate of the jennet style of riding, dress, and weapons, which, despite initial opposition, became a popular and accepted part of Spanish military tradition.96 At the Garigliano (1503), Gonzalo de Cordoba rallied his troops mounted à la gineta.97
Greek and Albanian horsemen, who served Venice in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries during the Italian Wars also carried the lancegay and were known as estradiots or stradiots. The name possibly derives from the Greek stratiotus, meaning a soldier, or the Italian strada, “one who wanders the roads,” as most were Christian exiles who had settled in Italy and Greece, having been displaced by the Turks.98 There is also a possible association with estradeur, from estrade meaning both a skirmish and a route. Estradeurs, also known as batteurs d’estrades, were essentially coureurs, acting as both scouts and skirmishers.99 However, by the late fifteenth century the term is only used in reference to estradiots.100 Impressed by their light cavalry skills, the Venetians used these troops in their wars against the Turks (1463–79), developing a complement of six squadrons by 1483.101 Stradiots were introduced into northern Europe as part of Venetian armies during the Italian Wars. Commynes considered them similar to génétaires, being stout and hardy, consisting of both horse and foot, and possessing swift Turkish horses, noting that “they will plague an army terribly when they once undertake it.”102 They slept on the ground beneath their horses with their cloaks thrown over the animals’ backs for protection.103 After their appearance during the Fornovo campaign (1495) where they unnerved the French, they were rapidly incorporated into other European armies. Charles VIII of France recruited 8,000 in the following year. Some fleeing Greece before a further Turkish invasion were granted asylum in the Holy Roman Empire and entered the service of Charles V. Others employed by Henry VIII in 1545 raided southern Scotland in the same year. Their last appearance in England was during the suppression of Kett’s rebellion (1549) and in France at Ivry (1590).104 In Spanish armies, jennets and stradiots sometimes fought together.105 However, not all those in French service were Albanians, being a mixture of Greeks, Italians, and French, who often mingled lightly-armed men-at-arms among their stradiots for support.106 Indeed, it became fashionable to adopt the dress, weapons, and riding style of jennets and stradiots, something which Don Quixote was to lament.107 Francesco de Gonzaga the marquis of Mantua was “monté et armé a l’albanoise aveques grant nombre d’autres.”108 Similarly, Monsieur de Cheveron “monté sur ung stradiot” was clothed and armed “à la mode de Turquie,” while Loys d’Ars and his men were mounted on “vistes estradiotz.”109 In 1551, the Venetian ambassador noted that part of the English light horse was “armed in the Albanian fashion.”110
The equipment of the jennets and stradiots seems to have varied over time. Originally jennets wore little armor due to the desert conditions and tactics of their North African Maghrib heritage. However, on the Iberian Peninsula, leather, quilted clothing, and short mail coats were adopted, those of Christian Spain being better armored than their Muslim counterparts. Initially jennets carried a shield and two small throwing spears, but later adopted the lancegay.111 Smythe considered stradiots “a kinde of light horsemen that have been used of many yeares both in Italie, Fraunce, Spaine and Germanie, although in their weapons and manner of arming, every Nation hath differed one from another more or less.”112 Molinet thought them unarmored, while Commynes considered them similar to génétaires, being quite well-armored for light cavalry with a cuirass, mail sleeves, and gloves, but dressed like Turks with a chapeau Albanois instead of a turban.113 Jean d’Auton noted their long Turkish robes could present a problem when trying to draw a secondary weapon.114 Benedetti (1496) commented that they had lancegays, swords, shields, and leather corselets with a few wearing breastplates, something confirmed by d’Auton.115 Gay stated that they were armed with a sallet, jack, and mail sleeves and rode with long stirrups in contrast to génétaires. Edward Hall, however, described the stradiots before Guinegate (1513) as being: “with short stirrups, beaver hats,” small spears and swords like Turkish scimitars.116 The Discipline militaire noted that in addition to the zagaye, they carried a club or mace.117
Fifteenth-century Burgundian ordinances firmly placed the javeline/lancegay with the coustilliers, the mounted auxiliaries of the lance group, whom Buttin considered forerunners of the chevaux-légers.118 The weapon was also carried by valets de guerre, as when a varlet in the service of the seigneur de Bausignies, “une javeline en sa main,” rescued Jacques de Lalaing from the Ghentish pikes.119 Some evidence suggests that the lancegay may have been used by mounted archers.120
However, from its inception, the archegaie/lancegay was also commonly used by knights and men-at-arms, as with Chaucer’s Sir Thopas and the knight in the Gest of Robyn Hode. Guiart, writing shortly afterwards, described the Flemings in 1304 being pursued by knights carrying both lances and archegaies.121 Eustace Deschampes (c.1346–1407) placed the weapon alongside other knightly accoutrements: “cheval, harnoys ou archegaye.”122 The poet John Lydgate (1370–1451) considered it part of “best araye,” with “Here long suerde and here launcegaye.”123 Muster rolls give numerous examples of men-at-arms, usually in lighter armor, equipped with the javeline or lancegay. For example, the convocation of the nobility of La Marche and Combrailles at Guéret (1470) lists among the “chevaliers et seigneurs châtelains,” Jean de l’Aige, Vincent Palent, Jean Dubois, and a great many squires equipped with “brigandine, sallade et javeline.”124 The phrase is also repeated numerous times in the lists of the nobility of Evreux in 1469 and those of the bailliages of Caux and Gysors (1470). Some armed in “corset complet” have a mounted page to carry their javeline.125 At the siege of Beauvais (1472), the bishop, hoping to break out, was armed in a brigandine and mounted “la javelin au main.”126 Joan of Arc probably carried the lancegay since, as previously noted, the actions of brandishing and shaking were impossible with the heavier weapon and Joan’s skills with the lance are invariably described in these terms.127 Archegays are found on several medieval works of art depicting knights, particularly Saint George.128 The bronze by Francesco Fanelli (1577–1641) shows the hero gripping the lancegay with both hands.129 The most iconic portrait of all is Titian’s depiction of Charles V at the battle of Mühlberg (1547), thought to show the emperor in the image of Saint George or Marcus Aurelius. Charles personally fought in the battle but, instead of full armor, is shown as a light horseman with an open helmet, partial plate defences, and leather boots instead of leg harness. Tobias Capwell considers that Titian painted him as he was armed on the day with the intention of demonstrating the emperor’s military skill and awareness of modern tactics, as the battle was won by light cavalry.130 Charles has a wheel-lock pistol holstered on his saddle and carries an archegaie without an arrêt de lance or handgrip, held in the underhand position by the middle of the shaft. An arrêt de cuirasse is folded on the breastplate illustrating an alternative way in which the archegaie could be used.131 The emperor’s holding of the archegay attests to its popularity and reputation as a valuable and effective weapon, even in an age of more sophisticated firearms.
The weapon had already acquired a ceremonial status, as when Charles VI rode in procession to Notre Dame in 1409 to give thanks for his return to health, followed directly by a page carrying “ung moult belle archigaye.”132 The lancegay owned by Sir John Fastolf was prominently displayed at Caister castle (1448), and that of Hugh Middleton, the commander of the English Knights Hospitaler at Rhodes, emblazoned with his coat of arms. John Scrope bequeathed his “launchgay” to his brother in 1452, along with his courser and battle axe.133
In England, the lancegay was used by all classes, and considered “immensely popular,” especially by mounted men-at-arms, who wished to “ride fast and light.”134 Armor was modified to accommodate it and two versions of the right pauldron are found from 1430 onwards, one with a much smaller aperture, suitable only for a demi-lance or lancegay.135 At the other end of the social scale, John Melburn of Nottingham was involved in an action against a weaver for the return of a lancegay shaft.136
In parallel with the lancegay’s adoption by nobles and men-at-arms, it also acquired an unwholesome reputation as an instrument of lawlessness and murder, being the preferred weapon of armed bands who rode throughout the countryside terrorising the population. Indeed, the weapon was surrounded with notoriety ever since its first appearance within an English context. Richard II’s statute of October 1383, proclaimed in every county, banned it from the realm, declaring that “no man should ride about the kingdom in armor, chivache deinz le roame, nor carry a lancegay.”137 The statute, designed at curtailing armed militias, was clearly ineffective and had to be repeated in 1397. The lancegay is identified as a significant weapon of mounted warfare since not only is the word repeated several times in both statutes, but a codicil states that the practice could be allowed only with the king’s permission.138 Similar proclamations were issued by other English monarchs between 1380–1460: “the which launcegays be clearly put out of the said Realm, as a thing prohibited by our lord the King.”139 The statutes attempted to deal with repeated lawlessness in which the lancegay played a prominent role, such as the serious dispute that arose between the tenants of Knaresborough forest and the officers of John Kemp, the archbishop of York, in May 1441. Several men were killed and wounded with lancegays used by both sides, Kemp hired two hundred men-at-arms, who rode around the countryside “like men of were with long spears and lancegayes.”140 In 1450 William Tresham, the speaker of the House of Commons, was accosted upon the open highway and murdered with a lancegay by Evan Aprice, while Thomas Tresham, his son, was badly wounded.141 In 1457 Henry VI issued a further proclamation against armed militias who were disturbing the king’s peace by riding about “cum lanceis, launcegayes, gleves,” but again with little effect. In 1469, Margaret Paston complained that her tenants were being terrorized by the retainers of William Yelverton, who “like men of were… ride with speres and laungegays.”142
Tudor and early Stuart records demonstrate that the javeline continued to be listed as a weapon responsible for fatalities in personal quarrels, brawls, and street fighting, where it could easily best those armed with a sword and buckler.143 Indeed, the weapon’s association with civil disorder and armed rebellion became proverbial, with the chronicler Edward Hall (1548) referring to Jack Cade, leader of the Kentish uprising in 1450, as a “rebellious javelyn.”144 The weapon also had a protective role with javelines carried by the Yeomen of the Guard (1520), who rode with Henry VIII “in his divers progresses,” and in defending money convoys.145 The military value of “propre Iavelyns” was noted in the Great Muster of London (1548), and the weapon was still being carried by the Yeomen in the Stuart period but perhaps more in a ceremonial capacity.146 In London, the javeline supplemented the arms of the night watch (1618), its extra length proving useful in the dark.147
Letters of remission and other documents suggest that the preference of lawless elements for the weapon was similar in medieval France. Once again, the weapon appears prominently in affrays and personal quarrels. In 1446 the Boyer brothers murdered Laurent Huart, the marshal, larding him with “coups de javelines et de dagues.”148 In 1468 Pierre de Cuillé and others operating from the old castle at Montjean, armed in jacks and mail gorgets and carrying javelines, preyed upon passers-by until the local inhabitants took matters into their own hands.149 In 1453 Jean de Fieffes thrust a javeline at the face of Jehan de Flavy in a confrontation at the Pont de Pierre. De Flavy’s horse carried him to safety but in the subsequent fracas, de Fieffes wounded several of de Flavy’s men with his javeline before he was finally overpowered and killed.150
As a military weapon, the lancegay/javeline was used both on horse and foot “tant à pied qu’ à cheval” and might be carried by footmen in large numbers.151 At Najera (1367), a significant part of the Castilian army consisted of “hommes à pied atout lances et archegaies.”152 The Burgundian ordinance of 1468 suggested that infantry should be armed with thrusting weapons, including “longues picques, voges et javelines,”153 Indeed, some nobles preferred to fight in this manner. During the Burgundian assault on Picquigny (1471), the seigneur de Roussy, armed in a brigandine, remained on foot with the archers, fighting valiantly “la gaveline où poin,” killing and wounding several opponents before capturing a fully armored man-at-arms.154
How Was the Lancegay Used and Why Was it So Effective?
To understand why the lancegay remained in favor well into the sixteenth century, it is necessary to examine the problems inherent in the use of the heavy war lance. Improvements in defensive armor meant that to achieve a lethal penetration the lance was couched under the right axilla, so that the power of the blow was delivered primarily by the speed and momentum of the horse. Further advancements in defensive equipment resulted in lances becoming heavier to achieve the same effect, sometimes weighing up to 18kg and placing an enormous strain upon the right arm and wrist.155 To counter this, men-at-arms often rested the lance on the upper border of the shield to support the weapon during couching. A notch was provided to prevent the shaft from sliding off laterally, hence the curved, notched horseman’s shield of the fifteenth century. A further development was provided by the arrêt de cuirasse, a curved hook around 15cm in length attached to the right side of the breastplate. The lance was placed in the arrêt de cuirasse prior to couching so that the device took some of the weight but principally acted as a fulcrum to control the descent of the shaft. The arrêt de cuirasse appeared in France in the mid-fourteenth century and rapidly became widespread so that the heavy war lance became entirely dependent upon it. The appliance coincided with the development of plate armor as it could not be fitted to mail because it required a firm base. The lance could only be held in the arrêt de cuirasse for a short period, so timing was crucial: a man-at-arms had to bring his horse to the gallop, gain momentum, and then couch his lance in the device when close to his opponent, so that the weapon would be almost horizontal as the strike was made. If the target was missed or the lance couched too early, it would have to be dropped as its weight made it impossible to recover.156 The maneuver required strength, considerable practice, and a great deal of skill, the experienced being able to deliver a blow of unprecedented force. However, as Commynes noted, such expertise was beyond many men-at-arms, so that in wartime it was difficult to assemble a sufficient number of horsemen who could use the lance correctly.157 The heavy lance could only be held in the vertical position before couching, making all maneuvering difficult, and, if it did not break on contact, the rider might well be unhorsed. Consequently, in the rigors of battle it was often jettisoned, as at Montlhéry (1465), Fornovo (1495), and Guinegate (1513).158 Moreover, the heavy war lance had to be held across the horse’s neck to maintain balance, meaning that opponents could usually only be engaged on the rider’s left side. The lighter lancegay, however, could easily strike at an adversary on the right after the Turkish fashion, making it an ideal weapon for engaging infantry.159 Furthermore, as the effectiveness of the heavy lance was entirely dependent upon the momentum of the horse, it was useless when the animal was brought to a halt. The lancegay/javeline was, therefore, frequently preferred as a lighter, more versatile alternative, which could be deployed even when the horse was stationary. Consequently, as William Camden noted, the weapon could be used both offensively and defensively.160
While it might appear that the light lance was easier to use, it still required experience and skill to be fully effective.161 Among those accustomed to the weapon, the manner of its deployment was intuitive, and passed from one generation to another. The formulation of the various positions of the light lance into military treatises, which highlighted skill over brute force, suggests little change from ancient times through the medieval and Napoleonic periods to the modern era.162 In essence, it was the physical nature of the weapon itself that dictated the manner of its use and determined the tactics employed to deliver its full potential, factors that, as we have mentioned, were contingent upon the possession of suitable horses and good riding skills.
Handling the Weapon
The great advantage of the lancegay/javeline was that it could be carried by the rider himself and unlike the heavy lance did not require the services of a page.163 Hence it could be pointed instantly at an adversary in a single movement without the need for an intervening en garde position. Furthermore, the lighter armor of those who carried the lancegay, the quality of their horses, and the celerity with which the weapon could be deployed, meant that such troops were immediately available to take the field, much to the surprise of their enemies.164 The lightness of the weapon, which depended upon its length and weight, gave it great versatility. The lancegay could be thrust, brandished, or thrown, used with the arm lowered, or couched under the right axilla with or without an arrêt de cuirasse.165 Ease of deployment meant that when required, the weapons could be couched in unison, thus preserving cohesion, a vital aspect of the charge. The weapon’s adoption by light horsemen enabled them to be quick and agile, particularly in difficult terrain, enhancing their ability to function as scouts or coureurs, skirmish on the flanks and rear, cover the retreat, and engage in a pursuit.
Sir John Smythe (1591) was so impressed that he advocated the lancegay for light horsemen, following “the use of the Moores.”166 However, he suggested a length of fifteen to twenty feet, a range in excess of the Macedonian sarissa (fifteen to eighteen feet), which seems impractical for a weapon whose main advantage was that it should be manipulated easily.167 The longer a weapon became, the more difficult it was to use with one hand.168 Excluding the motion of the horse, a quick downward thrust with a light lance using the power of the arm alone would have as much, if not more, striking power as a longer weapon whose greater inertia would be difficult for the arm and shoulder muscles to overcome.169 A weapon of the length suggested by Smythe would make all movements to the flanks and rear difficult; its only value being in a frontal charge when it would require both hands and have to be dropped if it struck the target. Gaebel argues that the principal weapon of Macedonian cavalry was not the sarissa but the 9–10 foot-long xyston, which, like the lancegay, was furnished with a butt-spike, and could be held with one hand.170 This is equivalent to the Napoleonic light cavalry lance, which was nine feet long and weighed about four pounds.171 British nineteenth-century lances were originally sixteen feet long but were found to be too cumbersome and unwieldy, so the weapon was reduced to just over nine feet in 1829, a length similar to that of the jineta.172 In summary, Langey’s description of the lancegay (1537): “longue de 10 à 12 pieds,” suggests a length far more practical than Smythe’s and much closer to the nineteenth-century British and Napoleonic lances. It also approximates well to George Silver’s “perfect length” for a half-pike or short staff, allowing the butt-spike to be easily brought into play whether on horseback or on foot.173
The absence of a handgrip meant that the lancegay/javeline could be lengthened or shortened depending upon the circumstances simply by moving the hand along the shaft. Extra reach could be obtained if l’aresteuil was positioned directly under the right shoulder, while, when too close to thrust at infantry, a shorter grip enabled the rider to cut with the lance head.174 The point of balance varied between weapons depending upon individual length and the weight of the butt-spike. Unlike the xyston, which was held two thirds away from the point to give a good reach for thrusting, the lancegay/javeline was usually grasped in the middle, as was the British nineteenth-century lance whose point of balance was approximately halfway down the shaft.175 Thus, Pietro Monte: “The horseman should use a jineta that he can wield by the middle with just one hand,” noting that the lance should be held in this way to “deflect the opponent’s spear encounter.”176 Fiore recommended clasping the lance in the middle for the underhand strike.177 Irish horsemen of the medieval period also grasped the lance in the middle, but it was always held in an overarm position and never couched.178
Smythe (1591) repeatedly emphasizes several key features of the lancegay, relating to its use at close quarters: the “double heads of good hard temper,” “the two steeled heads,” “striking both forwarde and backwarde,” charging “in frunt, flanks and backe,” and the ability to kill or wound the enemy’s horses when pursued, all factors crucial to the lancegay’s success.179 The second sharpened point enabled the rider to strike in several directions almost simultaneously both front and back, something recommended by Xenophon, who suggested that the second cavalry javelin, also furnished with a butt-spike, could be used at close quarters in a similar manner, thrusting “in front, on the flank or in the rear.”180 Alessandro Malatesta noted that, when surrounded by enemies, a knight could use the sharpened rear point of the lancegay in a similar manner: “striking with it both in front and behind.”181 Thus, the weapon could be held in one hand or in both hands to give a forceful blow, and could be employed against several opponents at once. Monte (c.1492) pre-dated Smythe in recommending that in close mounted combat the weapon should be held in the middle with both hands, making it easier to parry and give a series of long and short blows in quick succession.182 Langey thought stradiots should practice the maneuver “with both hands giving first one point and then the other,” as did Smythe, who recommended that they “learne to handle their weapons with great dexteritie.”183 A commentary on Johannes Liechtenauer’s mounted combat (c.1452) stressed that when closing with the enemy the lance should be held in the middle with both hands across the saddlebow so that it could be forcefully swung across to the right to parry and strike at an adversary. All three of Liechtenauer’s guards recommend that the left hand could be added to the shaft to give more strength when needed.184 Fiore has an illustration of the lance being held in the middle with both hands to give a lethal strike to an opponent’s horse.185
The three common positions for a mounted attack with the light lance were illustrated by Fiore in his assault upon the defending master.186 They were as follows: the lance held overarm with the thumb facing backwards, a position from which the weapon could either be thrown or used to make one or more downward thrusts; the couched position with the lance held under the right shoulder; and the underhand position with the lance held low, the thumb facing forwards. Duarte considered four forces necessary for a successful overhand strike: the power of the arm, bodyweight, the force of the hand or wrist, and the motion of the horse. The overarm position, however, was difficult to maintain due to the strain placed on the arm muscles, and was the one from which various actions might result in the rider falling from his horse.187 Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, this was the stance used before all others by Irish horsemen.188 Couching the lance beneath the right axilla, on the other hand, allowed the weapon to be fully extended, while from the underhand position with the lance held in the middle of the shaft, the point could be thrust upwards at an opponent’s horse, face, or groin. Unlike missile weapons such strikes did not lose momentum on contact as the rider’s arm continued to impel the lance forward.189 In the lowered arm position, where momentum was gained by balancement, it was important that the shaft be held with the whole hand, fingers and nails uppermost, so that if the thrust was parried, the weapon was unlikely to be knocked from the rider’s grasp.190 This position, recommended by de Brack and Montmorency, is shown in Titian’s portrait of Charles V and more clearly on one of the knights in the twelfth-century collection of Lewis chessmen (Figure 1).
Figure 1 Lewis Chessman. © The Trustees of the British Museum.
The lance or spear is shown in the lowered hand position, grasped firmly in the middle of the shaft with the thumb forward and the fingers and nails uppermost. The saddle has a cantle and the rider’s knees are slightly bent.
However, alternating between the upper and lower arm positions required the handgrip to be changed, a maneuver which could be problematic, especially when engaged with the enemy, as it was both for Greek hoplites and Napoleonic lancers. Techniques involved momentarily taking the weapon in the left hand before passing it back to the right or using the throw and catch method. The latter has been considered simple and effective with practice but in the heat of battle this is open to conjecture.191 Montmorency (1820) disapproved of its use, having seen the weapon dropped on numerous occasions.192 However, with a weapon like the lancegay with equally sharp points at both ends such a maneuver might not always have been necessary.
In the couched position the weapon was held under the right arm with the elbow and forearm holding the shaft firmly to the chest wall two inches below the breast. The rider could then rely on the movement of the horse to make a strike and/or extend his right arm to make a thrust. From this position, as noted by de Brack and Montmorency, the rider was envisaged as being at the center of a circle with the lance as the diameter, capable of giving a deadly thrust to any point on the circumference. Held at the point of balance, thrusts could be made “along the longitudinal line of the lance in all directions around the rider,” in addition to cuts and parries.193 If the rider wished to point to the right, he twisted his body in that direction, while supporting his lance between the forearm and his back. If he pointed to the left, he twisted leftwards, swinging the lance in a horizontal semicircle over the horse’s head, before resting the shaft on his left forearm or elbow.194 These maneuvers, which tend to be associated with lancers of the Napoleonic period, had already been largely described by Duarte, who noted the importance of resting the lance on the left arm in order to protect the flank and rear:
There are other manners of aiming and hitting with the spear, for example on the left arm. Some people consider this way better than the other in battle, for they say that from there they can turn it more easily whenever it pleases them, and also they can better strike to that side and backwards.195
Duarte also stressed the importance of practicing with the lance on foot before attempting to wield it on horseback, a dictum later espoused by Montmorency.196 For ancient Greek horsemen and Napoleonic lancers “the thrust, which allowed blows to be struck at the greatest distance from the rider, was most effective to the front.”197 The technique recommended by Xenophon and reinforced by de Brack and Montmorency was that, when approaching mounted opponents, “the shaft should pass over the horse’s head with the point at the level of the animal’s ears.”198 The main thrust might also be preceded by one or more short jabs or feints intended to deceive or unbalance the opposing rider, a tactic well known to medieval horsemen and one still enshrined in the British Lance Drill of 1912.199 After striking an opponent it was important to withdraw the point quickly to avoid injuries to the wrist and elbow and the even worse scenario of losing the weapon or being unhorsed. When attacking infantry, downward thrusts could be made at the head, neck, and chest, or if the enemy was too close for a thrust, the lance could be shortened by moving the hand and an oblique cut made at the head and arms. For cuts and parries, de Brack and Montmorency, like Duarte, stressed the importance of keeping the weapon pressed firmly between the chest, right elbow, and upper arm to prevent it from being displaced.200 Fiore recommended placing the lance under the opposing left arm in a similar fashion so that it was more difficult to set aside.201
In the Boar’s Tusk position described by Fiore, the lance was couched under the right arm with the point held low and to the left. This was useful in dealing with an opponent with a longer weapon, as the point could then be raised diagonally to beat the adversary’s lance aside while striking him through the body. In the Queen’s or Woman’s Guard, the rider with the shorter lance could perform a similar movement by holding his weapon across his chest. Montmorency (1820) recommended the same defensive attitudes: “keeping the lance point well down when facing swordsmen,” and “parrying with the lance strong across the chest.”202 Fiore advised that in both positions the butt-spike could be brought into play, a maneuver which continued to be described in the British 1912 regulations.203
Two other important movements of the lance were known and practiced in the Middle Ages. The first was a flamboyant but rather hazardous way of changing the direction of the weapon known as the “St George,” whereby the rider raised the lance above his head, balanced it on his open palm, and used his forefinger to twirl it in the required direction. The maneuver was familiar to Duarte, although he did not consider spinning the lance above the head useful: “men who do it well display good fluidity.”204 The second, an all-round parry, the “alentour parez,” was deployed when the rider was surrounded or being pressed closely in retreat. The lance was held firmly pressed against the trunk by the right arm and elbow, and then swung twice in a full circular movement from front to rear. The blade’s horizontal sweep could parry other weapons and deliver deep cuts to both cavalry and infantry. The “round parry” was favored by Montmorency and de Brack, for “the blow cannot fail to reach the man, or the head of the horse,” either dismounting an opponent or stopping his horse short.205 De Brack witnessed an experienced Cossack unhorse one of his men at Eylau (1807) using the “alentour parez,” and another use the Boar’s Tusk guard to make a forceful left parry with his shorter weapon against a charging French lancer, thus demonstrating that such actions came naturally to those familiar with the light lance.206 The fact that Gascon cavalry at Rouvray (1429) twirled their lances round (tournoierent) in a similar fashion to protect their horses from arrow fire strongly suggests that such maneuvers were well within their capability.207
Against an armored opponent, striking at the vulnerable areas of the face, neck, and axilla might unbalance him or force him to turn his horse away. Moreover, as Le Jouvencel noted, the lance point had an uncanny knack of finding out the weak points in any armor.208 The comparison of ancient and medieval techniques with those of the Napoleonic weapon and the simple guards used by British cavalry during the First World War demonstrate what was possible with a lance of similar length and weight, indicating that the lancegay was a versatile and highly effective weapon at close quarters, helping us understand why it remained so popular throughout the Middle Ages and sixteenth century.209
Although the lancegay/javeline might be couched without an arrêt de cuiraisse, it could, when necessary, be used with the device to give a forceful strike not dissimilar to that of its heavier counterpart. This was clearly a very effective use of the weapon, as witnessed by the insistence in the Burgundian ordinances that coustilliers should be equipped with armor capable of supporting an arrêt de cuiraisse: “absolument être a tout arrêt.” Hence, in addition to a gorget and sallet, they were furnished with “corset blanc” or a brigandine above which a steel plate or placard fitted with an arrêt de cuiraisse was attached.210
The lancegay/javeline could also be thrown both on horseback and on foot, thus combining the actions of a thrusting weapon with those of a missile. Throwing on foot required a run-up, and casting the weapon from horseback was more effective, the aim being to throw as far and as accurately as possible.211 Riding à la jineta was extremely advantageous for throwing as the rider had a more central position within the saddle, and could stand up in his stirrups to “put extra power and height behind the throw.”212 The motion of the horse delivered power to the blow and enabled the projectile to travel a third further than when thrown on foot.213 It was considered best to throw towards the side and turn the horse away when the spear was released, as throwing towards the front could result in the horse running on to a poorly launched missile. With the jineta held in the middle, a horseman might feign a throw when closing with an enemy before striking him as he moved to avoid the threatened cast.214 The late sixteenth-century frescoes of the battle of Higueruela (1431) in the Escorial palace depict significant skirmishing between the better-armed Spanish jennets and their Moorish counterparts, with lancegays being thrown, deployed overarm, used for thrusting, or couched underarm to strike at the horses.215
In addition, the lancegay could be used on foot in the manner of a half-pike or quarterstaff against other footmen or mounted opponents. Smythe preferred the half-pike over the pike as it was easier to carry and could be deployed more quickly.216 Unlike the heavy war lance, the lancegay did not need to be cut down. Heavy lances were often cut down to about five feet to aid manipulation and prevent fracturing when used in dismounted combat, as at Auray (1364), Poitiers (1356), Calais (1350), and Thorigny (1359).217 Fiore’s guards could be used both on horseback or on foot, especially with a half-pike or quarterstaff; the latter, as shown in Silver’s drawing, was commonly furnished with sharp iron points at both ends, making it deadly in experienced hands.218 In foot actions, staff weapons, such as the lancegay/javeline had a considerable advantage, as their length could be altered quickly by moving the position of the hands, while turning required only short movements of the feet. The angle of attack could be altered instantly by minor movements of the shaft, enabling the desired combination of cuts to the head and face and thrusts at the body to be made rapidly and with considerable force: “the one breedeth the other.”219 Thrusts, difficult to parry, could be delivered “with brutal speed,” while the weapon had the advantage of range both in offense and defense especially against the sword, giving the bearer a “formidable capability to feint and disengage.”220 To bring the sharpened “contrarie end of the staffe” into play to prevent an enemy from closing, the shaft should not protrude more than a foot from the backmost hand.221
Monte thought the jineta the best weapon for dealing with a charging horse, the key being to stand one’s ground as turning to run was fatal. The weapon was held in one hand with the butt touching the ground, while a javelin or stone was thrown at the rider with the right. As the horseman approached, the jineta was to be taken with both hands to displace the opponent’s weapon while springing to one side and aiming blows at the horse and rider as they passed. An alternative was to use the Boar’s Tusk position with the point lowered to parry the lance, step aside and make cuts and thrusts at the rider’s head, bringing the “well-tempered steel of the butt,” into play to strike at the right side of his face.222 Although these maneuvers seem hazardous, Fiore’s confidence in their success remained unshaken.223 The defensive actions described by Liechtenauer are similar, including the more desperate measure of throwing the lance between the horse’s front feet to make it stumble or fall.224
The lancegay/javeline was capable of inflicting serious wounds either by thrusting, particularly with both hands, or when thrown.225 There are several references to the unexpected force of its blows, Fiore referring to the “great thrusts,” dealt both from horseback and on foot, which were “dangerously strong,” giving death at a single blow, while Molinet noted the “cops fort soubdains.”226 The lancegay was particularly effective against those who were poorly armored but could also penetrate armor at close quarters, in addition to being used by the experienced to exploit the vulnerable areas of fully armored men.227 When used with both hands as a “punching stave,” the weapon could pierce plate armor, something confirmed by Cesare d’Evoli who noted that the lancegay could penetrate both plate and mail as well as any lance.228 Despite being well armored, Frederick of Bohemia was killed instantly, pierced through the body by a lancegay: “feru parmy le corps.”229 The death of William Douglas, killed fighting the Moors in 1334, is described in similar phraseology.230 Frederick II’s brother, captured in a skirmish near Rome, was slain by a foot soldier with a malicious thrust: “féri d’une archegaie parmy le corps.”231 In 1450 William Tresham was murdered with a vicious blow from a lancegay that “smote (him) thorough the body a fote and more.” At the Garigliano (1503), the weapon’s ability to inflict a mortal wound is described in identical terms when Bayard, “une javeline au poing,” struck a Spanish captain through the axilla, the weapon penetrating “plus d’ung pié luy mist dedans le corps.”232 The depth of such penetrations was similar to the average achieved by the British cavalry lance during the First World War.233
Tactics
The strength of cavalry consists in good horsemanship and not being clad in heavy defensive armour.234
The nature of the lancegay/javeline, the possession of suitable horses, and the acquisition of appropriate riding skills determined the tactical deployment of the weapon, factors which allowed light-horsemen to excel in skirmish warfare, doing “great execution in the fielde” against other horsemen and disordered foot.235
Horsemanship was an essential component of light cavalry, and both jennets and stradiots were accomplished riders and renowned for their strong, hardy, and swift mounts. Xenophon considered that: “success in an attempt to pursue or retreat depends on experience of horses and their powers,” a statement later endorsed by Montmorency (1820).236 Stradiots and jennets were with their horses constantly, their riding style enabling them to make the quick, short turns essential for skirmish warfare, including the skills to pick up discarded weapons from the field without losing speed.237
Their tactics were similar to those employed by the Turks against the crusaders. The pace and agility of their mounts allowed them to remain at a distance from the enemy so that they could choose the right moment to close.238 When charged by heavy cavalry, they scattered so as not to present a solid target for the men-at-arms, and then returned to the fray like flies that could be beaten off but not driven away.239 They were masters of the feigned flight and used their mobility to attack the flanks and rear, always trying to surround their enemy or attack him on the march. Taylor considered their tactics were like the Turks but without the missile component.240 However, some carried javelins or bows instead of the lancegay, and stradiots were often mixed with mounted crossbowmen, a stratagem used by the Italians during the Fornovo campaign (1495).241 The success of this tactic was not lost on Smythe who suggested that stradiots fight in small groups of up to twenty individuals combined with mounted crossbowmen. These “little troups” should hover on the wings of the opposing squadrons of cavalry, taking advantage of any disorder within their ranks to rush in and kill or wound the enemy’s horses with their zagaias.242 They should pretend to fly in dispersed small groups so that the heavier cavalry would not know whom to pursue, and perplex their opponents with “false charges” and “terrible shouts.” Against mounted men-at-arms the stradiots formed a semi-circle, after the Hungarian or Turkish fashion, and when they were charged used their superior mobility to disperse and fall on the enemy’s flanks and rear, so that the heavier horse charged “onely the ayre.” This forced the men-at-arms to halt, face in all directions, and defend themselves “with great disadvantage” as they would have “not any ground nor roome to put their horses into any Carrire, nor to charge their launces into their rests.”243 Paulo Giovio made similar observations: “If they had the good fortune to throw the Gens d’armes into a little disorder, they soon made a great carnage amongst them, because being hand to hand pell mell with them, those heavy horsemen could make no use of their lances or scarcely move themselves.”244 In close combat the jennets’ riding style enabled them to easily out-maneuver their heavier opponents, who could not turn as quickly. Consequently, the men-at-arms, disordered and suffering from wounds to themselves and their horses, would be forced to drop their heavy war lances and have recourse to their swords, which, being shorter than the zagaias of the stradiots, were of little service. In mounted combat the sword could only strike effectively from the right side, while the double-headed lancegay could strike in all directions as the light horsemen entered “pelle melle” amongst them, using their weapons like “punching staves” to pierce armor, killing and injuring both men and horses.245 Not surprisingly, once disordered and faced with this situation, men-at-arms were easily taken prisoner. Warnery (c.1758) remarks that the tactics of hussars were identical to those of the Albanians: allowing heavy cavalry to charge into empty space and then falling on their flanks and rear with small groups or columns.246 This maneuver, later espoused by de Brack, resulted in better-armored opponents becoming dispersed so that they could be picked off one by one in the Turkish fashion.247
In these encounters, good horsemanship outclassed defensive armor. Riding à la jineta allowed better control of the horse, making it easier for the animal to become collected,248 meaning the horse was under control with the hocks under the body and the neck arched, so that the hindlegs were positioned for maximum effort, ready to move in any direction.249 This gave the rider a clear advantage in the mêlée where he could stop, start, and change direction at will, bringing his lancegay to bear at the right time while avoiding the weapons of less mobile opponents. The execution of “swirling turns” enabled a light-horseman to evade an adversary’s full-on frontal charge.250 As Xenophon noted, from a position of collection the rider could do the most damage to the enemy while avoiding hurt himself.251 Changing the lead at speed, a technique known to Breton horsemen from the ninth century, enhanced this ability.252
Flank attacks not only demoralized the enemy, but also benefited from the force of impulsion.253 In close combat, charging horses could shoulder barge or bump their opponents aside, which was how Charles the Bold was rescued at Montlhéry (1465).254 Ramming the flank of an enemy’s horse could bring it crashing to the ground or unbalance the rider, exposing him to attack. Shoulder barging was a natural competitive instinct among horses, which augmented by training could help isolate the enemy.255
The stamina and toughness of both horses and their riders was also important. At Vittoria (1367), Spanish jennets made a night attack on the Black Prince’s camp, killing many in their beds. As the weather deteriorated, they continued to harass the English, who, forced to bivouac in the open without either bread or wine, began to lose men and horses from exposure.256 Persistent rain penetrated the English armor, soaking their undergarments, reducing their body temperature, and making all movement slow and difficult, like the Carthaginians at Crimissus in 341 BCE. The jennets with their lighter equipment and sure-footed, hardy horses negotiated the muddy ground to cause havoc among their opponents.257 Medieval and later writers thought night the most favorable time for surprise attacks, with cold, snow, and rain being of great assistance, as the defenders were less well prepared and, wrapped in their cloaks and blankets, the acuteness of their hearing was diminished.258 At the Garigliano (1503) where both sides were affected by the weather, most of the French cavalry was withdrawn to towns ten miles in the rear for shelter and forage, while the Spanish jennets remained in the field to play a significant part in the victory.259
The lancegay also served as a trophy pole upon which stradiots tied or impaled the heads of their victims with the intention of frightening and demoralizing their opponents.260 Spanish jennets acted in the same way towards the Moors, engaging in mutilation and robbery.261 At Fornovo (1495), the stradiots’ unexpected attack against the outriders of the Marshal de Gié, and the sight of the heads of the slain on their lancegays, unnerved the French. Reports from terrified fugitives struck fear into the heart of Charles VIII, forcing him to halt and give battle.262 The gruesome habit and the sudden incursions of small groups of stradiots threatening false charges both night and day, caused constant alarm in the French camp, forcing the whole army to stand to. The French were simply unable to cope with this manner of fighting: “et nos gens ne les congnoissoient point encores,” a phrase which echoes Fulcher’s experience of the Turks at Dorylaeum (1147): “nobis omnibus tale bellum erat incognitum.”263 The French men-at-arms were so demoralized that on the retreat to Asti, they refused to cover the rear, contravening a key principle of war.264 Commynes says they behaved worse than women and it was left to the Swiss to act as a rearguard and keep the incessant attacks of the stradiots at bay, eventually driving them off with coulverine and harquebus fire.265
Jean d’Auton (1499) describes how stradiots skirmished with their weapons when pursued by men-at-arms, with numerous “fuytes et recharges,” and “recharges et chaces.”266 As soon as the heavier cavalry put spurs to their horses and lowered their lances, they would turn to flee, their lighter equipment and well-conditioned mounts enabling them to maintain their distance at a steady pace, “like the flight of a wolf.”267 This was the usual procedure when opposed to those who were better armed, as estradiots realized that their stuffed jacks would easily be pierced by the lances of the men-at-arms facing them.268 However, when their opponents became drawn out by the pursuit, the stradiots would turn altogether, “tous ensemble,” and charge, killing and wounding the pursuers with their zagaias.269 The speed of their charge was legendary, “comme tempeste,” their Turkish horses being “quicker than the wind,” as was the unexpected strength of their blows.270
In retreat the horseman’s right rear was the most vulnerable area, and riders were traditionally advised to turn the point of their lances to the rear to prevent an enemy from closing. Xenophon recommended that in retreat the “spear should point backwards.”271 The tactic was stressed by Fiore – who suggested that the rider should continually make backward thrusts to strike at his pursuer – and emphasized again by Montmorency in the nineteenth century.272 At the battle of Juvardeil (851), Breton cavalry used the technique as part of a feigned flight, “punching their javelins into the chests of their pursuers.”273Regino of Prüm274
Pointing the lance to the right rear was a difficult maneuver, that could alarm the horse as it involved swinging the point in a semi-circle over the rider’s head, changing grip, and then lowering the weapon while twisting to the right. The position made it difficult for the rider to control his mount or see clearly where he was going.275 However, the sharpened double heads of the lancegay made it possible to give point in both directions simultaneously, making such actions either unnecessary or less challenging. Consequently, it was easier to kill or injure the mounts of those who pursued too closely, striking, “their enimies and their horses that may uppon any retrait pursue them.”276 Von Danzig’s Fechtbuch (1452) recommended that if about to be struck in the back by an opponent’s lance while attempting to flee, you could set it aside with the hand or move forward onto the saddlebow, twist around and “thrust from both sides behind you… with each thrust sitting at the saddlebow.”277 After gaining some distance from the pursuer, a turn to the right made it easier to enter the Boar’s Tusk position, while the Queen’s Guard could be adopted by turning to the left.278
Monte and Smythe stressed the importance of killing or wounding the enemy’s horses, an unfortunate but necessary part of medieval warfare. The tactic was particularly important when facing stronger mounts such as those of men-at- arms: “fools aim their blows at the rider, not the horse, whereas the opposite is done by the wise.” 279 A wounded horse might rear, throw its rider, or turn round and expose him to attack. However, aiming at the left shoulder, head, or chest of an opponent’s charging horse with a heavy lance was a dangerous exercise. A mortally wounded animal would continue to advance and with its momentum either shatter the weapon or hoist the rider from his saddle.280 In contrast, the lancegay could be deployed against enemy horses in several different ways while remaining intact, either by striking at the animal’s forehead en passant or by attacking from the sides and rear. Striking from the rear was recommended as an injured animal would automatically free the point by galloping from it.281 The maneuver was perfectly suited to the stradiot tactic of dispersal into small groups and falling upon the flanks and rear. If one group was pursued by heavy cavalry, the others would, “by galloping in their troups by the hind corners of the squadron, wound their horses with their launcezagayas, and give them occasion to stay their pursuit.”282 This was all part of the tactic of wearing down and isolation in which light cavalry excelled, using their weapons to best advantage. An alternative was to throw the lance at the horse’s chest and continue the attack with the sword or scimitar.283 The Boar’s Tusk guard was also useful, with the lance point kept low to make strikes at the horse’s head or chest that were difficult to parry, especially against an opponent armed only with a sword, which could not defend below the horse’s neck.284
At St Jean de Luz (1523) Spanish jennets armed with the lancegay had no problem in besting French gendarmes, who had to be rescued by their infantry. Many lances were broken, but few on the Spanish side, because, “at that time the Spaniards only carried archegays with long, iron points at both ends.”285 This suggests that many Spanish men-at-arms were riding à la jineta and using their weapons in a completely different way to the heavy lance.286 Some gendarmes escaped across the river by holding onto the tails of their companions’ horses, suggesting that the Spaniards had used their archegays to kill the French mounts.287 Three of Monluc’s men, slow to retreat, were “tués de coups de h’arces gayes,” indicating the effectiveness of the weapon against those on foot.288
The lancegay proved deadly against disordered infantry, one chronicler noting how Moorish foot soldiers were cut down by jennets during the siege of Ronda (1408).289 Sir Walter Raleigh’s description of the battle of the Tagus (220 BCE) shows how an experienced soldier envisioned that the lancegay, also defined as telum punicum (the Carthaginian lance), might be used. Hannibal’s Numidian cavalry attacked the opposing footmen as they tried to cross the river. The Carthaginian cavalry carried:
a kind of lance de gai, sharp at both ends which, held in the midst of the staff, had such an advantage over the foot that were in the river under their strokes, clattered together… that they slew all those without resistance which were already entered into the water, and pursued the rest, that fled like men amazed, with so great a slaughter.290
The horsemen remained steady even in deep water and used their lancegays to fight either at close quarters or at a distance either by altering the grip on their weapons or deploying them as missiles. Light horsemen armed with lancegays often disputed river crossings, as at Seminara (1495) and the Bormida (1499).291 Fugitives on foot stood little chance, making the lancegay the perfect weapon for the pursuit. The more open helmets of the auxiliaries, such as those worn by coustilliers, gave better vision, and their lighter armor a more flexible riding style, allowing them to lean easily to one side and deal with those who had thrown themselves prone, hoping that the horsemen would ride past. A mounted swordsman riding à la bride could only target the head and neck of a standing opponent, while those who crouched, lay prone, or sought out cover received no mercy from the longer reach of the lancegay.292 According to nineteenth-century drill regulations, “no fugitive on foot could escape the lance,” as the weapon would “reach over walls or through hedges to seek him out.”293 Such an incident led to the capture of William Marshal (1147–1219), who was struck in the legs by a lance thrust through a hedge.”294
As mentioned previously, troops armed with the lancegay could be combined with those using other weapons, especially with mounted crossbowmen. Guiart demonstrated that the heavy and light lance could be used together, placing both in the hands of the knights who pursued the Flemings (1304).295 Indeed, the weapons complemented each other, particularly in skirmish actions. The combination of heavy lance and lancegay was used successfully against the Black Prince’s army during the Spanish campaign when French men-at-arms charged the English “les glaives es poings,” while the accompanying jennets threw “dardes et archigaies.”296 Sometimes men-at-arms armed with the heavy lance charged first to disperse and fragment their opponents, allowing the coustilliers with their lancegays to penetrate the enemy formation and finish things off.297 Giovio (1500) noted that the French men-at-arms were followed by chevaux-légers “who carried the demi-pique [lancegay] with which they were accustomed to spear, clouer à terre, the enemies whom their men-at-arms had knocked down during the battle.”298 On other occasions, as at Ronda (1408), jennets reconnoitered the terrain and cleared the way for the heavy cavalry to advance.299 Heavy cavalry often acted in support of lighter horsemen armed with the lancegay. At the defense of Barletta (1502), Gonzalo de Cordoba sent forward two hundred génétaires as skirmishers supported by three hundred mounted men-at-arms ready to exploit their success or sustain them if they were obliged to retreat.300 On a further occasion, génétaires supported by Spanish men-at-arms harassed the French rear.301 Troops armed with the lancegay could, therefore, be used in different ways: either to aid the men-at-arms, as at Cerignola (1503) or to be supported by them, especially when they acted as skirmishers or coureurs, which was frequently the case in the fifteenth century.302 In Spain, mixed squadrons of heavy cavalry and jennets fought together as at Olmedo (1467), using similar tactics.303 Sometimes jennets and stradiots were brigaded with infantry, but with unfortunate results when the units failed to act in coordination, as at Seminara (1495).304 Despite this reverse Gonzalo de Cordova used his jennets with great skill: isolating the garrison at Atella (1496) while he destroyed their flour mills, and at Cerignola (1503) preventing the French from assessing the Spanish position. When the French had exhausted themselves in the assault, he launched men-at arms from both flanks in combination with jennets to complete the victory.305 Again, at the Garigliano (1503), the part played by the jennets and stradiots in the pursuit “was a deciding factor in the operations which won Naples for Spain.”306
Thus far we have concentrated on how the lancegay in the hands of jennets and stradiots enabled light horsemen to secure their principal aims in dealing with heavy cavalry, which were to molest, disorder, and disperse them, closing for the kill when they were exhausted. The skills required probably developed from the cut and thrust of border warfare both in Spain and in the Balkans. The lancegay/javeline was, however, also the arm of lesser gentry, coustilliers, and the weapon of choice of many men-at-arms who formed the coureurs groups of the Late Middle Ages. These groups consisted of several troop types with different weapons: mounted archers; fully armored individuals without horse barding carrying the heavy lance; and men-at-arms with lighter equipment, who, together with their auxiliaries, such as coustilliers, carried a lancegay or javeline.307 Coureurs were usually well-mounted, experienced soldiers, often led by nobles, who formed flexible combat groups which performed a variety of functions. These included: chevauchée; reconnaissance in force; pursuit of a retreating opponent; luring him into an ambush; and long-distance raids on enemy encampments. They protected the foragers, harassed those of the enemy, and screened the army in a light cavalry role. It seems certain that a proportion of these troops adopted the jennet style of riding.308 The presence of mounted archers and fully-armored individuals gave the group resilience and flexibility, enabling it to act independently or hold its own until support arrived.309 The lancegay/javeline was particularly suited to this type of warfare which involved long periods of hard riding over difficult terrain and frequent skirmishing, as it was easy to carry and could be brought to bear immediately against the sudden appearance of an enemy. Le Jouvencel refers to cavalry carrying “archegaies et genetoires,” and to coustilliers preceding the main force.310 Coustilliers were involved in the pursuit when the English retreated from the siege of Orléans (1429), and in the dawn assault on Marchenoir (1427).311 Coureurs took part in numerous operations including: the surprise attack upon the French rearguard before Poitiers (1356), the capture of Poton de Xaintrailles at Beauvais (1431), as an advance guard at Patay (1429), and for the Burgundian army during the Ghent Wars (1449–53).312
Conclusion
Its moral effect is the greatest and its thrusts the most murderous of all les armes blanches.313
De Brack’s words echo those of Fiore who, centuries earlier, recognised the power of the lanza or light lance, for, “whoever watches it with its dashing pennant should be frightened with great dread,” as “it makes great thrusts which are dangerously strong, and with a single one it can give death.”314 The lancegay was simply one of the many names for the light lance, which over time included the archegaie, génétaire, javeline, zagaie, and half-pike. Despite the confusing nomenclature, they were all essentially the same weapon indicating a widespread geographical and chronological use. The demi-lance, possibly initially in the same category, soon diverged into a lighter version of the heavy lance, its deployment restricted to the couched position. The terms also became metonyms for the soldiers who carried the weapons, such as génétaires, javelins, and demi-lances, the last by the mid-sixteenth century eventually referring to mounted troops in three-quarter armor.
The light lance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, already furnished with an aresteuil or butt-spike, transitioned into the archegay/lancegay/zagaie with a second steel spear head, a feature possibly also present on the javeline. Butt-spikes, however, varied considerably in design, and apart from Fiore’s Flower of Battle, are rarely shown or given only token representation in contemporary illustrations. Thus, it is difficult to determine to what extent their use was common practice, although textual references attest to their presence.315
The versatility of the light lance and its ability to be manipulated easily on horseback was dependent upon its weight and length. The latter was ideally between nine and twelve feet, approximately the length of the Macedonian xyston and British and French cavalry lances of the nineteenth century. Longer lances were unwieldy and perhaps only effective in a frontal charge. As the lancegay lacked a handgrip, the length of the weapon could be altered simply by moving the hands along the shaft, being shortened to make cuts at infantry or lengthened by being couched underarm to give an extended thrust. In addition, it could be used with both hands to make a forceful parry or add penetrative power, particularly at close quarters when the weapon, gripped around the middle, could make thrusts in all directions, engaging several opponents at once. In experienced hands the lancegay/javeline achieved a degree of penetration not dissimilar to that of the British cavalry lance of the Great War.
The lancegay and its cognates were capable of a whole series of maneuvers not possible with the heavier weapon. Details of the handling of the light lance and its various guards began with the ancient Greeks and were enhanced and documented by medieval and Renaissance authors. The guards were all based upon movements that came naturally to those accustomed to the weapon, and whose riding skills enabled them to use it effectively without injuring the horse. The way in which the light lance was utilized and the tactics that developed from it remained essentially unchanged through the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries to the end of the First World War. The many comparisons of the works of Fiore, Duarte, and Monte with those of Langey and Smythe, and the later writings of de Brack, Montmorency, and the British Cavalry Regulations of 1912 demonstrate this concept.
The versatility of the lancegay/ javeline, which could be used overarm, underhand, couched with or without an arrêt de cuirasse, deployed against enemy horses, thrown, or utilized on foot, ensured its longevity as a favored weapon of mounted combatants that transcended class and region. It remained highly popular amongst all strata of society from emperors and knights to auxiliaries, foot soldiers, and brigands because it was both light and effective. Favored by jennets, stradiots, and coureurs, it became the light cavalry weapon par excellence, complementing the flexibility of their lighter armor, swift horses, and riding style. The lancegay was the ideal weapon for the twists and turns of skirmish warfare, for sudden attacks upon the enemy’s flanks and rear, equally swift retreats, and for fighting in difficult or mountainous terrain. As the success of light horsemen was largely dependent upon surprise, it was essential to possess a weapon that could be easily carried and deployed immediately. The lancegay/javeline enabled stradiots and coureurs to be prestz et ynel, “ready and rapid” to take the field.316 Hence their frequent employment as an avantgarde.
The importance of the weapon was endorsed by its continued presence in a protective and ceremonial role which lasted well into the mid-seventeenth century. The lancegay also worked well in combination with other arms, such as with mounted crossbowmen and later mounted harquebusiers, and in assisting heavy cavalry or being supported by them. The combination with other troop types was particularly effective among coureurs groups of the Late Middle Ages, enabling them to defeat enemy foragers, engage in raids or chevauchées, capture small towns, and win the battle for supply.
The ability to use the lancegay/javeline in the arrêt de cuirasse was a crucial factor in the weapon achieving its maximum potential, as it could now be couched with great impact, while retaining its varied and effective use in the free hand.317 Malcolm Vale has shown that the heavy war lance could secure victory on the battlefield in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries.318 However, it was the lancegay/javeline that often precipitated and exploited this success, enabling light cavalry to capitalize upon an enemy’s weakness, by constant harassment, interference with his communications and supply, and by exerting control over wide areas of terrain. The deployment of the lancegay highlighted the flexibility and sophistication of medieval mounted troops.
1 David Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf and the Diverse Affinities of the Medieval Lancegay,” South African Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 19 (2009), 97–116; David Scott-Macnab, “Sir Thopas and his Lancegay,” in Chaucer in Context, A Golden Age of English Poetry, ed. Gerald Morgan (Bern, 2012), pp. 109–19; David Scott-Macnab, “Lexical Borrowing and Code-Switching: The Case of Archegay/ Hasegaye/ Harsegay in The Middle Ages and Later,” Anglia-Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 130.2 (2012), 264–75; David Scott-Macnab, “Medieval Folk Etymologizing and Modern Misconstruals of Old French Archegaie,” Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur 123, no. 1 (2013), 33–49. »
2 Guillaume du Bellay, Seigneur de Langey, Discipline militaire, ed. Benoist Rigaud (Lyon, 1592), p. 51: “zagaye au poing, longue de 10. ou de 12. pieds.”; Victor Gay, Glossaire archéologique du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887), 1:54, “archizagaye au poing, longue de 12 pieds.”; Sir John Smythe, Instructions, Observations, and Orders Mylitarie (London, 1595), pp. 199–200. »
3 Jeremiah B. McCall, The Cavalry of the Roman Republic (Oxford, 2002), pp. 27–28. »
4 Kelly DeVries, Medieval Military Technology (New York, 1992), p. 13; François Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” Archaeologia 99 (1965), pp. 106–07; there is no evidence of a cross-guard below the lance-head, present on some lances to prevent too deep a penetration or ward off sword cuts that might sever the shaft: Charles Henry Ashdown, British and Continental Arms and Armour (New York, 1970), p. 49. »
5 Pietro Monte’s Collectanea: The Arms, Armour and Fighting Techniques of a Fifteenth- Century Soldier, trans. Jeffrey L. Forgeng (Woodbridge, 2018), p. 156. Monte began translating and expanding his own works between 1492 and 1509. »
6 Gay, Glossaire, 1:54: “La pointe ferrée au pied de la lance.” »
7 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 95–96. »
8 The butt-spike known as sturax or sauroter (lizard killer), is mentioned in the Iliad; its use expanded dramatically with the development of hoplite panoply: Homer, Iliad, trans. A. T. Murray and William F. Wyatt, Loeb Classical Library, 2 vols. (London, 1999), p. 459; J. K. Anderson, “Hoplite Weapons and Offensive Arms,” in Hoplites, The Classical Greek Battle Experience, ed. Victor Davis Hanson (London, 1993), p. 24; Victor Davis Hanson, “Hoplite Technology in Phalanx Battle,” in Hanson, Hoplites, pp. 71–73. »
9 Polybius, The Histories, trans. W. R. Paton, 6 vols., The Loeb Classical Library (London, 1922–27), 3:325–27; McCall, Cavalry of the Roman Republic, pp. 27–28. »
10 The Ancient Greeks considered butt-spikes sufficiently important to be engraved and dedicated to the gods: the bronze spear-butt in the Metropolitan Museum New York c.500 BCE has a total length of 42.3cm and is dedicated to Castor and Pollux. A. M. Snodgrass, Arms and Armour of The Greeks (London, 1967), p. 80; Peter Connolly, Greece and Rome at War (London, 1981), p. 67; Robert E. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Norman, 2002), p. 163. For the Byzantine cavalry lance: https://www.paleodirect.com (accessed 13 January 2021). »
11 Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 170: the wall painting on Kinch’s tomb near Naoussa, Macedonia shows a rider’s lance of 8.1–9.2 feet with a second spearhead at the rear. The second spearhead or a butt-spike “may well have been normal” in Alexander’s time. John Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons in Europe, 3 vols. (London, 1855–60), 1:29, notes Anglo-Saxon spear-butts could vary from a hollow spike, as with those in the Fairford graves, to a metal button. The Flower of Battle of Master Fiore Friulano de’i Liberi, Being a Concordance of the Prefaces and Several Plays from His Four Extant Manuscripts, trans. Kendra Brown, Michael Chidester, Rebecca Garber, Colin Hatcher, and Guy Windsor, ed. Michael Chidester (n.p., 2016), pp. 400, 405, 407 shows developed spear heads as butt-spikes: https://hroarr.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2016/08/wiktenauer-Fiore-de-i-Liberi-compilation-2016.pdf. Fiore de Liberi, The Flower of Battle, trans. and ed. Benjamin Winnick and Richard Marsden (New York, 2018), 6v. »
12 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, pp. 390, 397, 400, 405, 407, 421; Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, pp. 2r, 2v, 6v, 7r. Ken Mondschein, The Knightly Art of Battle (Los Angeles, 2011), pp. 47, 85, 87,102, 106, gives illustrations from the Getty manuscript. For token representation see Gabriel Daniel’s engraving of a stradiot (1721) in Gilbert John Millar, “The Albanians: Sixteenth-Century Mercenaries,” History Today 26 (1976), p. 469. The end of the lance depicted in Ungarische Lanzenreiter (1530) has a barely discernible spike: Heinrich Muller, Albrecht Dürer Waffen und Rüstungen (Mainz, 2002), p. 18. »
13 Duarte I of Portugal, The Book of Horsemanship, trans. Jeffrey L. Forgeng (Woodbridge, 2016), p. 130. »
14 Blaise de Monluc, Commentaires et Lettres, ed. Alphonse de Ruble, 5 vols. (Paris, 1864–67), 1:50, considered the lancegay the principal weapon of Spanish horsemen c.1521: “En ce temps-là les Espagnols ne portoient que des lance gayes, longues, & ferrées par les deux bouts.” Langey, Discipline militaire (1537), p. 51: “une zagaye au poing longue de 10 à 12 pieds, ferrée par chacun bout d’un fer bien aigu et trenchant.” Smythe, Instructions, Observations (1591) pp. 199–200: refers to the “double heads of good and hard temper.” Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 175. »
15 Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:516; Charles Boutell, Arms and Armour in Antiquity and The Middle Ages (London, 1907), p. 147; Chidester, The Flower of Battle, pp. 362, 363, show poleaxes with spearheads as butt-spikes. »
16 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 175; Scott-Macnab, “Sir Thopas and his Lancegay,” p. 111. »
17 Chrétien de Troyes, Erec et Enide (1180) cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 96; Gay, Glossaire, 1:54–55. »
18 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 96. When the shaft did break it was usually between the lance head and the point where it was gripped, which still left a reasonable length remaining to allow such a reversal to prove effective. »
19 William of Poitiers, Gesta Willelmi, in The Battle of Hastings: Sources and Interpretations, ed. Stephen Morillo (Woodbridge, 1996), p. 15: “more fearsome, armed with the butt of his spear than those who brandished long javelins.” »
20 Li Romance d’Amadas et Ydoine cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 96. Also “Que de l’arestoel de la lance/ Me ferries ja sans dotance”: “Without doubt I will strike with the aresteuil of my lance.” »
21 Aymon de Varennes, Roman de Florimont (1188), cited in Dictionnaire de l’ancienne langue française, ed. Frédéric Godefroy, 10 vols. (Paris, 1880–1902), 1:394. Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 96, where knights use their aresteuils to probe the depth of water; Gay, Glossaire, 1:55. »
22 Li romance de Garin le Loherain, ed. M. P. Paris, 2 vols. (Paris, 1833), 1:256: “de l’arestuel va le vassal férir.”; Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 96; Xenophon, Hellenica, 6. 2.18: Mnaisippos struck one of his company commanders with the butt-spike of his spear for disobedience. »
23 Murray and Wyatt, Iliad, 1:459 (bk 10, ll.153–54), where the comrades of Diomedes are sleeping, “their spears driven into the ground erect on their butt-spikes.” »
24 Lieut. Colonel Reymond Hervey de Montmorency, Proposed Rules and Regulations for the Exercise and Manoeuvres of the Lance Adapted for British Cavalry, Compiled from The Polish System Instituted by Marshal Prince Joseph Poniatowski and General Count Corvin Krasinski (London, 1820), p. 81. »
25 Antoine Fortuné de Brack, Cavalry Outpost Duties, trans. Camillo Carr, Leila Gazeilles, Lonsdale A. Hale et al. (Auzielle, 2008), p. 53. »
26 Gesta Henrici Quinti, The Deeds of Henry the Fifth, ed. and trans. Frank Taylor and John S. Roskell (Oxford, 1975), pp. 117–19: In contrast to the Latin palus used for the stakes at Agincourt, the defensive barrier at Valmont consisted of lancea light lances placed in the ground and pointed at the horses’ breasts. The Middle English Dictionary, eds. Hans Kurath, Sherman M. Kuhn, Robert E. Lewis et al. (Ann Arbor, 1952–2001) equates lancea with lancegay. »
27 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 173. »
28 Ibid., p. 96. »
29 Alan Larsen and Henry Yallop, The Cavalry Lance (Oxford, 2017), p. 62. »
30 Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 2:307–08: pennons were the long narrow flags or streamers, either triangular or swallow-tailed that were attached below the lance point. The pennon was the ensign of those knights who had not yet become bannerets. Pennons of the vanquished might be offered to an altar or shrine and preserved as trophies. Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 95. »
31 Les Chroniques de sire Jean Froissart, ed. J. A. C. Buchon, 3 vols. (Paris, 1879), 1:364: “considéré le convine de François, bannières et pennons et quel quantité ils étoient.” Chronique de Bertrand du Guesclin par Cuvelier, ed. E. Charrière, 2 vols. (Paris, 1839), 1:392; Louis Edward Nolan, Cavalry, Its History and Tactics (1854; repr. Yardely, 2007), p. 80: pennons might cause an enemy horse to bolt, but also attracted the attention of the artillery. »
32 Nigel de Lee, French Lancers (London, 1976), p. 8. »
33 De Brack, Cavalry, pp. 52–53, 110. »
34 Montmorency, Regulations, p. 35: the lance was rested on the right shoulder with the butt placed in the boot or bucket attached to the off stirrup. »
35 The last method is possibly that indicated by Sir Walter Scott in The Shepherd’s Tale: “a launcegay strong/ full twelve ells long/ by every warrior hung,” cited in The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1971), 1:1564. »
36 Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 102. »
37 R. C. Smail, Crusading Warfare (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 112–113, p. 113, n. 1. An exception being when the intention was to demonstrate prodigious strength, as in Perceval: “And then he took a good heavy lance in his hand, which he brandished with the lightness of a steel-tipped dart or javelin”: cited in Godefroy, Dictionnaire 1:721. »
38 Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 113, p. 113, n. 1. »
39 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 80, and plate XXXV where both the overhead and lowered arm positions are shown in the Bayeux Tapestry. »
40 Victor Davis Hanson, The Western Way of War, Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Sevenoaks, 1989), p. 163; Anderson “Hoplite Weapons,” p. 31. »
41 Walter Bower, The Scotichronicon, in “Illustrative Documents,” eds. Mark Arvanigian and Anthony Leopold in The Battle of Neville’s Cross 1346, eds. David Rollason and Michael Prestwich (Stamford, 1998), p. 154. »
42 Jean Bodel, Les Chansons des Saxons, 2 vols. (Paris, 1839), 2:160: “Chascuns point son cheval, s’a la lance brandie.” Le Roman de la Rose, cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 171. »
43 Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, 1405–1449, ed. Alexandre Tuetey (Paris, 1881), p. 232. »
44 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 90–91, 177: the fewter being the felt pad on the saddlebow on which the butt of the lance was rested in the vertical position before couching. »
45 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 171; Scott-Macnab, “Archegaie,” p. 38. »
46 Ibid., p, 34. »
47 Gay, Glossaire, 1:51: “aussi la lance des stradiots ferrée aux deux bouts. ” »
48 Compact O.E.D. 1:108. Archegay is rare in English. Scott-Macnab, “Lexical Borrowing,” pp. 267, 271 considers the earliest occurrence as 1500 in a Middle English translation of Jean d’Arras’s Mélusine, noting earlier references to hasegays. »
49 Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” p. 106, considers the word was combined with “the native French lance.” Gay, Glossaire, 2:68: “arme d’hast, baston ferré par le bout, qu’on nomme aussi… archeguay, hassaguaye et zaguaye.” Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 4:708–09: “lancegaie, lancegaye, launcegaie, s.f., javeline, zagaie, demi-pique, bâton ferré par le bout.” Ernest Weekley, The Romance of Words (London, 1911) p. 24: “a Berber word that passed through Spanish and Portuguese into French and English. We find… azagaie in Rabelais and… zagaie in Cotgrave, who describes it as a… ‘long-headed pike, used by Moorish horsemen.’ In M.E. “l’archegaie was corrupted by folk etymology… into lancegay, launcegay.” »
50 Compact O.E.D. 1:108. »
51 Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” p. 98. »
52 Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons, 2:242–43: “E vos avez lances agües / E granz gisarmes esmolucs.” »
53 Richard II: October 1383. Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, eds. Chris Given-Wilson, Paul Brand, Seymour Phillips, et al. (Woodbridge, 2005) http://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/october-1383; Chaucer, “The Tale of Sir Thopas,” in The Riverside Chaucer, ed. Larry D. Benson (Oxford, 1988), pp. 213–14, ll.1941–42. »
54 “A Gest of Robyn Hode,” in F. J. Child, English and Scottish Popular Ballads, eds. H. C. Sargent and G. L. Kittredge (Cambridge, Mass., 1904), p. 263 v.134. »
55 Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 4:258; Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:512; Gay, Glossaire 1:771. »
56 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 174: “une lance, légère comme la javeline, faite exclusivement pour être maniée à la main.” Le Loyal Serviteur, Histoire de Bayard, ed. Louis Moland (Paris, 1882), p. 228: the Albanians stuck the heads of the slain “au bout de leurs estradiotes.” »
57 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 172: “avec le XVc siècle apparait la javeline, qui n’est toujours que la lance légere. C’est l’arme que les ordonnances des ducs de Bourgogne donnent aux coustilliers.” Ian Heath, Armies of the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Worthing, 1982), 1:146: “it seems evident that the lancegay is intended.” »
58 Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 4:258: the suppliant was overjoyed to find on the road “une lance genetaire ou javeline.” Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:512; Boutell, Arms and Armour, p. 102: “Estradiots, Illyrian or Dalmatian mercenary cavaliers armed with a zagaie, or javelin, pointed at both ends.” Heath, Armies of the Middle Ages, 2:112, 2:134, for illustrations showing the double spearheads; Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” p. 101: the zagayah, the traditional weapon of Berber horsemen, was considered a javelin. Lancegay is also translated as javelin in the British History Online in relation to Richard II’s statute of 1383. »
59 Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 19 Part 1, January–July 1544, eds. James Gairdner and R. H. Brodie (London, 1903), pp. 141–78; British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol19/no1/ [accessed 24 October 2020]: “My Lord Wryothesley, of horsemen 20 demilances and 20 javelins with targets.” The presence of bucklers suggests that the weapon was intended to be wielded with one hand; G. A. Hayes-McCoy, Irish Battles, A Military History of Ireland (London, 1969), p. 83; Chroniques de Yolande de France, Duchesse de Savoie, Sœur de Louis XI, ed. Léon Ménabré (Chambéry,1859) p. 173: “une lance gaye a deux chevaux xxxiii ff. iiij gros,” (1477) where the lancegay refers to one or more individuals carrying the weapon; Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 172; David H. Caldwell, Scottish Weapons and Fortifications 1100–1800 (Edinburgh, 1981), pp. 255, 309, n. 5: the half-pike (demi-pique) was carried by priests and all manner of people, particularly in troubled times, and was considered a light lance. »
60 The Rutland Papers, Original Documents Illustrative of the Courts and Times of Henry VII and Henry VIII, ed. William Jerdan (London, 1842), p. 43. This usage seems to precede the weapon’s first definition as a missile by seven years. Compact O.E.D., 1:1503 suggests the lexicographer was reading javelin into a text that actually meant javeline. »
61 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 172–73. Compact O.E.D.,1:682 defines demi-lance as “a lance with a short shaft used in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.” Caxton (1489) is credited with the first English usage. »
62 Chroniques de Jean Molinet ed. J. A. Buchon, 5 vols. (Paris, 1827), 5:41. »
63 Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France et de Bourgogne, eds. Julien-Michel Gandouin, Pierre-François Giffart (Paris, 1729), pp. 283, 284, 287; Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 173. »
64 The arrêt de cuirasse was a metal hook attached to the right side of the breastplate. If the lance was couched without the use of an arrêt de cuirasse, the arrêt de lance was placed in front of the handgrip to protect the hand. »
65 Roles normands, bailliages de Caux et Gysors (1470), Nobiliaire universel de France, ou recueil général des généalogies historiques des maisons nobles de ce royaume, ed. Nicolas Viton de Saint-Allais, 21 vols. (Paris, 1872–78), 6:291–305. Thomas de Carrouge and his coustillier both wear brigandines but while the latter is armed with a javeline, a page carries his master’s demi-lance. »
66 Letters and Papers, 1:113–27: “with a javelin or demi-lance.” »
67 Ibid., 1:141–78: “the duke of Suffolk can make a hundred horsemen with demilances and javelins either upon good horses or good geldings.” »
68 Compact O.E.D., 1:682, gives 1544 as the first English reference to demi-lances referring to light horsemen, although this had been common in France for some time. It had, however, occurred much earlier in 1492 when the earl of Kent was tasked with providing six men-at-arms and sixteen “dimi-lances,” to serve in France: Thomas Rymer, ed., Foedera, 20 vols. (London, 1739–45), 12: 465–482; British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rymer-foedera/vol12/pp465-482 [accessed 2 May 2021]; Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:546–49; Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 201: Three-quarter armor consisted of an open helmet, or one with a bevor, breast and back plates, pauldrons, tassets, and cuisses with long leather boots instead of leg protection. »
69 Ibid., pp. 167, 202. Thomas Audley thought that the only difference between a demi-lance and a man-at-arms was the absence of horse barding: Thomas Audley and the Tudor “Arte of Warre,” ed. Jonathan Davies (Farnham, 2006), pp. 18–19. Charles Oman, A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth Century (London, 1937), p. 386, considered that the demi-lance had “completely superseded the fully armoured man by the end of the century.” »
70 Ian Heath, Armies of the Sixteenth Century (St Peter Port, 1997), p. 50. »
71 M. C. Bishop, The Pilum, The Roman Heavy Javelin (Oxford, 2017), pp. 24–26, 54–56: the pilum, which had a butt-spike, could also be deployed as a thrusting weapon, as against Pompey’s cavalry at Pharsalus. On rare occasions, even the medieval sword could be thrown: Mondschein, Knightly Art of Battle, p. 60; Knyghthode and Bataile, eds. R Dyboski and Z. M. Arend, Early English Text Society Original Series 201 (London, 1935), p. 35. »
72 Xenophon, “The Art of Horsemanship,” in Xenophon, Scripta minora, trans. E. C. Marchant and G. W. Bowersock, Loeb Classical Library (London, 1968), p. 363. »
73 Froissart, Chroniques, 1:167. »
74 Jehan de Waurin, Recueil des croniques et anchiennes istories de la Grant Bretaigne, eds. W. Hardy and E. L. C. P. Hardy, 5 vols., Rolls Series (London, 1864–91), 2:182. »
75 Life of the Black Prince by the Herald of Sir John Chandos, ed. and trans. Mildred K. Pope and Eleanor C. Lodge (Oxford, 1910), pp. 103, 85, 158: “Archigaies, lances et darz/ Lanceoient Espaignart par force.” Chronique des quatre premiers Valois (1327–1393), ed. Siméon Luce (Paris, 1861), p. 177: “Les Espaingolz leur gettoient dardes et archigaies.” »
76 Ewart Oakeshott, European Weapons and Armour (London, 1980), p. 55; John Waldman, Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe (Leiden, 2005), p. 81. »
77 Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons, 2:242–43. My italics. »
78 Monte, Collectanea, p. 294. »
79 Eustace Deschamps. Œuvres complètes, eds. Marquis de Queux de Saint-Hilaire and Gaston Raynaud, 11 vols. (Paris, 1878–1903), 7:35. »
80 Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 4:710: Lancier, to throw, has the additional meaning of “combattre avec la lance.” Godefroy gives examples from Froissart and Perceval. The epiphora helps to confirm the dual meaning. »
81 Froissart, Chroniques, 1:536. Thomas Johnes translates archegaies here as pikes: Thomas Johnes, Chronicles of England, France, Spain by Sir John Froissart, 2 vols. (London, 1848), 1:373. Although Scott-Macnab, Archegaie, p. 42, notes that archegaies follow “lanches et gravelos pour lanchier,” they are also brigaded with thrusting weapons such as “strong, short swords and knives,” “archigaies trenchans et fortes coutilles.” Moreover, lancegays furnished with pennons or banneroles were unlikely to be thrown: Jean d’Auton, Chroniques de Louis XII, ed. R. De Maulde La Clavière, 4 vols. (Paris, 1893), 3:259. »
82 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 172. »
83 Mellusine par Couldrette, ed. Francisque Michel (Niort, 1854), p. 108: “Mais d’un giet d’archegaie lors/ Fu-il feru parmy le corps.” Jean d’Arras, Melusine, cited in Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 1:381; Scott-Macnab, “Archegaie,” p. 38: “tenoit une archigaye a un fer trenchant et large, et voit le roy Fedric qui moult dommage ses gens. Il s’approuche de lui et escout l’archigaye et la laisse aler devers le roy Fedric par telle vertu qu’il le perce de part en part. ” Escouist from escoudre, meaning to shake, indicates, as with branler, that the weapon was held in the under-hand position. Laissa aller suggests that the weapon was aimed or pointed before being thrust at its victim, when having pierced him from side to side it would have to be released. Moreover, a lance with a broad head was unlikely to have been thrown. »
84 Cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 172; Scott-Macnab, “Archegaie,” pp. 44–45. »
85 Ekaitz Etxeberria Gallastegi, “Dead Horse, Man-at-arms Lost: Cavalry and Battle Tactics in 15th Century Castile,” Journal of Medieval Iberian Studies 12 (2020), 114. »
86 Godefroy, Complément, p. 41. The Compact O.E.D. 1:1503, defines javelin as “a short lance usually thrown from the hand but sometimes used in balusters.” Gaveloc was an ancient Celtic term, current in France and England from the eleventh century: Compact O.E.D., 1:1123. »
87 Chronique de Geoffroi Gaimar in Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, ed. Francisque Michel, 3 vols. (Rouen, 1836), 1:9: “Car li Englois de totes parz/ Li launcent gavelocs et darz/ Si l’occistrent et son destrer.” 1:24: “1ij. gavelocs un sergant tint.” In the twelfth century La vie Seint Edmund le Rey, in Memorials of St. Edmund’s Abbey, ed. Thomas Arnold (London, 1892), pp. 204–05, the king is pierced with arrows, gavelos, e darz. The fifteenth-century Knyghthode and Bataile also suggests a familiarity with the weapon: pp. 22, 35, 36, 41. »
88 “Le Livre de Trahisons de France,” in Chroniques relative à l’histoire de la Belgique sous la domination des ducs de Bourgogne, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove (Brussels, 1873), pp. 141–42: the Irish rode without saddles or stirrups and upon encountering a French man-at-arms, would jump off their ponies and throw their darts so forcefully that they could penetrate his armor. If that failed, they would jump up behind him and slit his throat with their long knives. »
89 Gay, Glossaire, 1:544. Guillaume de Saint-André (1383), listed them from shortest to longest: “Dardes, gavelots, lancegayes/ Savoyent gecter et faire playes,” cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 172. »
90 La Vie Seint Edmund, p. 146; Froissart, Chroniques, 2:506; Scott-Macnab, Sir Thopas, pp. 116–17. »
91 The penetrative effect of winged darts “gavelocs enpennez” is noted in a battle between the Britons and Saxons, where a hauberk is pierced as easily as a cauliflower leaf: La Vie Seint Edmund, p. 146; Chrétien de Troyes, Le Roman de Perceval ou Le conte du Graal, ed. Keith Busby (Tübingen, 1993), pp. 6–9; The Complete Story of the Grail: Chrétien de Troyes’ Perceval and its Continuations, trans. Nigel Bryant (Cambridge, 2018), p. 11: the Red Knight was dispatched before he knew what was happening. »
92 Froissart, Chroniques, 2:472–73: Jean Laurent, the captain of Lisbon, was slain by a dart, which penetrated through both plate and mail as well as his aketon. Also 2:506. »
93 Noel Fallows, Jousting in Medieval and Renaissance Iberia (Woodbridge, 2010), p. 296. »
94 Ibid., p, 272, considers that the medieval Portuguese gyneta and medieval Spanish gineta (modern Spanish jineta) are both derived from the Arabic zanâta, a Berber tribe famous as horsemen. »
95 Ibid., pp. 272, 281, 300, 301. »
96 Ibid., pp. 272–309: Henry IV was criticised for not wearing traditional armor. The Spanish style became known as riding a la española. »
97 William H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, 2 vols. (London, 1841), 2:289. »
98 Millar, “The Albanians,” pp. 468–72. »
99 Like estradiots, they had a dubious reputation. Godefroy, Dictionnaire, 3:635–36: cites the Poitiers Register for 1436: “estradeurs et autres larrons qui vont espiant les chemins.” Waurin, Recueil des croniques, 5:666, used the term to refer to Queen Margaret’s fore-riders. »
100 Molinet, Chroniques, 5:41: “les estradeurs de l’ost Vénitiens estoient moult estranges, fort barbuz, et sans armures et sans chausses.” »
101 Michael Mallett, Mercenaries and their Masters, Warfare in Renaissance Italy (London, 1974), p. 119. »
102 Memoirs of Philip de Commines, ed. and trans. Andrew R. Scobie, 2 vols. (London, 1879), 2:201. »
103 Mallett, Mercenaries and their Masters, p. 143. »
104 Millar, “The Albanians,” pp. 468–72; Gilbert John Millar, Tudor Mercenaries and Auxiliaries, 1485–1547 (Charlottesville, 1980), p. 133. »
105 D’Auton, Chroniques, 3:275: in 1503 seven to eight hundred chevaulx albanoys and génétaires attacked the French rear. »
106 David Potter, Renaissance France at War: Armies, Culture and Society, c. 1480–1560 (Woodbridge, 2008), pp. 86–87; D’Auton, Chroniques 1:189: “ Parmy les compaignyes de France, avoit aucuns estradiotz lesquelz, avecques grant nombre de Françcoys armez a l’aise, souvant assemblerent les Albanoys du seigneur Ludovic.” »
107 Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote de la Mancha, trans. Charles Jarvis (Oxford, 1999), p. 562–63: it is now fashionable for knights to rustle “in damasks, brocades, and other rich stuffs, rather than in coats of mail.” Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, p. 298. A similar trend occurred in the nineteenth century when the military costume of Mamluks and Zouaves were popular. »
108 D’Auton, Chroniques, 4:220–21. »
109 Molinet, Chroniques, 5:161; d’Auton, Chroniques 3:322: here stradiot refers to the type of horse. »
110 Venice: May 1551, in Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 5, 1534–54, ed. Rawdon Brown (London, 1873), pp. 338–62. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol5/pp338-362 [accessed 25 May 2020]. This may simply have meant that they carried the lancegay. »
111 Albert D. McJoynt, The Art of War in Spain, The Conquest of Granada 1481–1492 (London, 1995), p. 268; Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, p. 278: the shield, known as the adarga, was held with one hand and could be used offensively. »
112 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 174. »
113 Molinet, Chroniques, 5:41: “sans armures et sans chausses,” perhaps in comparison with men-at-arms; Philippe de Commynes, Mémoires, ed. L. M. Emille Dupont, 3 vols. (Paris, 1840–47), 2:455–56: “vestuz comme les Turcs.” Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues (London, 1632): the chapeau à l’Albanoise was “a high-crowned hat; a hat with a crowne like a sugar-loafe.” »
114 D’Auton, Chroniques, 4:224: one individual, having his lancegay parried by a Genevois, was pulled from his horse. In the struggle that followed he had great difficulty in drawing his dagger which was entangled in the folds of his long robes. »
115 Alessandro Benedetti, Diaria de Bello Carolino, ed. and trans. Dorothy M. Schullian (New York, 1967), p. 149: lancea, a light lance, lanceis velitaribus, with light lances suitable for skirmishing, i.e., the lancegay; D’Auton, Chroniques, 4:316: “aucuns de ses Albanoys, tous armez a blanc.” »
116 Gay, Glossaire, 1:672–73; Edward Hall, The Union of The Two Noble and Illustre Famelies of Lancastre and Yorke (1548, repr. London, 1809), p. 543: they were obviously a novelty as those captured by the northern horse were brought before the king; Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:658–61; Duarte, Horsemanship, pp. 21–26: it was possible to ride with the legs extended using the jennet saddle, which may account for the anomaly. »
117 Langey, Discipline militaire, pp. 51–52, also notes the sleeves and gloves of mail. »
118 Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France et de Bourgogne, pp. 283, 284; Roles Normands, Caux et Gysors, in Saint-Allais, Nobiliaire universel de France, 6:309: “avec lui ung coustillier armé de brigandine, salade et javaline,” (1470). Buttin, pp. 172–73: “Ce sont déjà les futurs chevaux-légers du XVI siècle.” Gervase Phillips, The Anglo-Scots Wars, 1553–1550: A Military History (Woodbridge, 1999), p. 28: “In the Burgundian army of the late fifteenth century the coustillier, armed with javelin and sword, provided the independent light cavalry arm.” Philippe Contamine, War in the Middle Ages, trans. Michael Jones (Oxford, 1984), p. 128. »
119 De la Marche, Mémoires, 2:239–40. »
120 Knighton’s Chronicle 1337–1396, ed. and trans. G. H. Martin (Oxford, 1995), p. 145: at Poitiers (1356) the archers fought “cum gladiis et lanceis,” the latter being the light spear or archegaie. Gay, Glossaire, p. 51, thought that the archegaie might also refer to an archer’s demi-lance to be used when mounted; Heath, Armies of the Middle Ages, 1:146. »
121 Guiart, Branche des royaux lignages, cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 171. »
122 Deschampes, Œuvres complètes, 7:408. »
123 John Lydgate, Merita missae, in The Lay Folks Mass Book, ed. Thomas Frederick Simmons (London, 1879), p. 153, l. 179; Scott-Macnab, “Sir Thopas and his Lancegay,” p. 123. Immediately following the mention of the lancegay we are told that Sir Thopas had “A long swerd by his syde,” confirming horse, lancegay, and sword as knightly equipment. »
124 Louis Pataux, Généalogie de la maison de Brachet de Floressac (Limoges, 1885), pp. 125–31. »
125 Monstres général de la noblesse du bailliage d’Ḗvreux 1469, ed. Théodose Bonnin (Paris, 1853), pp. 1–104, 52–54; Roles normands, Caux et Gysors, 6:289, 6:318: “Jehannequin Galliarboys, armé de brigandine, ung page portant sa javeline.” The vouge français, a staff weapon with a slightly convex 48cm blade that tapered to a point, used on both horse and foot, appears regularly in these musters; Waldman, Hafted Weapons, pp. 183–84. »
126 M. Dupont-White, Le siège de Beauvais 1472 (Beauvais, 1848), p. 11. »
127 Alain Chartier described Joan as shaking and brandishing a lance as she spurred her horse to charge the enemy: Craig Taylor, Joan of Arc, La Pucelle (Manchester, 2006), p. 111, p. 237, for the Cordeliers Chronicle, and pp. 304–10 for Alençon’s deposition. The original Latin: “hastam rapit, raptam concutit, vibrat in hostes,” “hasta vibrata,” “currendo cum lancea,” and “in portu lanceae,” where lancea refers to the archegay or light lance can be found on http://www.stejeannedarc.net [accessed 3 January 2021]. Joan also employed the bourdonnasse, which being hollow was much lighter than the war lance: “manyoit un bourdon de lance (bourdonasse) très puissamment,” cited in Chronique des Cordeliers de Paris, http://www.stejeannedarc.net. »
128 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 175, for works by Salvanello and Vivarini from the fifteenth century; Gay, Glossaire, 1:6340: A fourteenth-century figurine, rescued from the Seine, portrays the saint striking overarm with an archegaie in his right hand, while holding a notched shield in his left, suggesting an alternative way in which the weapon might be used. »
129 Victoria and Albert Museum, London: the lance has a small butt-spike, and the saint carries a curved, flat-bladed sword. »
130 Tobias Capwell, “A Cursed Abominable Device? The True Shared History of Knights and Firearms,” Bulletin of the American Society of Arms Collectors 118 (2019), 118–32. »
131 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p, 176. It is not possible to determine whether the weapon has a butt-spike as the rear of the shaft is not shown. »
132 La chronique d’Enguerran de Monstrelet, ed. L. Douët d’Arcq, 6 vols. (Paris, 1857–62), 2:49–50. Gay, Glosssaire, 1:51, gives details of expensive decorations for two royal archegaies from the accounts of Charles VI (1386), but as Scott-Macnab, “Archegaie,” p. 44, has pointed out, this is a misreading of the word areignes, meaning trumpets. »
133 Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” pp. 97, 120–23: the weapon is noted in the accounts of other noblemen, e.g. Henry Bolingbroke (1387–89), Thomas Woodstock, and the earl of Arundel (1397). »
134 Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” p. 100. »
135 Tobias Capwell, Armour of the English Knight 1400–1450 (London, 2015), pp. 232–34. »
136 Scott-Macnab, “Sir John Fastolf,” p. 107. »
137 Richard II: October 1383, Parliament Rolls, www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/october-1383 [accessed 5 January 2021]. Lancegay is translated as “javelin.” Hewitt, Ancient Armour and Weapons, 2:243. »
138 Richard II: January 1397, Parliament Rolls, www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/parliament-rolls-medieval/january-1397 [accessed 5 January 2021]; Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 2:242–43. »
139 Scott-Macnab, “Sir Thopas and his Lancegay,” pp. 119–24, details the repeated attempts of the crown to outlaw the weapon in the hope of curbing unlawful retinues. »
140 Thomas Stapleton ed., Plumpton Correspondence. A Series of Letters, Chiefly Domestick, Written in the Reigns of Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII and Henry VIII (London, 1839), pp. liii–lxii, especially liv–lv. »
141 Rotuli Parliamentorum, 6 vols. (London, 1832), 5:212. »
142 Cited in Scott-Macnab, “Sir Thopas and his Lancegay,” p. 122. »
143 Middlesex Sessions Rolls, 1580, in Middlesex County Records: Volume 1, 1550–1603, ed. John Cordy Jeaffreson (London, 1886), pp. 119–21. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol1/pp. 119-121 [accessed 27 May 2020]: John Sherwell armed with a sword and buckler was slain by John Lawrence with a blow to the head from a javelin; County of Middlesex. Calendar to the Sessions Records: New Series, Volume 3, 1615–16, ed. William Le Hardy (London, 1937), pp. 172–91. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-sessions/vol3/pp172-191 [accessed 27 May 2020]: Peter Baggot slew Edward Acroyd, who was armed with a sword, with a blow to the head from a javelin worth 6d; A History of the County of Lancaster: Vol. 3, eds. William Farrer and J. Brownbill (London, 1907), British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/lancs/vol3/pp. 215-221 [accessed 16 December 2020]: Edmund Hulme was involved in a “privy ambushment,” having “a javelin in his hand.” »
144 Hall, Chronicle, p. 231. »
145 Rutland Papers, p. 43; The Diary of Henry Machyn, Citizen and Merchant-Taylor of London 1550–1563, ed. John Gough Nichols (London, 1848), p. 146, noted that in 1557 seventeen horses laden with money from the Exchequer intended for Berwick were protected “by divers men riding with javelins and pole-axes on horseback.” »
146 James I: Volume 6, January–March 1604, in Calendar of State Papers Domestic: James I, 1603–1610, ed. Mary Anne Everett Green (London, 1857), pp. 64–90: “50 javelins for the 50 Yeomen,” British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/domestic/jas1/1603-10/pp64-90 [accessed 5 January 2021]; Hall, Chronicle p. 829: “wyffelers on horseback with propre Iavelyns.” Rushworth and John, Historical Collections: November 1641, in Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: Volume 4, 1640–42 (London, 1721), pp. 421–36. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rushworth-papers/vol4/pp421-436 [accessed 5 January 2021]: Charles I was met by “the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex with 72 men suited in scarlet cloaks, having Hats and Feathers, with javelins.” »
147 Venice: February 1618, 1–14, in Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, 15:126–44. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol15/pp. 126-144 [accessed 6 January 2021]; George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence (London, 1599, repr.1933), p. 44; Sydney Anglo, The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe (London, 2000), p. 167: Silver’s writing can be contradictory; although he favors the half-staff (quarterstaff), readers are left feeling that they ought to possess one of every weapon mentioned. »
148 Liste et analyse sommaire de vingt-six lettres de rémission accordées par les rois de France à des habitants des chatellenies de Château-Gontier et de Craon (XIV–XVI siècles), ed. André Joubert (Laval, 1891), p. 10. »
149 Ibid., p. 12. »
150 Chronique de Mathieu D’Escouchy, ed. G. Du Fresne de Beaucourt, 3 vols. (Paris, 1843), 3:440–43: “et d’une javeline bleça pluseurs des gens de Flavy.” »
151 Roles normands, p. 292. »
152 Froissart, Chroniques, 1:531–32. »
153 Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France et de Bourgogne, p. 284. »
154 Jean, Seigneur de Haynin et de Louvegnies, Mémoires 1465–1477, ed. R. Chalons, 2 vols. (Mons, 1842), 2:170–71. »
155 R. H. C. Davis, The Medieval Warhorse (London, 1989), p. 23; Malcolm Vale, War and Chivalry (London, 1981), p. 118: “a lance could weigh as much as 18 kilograms by the early sixteenth century.” »
156 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 77–178; Michael Harbinson, “The Lance in the Fifteenth Century: How French Cavalry Overcame the English Defensive System in the Latter Part of the Hundred Years War,” Journal of Medieval Military History 17 (2019), 141–99. »
157 Commynes, Mémoires, 1:38; Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 118. »
158 At Montlhéry, the count of St Pol’s men gathered up numerous unbroken lances that lay scattered on the ground. At Fornovo, discarded lances “lay very thick upon the field,” while at Guinegate the French horse jettisoned their staves to escape more quickly. »
159 John Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie (1632, repr. Amsterdam,1968), p. 36. »
160 William Camden, Remains Concerning Britain (1605, repr. London, 1870), p. 226, lists the lancegay among the “weapons of our nation, which are both defensive and offensive.” »
161 Lossow, “a weapon, which in the hands of a master, makes him almost unbeatable,” cited in Christopher Duffy, The Army of Frederick the Great (Chicago, 1996), p. 159. »
162 Pierre Gaite, “Exercises in Arms: The Physical and Mental Combat Training of Men-at-Arms in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,” Journal of Medieval Military History 16 (2018), p. 114: the profound knowledge provided in the writings of the medieval teaching masters can only have developed from the experience of other men-at-arms. »
163 Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 2:242: pages were known to drop the heavy lance in inclement weather. »
164 Benedetti, Diaria, p. 86. »
165 The Bayeux Tapestry shows mounted Norman knights brandishing the lance overarm, ready either to strike downwards or to throw, as well as holding the weapon in the lowered hand position or couched under the right arm: R. Allen Brown, “The Battle of Hastings,” in Morillo, Battle of Hastings, p. 210. »
166 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, pp. 199–200: “And instead of launces or speares, I woulde wish them to have launces commonlie called launcezagayes of good tite and stiffe ash, coloured black, with double heads of good and hard temper according to the use of the Moores, of 15 or 20 foot long to the intent that taking them in the midst, they may strike both forward and backewarde, I meane as well as their enemies that they have in frunt or on flanks, as also their enimies and their horses that may uppon any retrait pursue them.” »
167 Presumably such measurements were suggested to enable competition with the pike or longer heavy cavalry lance. »
168 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 79; Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, p. 29: “how any man… should be able (with one hand) to wield a lance of 18 foot long, I leave to the consideration of the judicious.” »
169 Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 168. »
170 Ibid. »
171 Richard A. Gabriel, Philip II of Macedon (Dulles, 2010), p. 75; De Lee, French Lancers, p. 9. Although Napoleon is credited with bringing the lance back into military service, it had always remained popular in Eastern Europe, being the principal weapon of Polish cavalry since the Middle Ages. »
172 John Wilkinson-Latham, British Cut and Thrust Weapons (Newton Abbot, 1971), pp. 83–84; Terence Wise, European Edged Weapons (London, 1974), p. 29; Monte, Collectanea, p. 294. »
173 Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, pp. 29, 42. Silver considered some increase in length permissible when fighting on horseback. »
174 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 93, cites Les tournois de Chauvenci (1285): “Conrad placed the aresteuil of his lance beneath his shoulder.” De Lee, French Lancers, p. 10. »
175 Gabriel, Philip II of Macedon, p. 75; Larsen and Yallop, Cavalry Lance, p. 71. »
176 Monte, Collectanea, pp. 129, 140 »
177 Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, p. 2v: “I fiercely grip my spear in the middle.” »
178 John Dymmok, A Treatice of Ireland, cited in Hayes-McCoy, Irish Battles, p. 83: “taking it by the middle, (they) bear it above arm and so encounter.” Cyril Falls, Elizabeth’s Irish Wars (London, 1996), p. 69. »
179 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, pp. 199–200. »
180 Xenophon, The Art of Horsemanship, ed. and trans. Morris H. Morgan (Boston, 1893), p.68. »
181 Alessandro Malatesta, cited in Anglo, Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, pp. 351–52. »
182 Monte, Collectanea, p. 141. Swiss pikemen also favored holding their weapons in the middle, making them more dexterous than their French counterparts: Blaise de Monluc, Commentaires, cited in Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 3:606. »
183 Langey, Discipline militaire, p. 54: “Les Estradiots se doyuent savoir ayder de la Zagaye à toutes mains, en donnant une fois d’une pointe, & apres de l’autre.” Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 199. »
184 Christian Henry Tobler, In Saint George’s Name, An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts (Wheaton, 2010), p. 133. Liechtenauer’s fighting precepts originate from the fourteenth century but are largely only known through the works of his disciples. »
185 Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, p. 2v; Bosniaken cavalry used their lances with both hands to give an effective thrust, which meant letting go of the reins: Duffy, The Army of Frederick the Great, p. 159. »
186 Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, p. 6r; Mondschein, Knightly Art of Battle, pp. 84–85. »
187 Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 75. »
188 Hayes-McCoy, Irish Battles, p. 83. »
189 Hanson, The Western Way of War, p. 163. »
190 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 52; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 48. »
191 Peter Krentz, “Hoplite Hell: How Hoplites Fought,” in Men of Bronze, Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece, eds. Donald Kagan and Gregory F. Viggiano (Princeton, 2013), p. 142: “a little practice with a broom handle will show that changing grips is not all that hard.” John Lazenby, “The Killing Zone,” in Hanson, Hoplites, p. 93. »
192 Montmorency, Regulations, p. 149. »
193 De Brack, Cavalry, pp. 50–52; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 54; De Lee, French Lancers, p. 10; Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, pp. 164–65. »
194 De Lee, French Lancers, p. 10; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 65. »
195 Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 106. »
196 Ibid., pp. 104–05; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 117: it was common for exercises with the lance to be practiced on foot. »
197 Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, pp. 164–65. »
198 Xenophon, Cavalry Commander, Scripta minora, p. 253, considered this also prevented the lances from crossing during a charge; De Lee, French Lancers, p. 9; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 46. »
199 Monte, Collectanea, pp. 129, 131; Larsen and Yallop, Cavalry Lance, pp. 58–59. »
200 Duarte, Horsemanship, pp. 104–06, stresses the importance of keeping the arm closed, making the weapon “as fast and secure as possible.” De Brack, Cavalry, pp. 50–52; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 131. »
201 Mondschein, The Knightly Art of Battle, pp. 102–03. »
202 Montmorency, Regulations, pp. 129–30. »
203 Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, p. 2r; The Flower of Battle, ed. Chidester, pp. 410–14; Von Danzig’s Fechtbuch (1452), in Tobler, In Saint George’s Name, p. 183: in mounted combat, if the lance was parried by a sword, the butt could be jabbed into the opponent’s groin; Larsen and Yallop, Cavalry Lance, pp. 58–59. »
204 Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 106; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 149, derided the maneuver. »
205 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 52; De Lee, French Lancers, pp. 10–12; Montmorency, Regulations, pp. 71, 74, 117: the “Round Parry” was particularly pre-eminent and could be given when the butt was to the front. »
206 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 52; Nolan, Cavalry, p. 82, describes a similar incident of a Cossack using the Boar’s Tusk defence against a swordsman. »
207 Journal d’un bourgeois de Paris, p. 232. »
208 Jean de Bueil, Le Jouvencel, eds. C. Favre and L. Lecestre, 2 vols. (Paris, 1887–89), 1:145: “les aisselles et la gorge et le descouvert,” 2:100: the armor of the visor was particularly thin. »
209 Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 165. »
210 Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France et de Bourgogne, pp. 283, 284, 287, for the ordonnances of 1458 and 1473; Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 172–73: “javeline à arrest légière et le plus roide qu’il porra recouvrer pour la couchier au besoing.” »
211 Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 130. »
212 Ibid., pp. 27–9, 130; Monte, Collectanea, p. 267. It was important to stand upright as leaning forward would result in throwing short with possible harm to the horse. Xenophon and Duarte advised throwing high with the point upwards, releasing the weapon smoothly from the hand: Xenophon, On Horsemanship, Scripta minora, p. 636; Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 130: “high and smoothly.” »
213 Ibid., p. 131. »
214 Monte, Collectanea, pp. 129, 140. »
215 Sir Charles Oman, History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2 vols. (1898, repr. London, 1978), 2:180–81, notes that the pictures were heavily restored in 1882. The manner of using the lancegay and its length are well depicted, although butt-spikes are absent; Gallastegi, “Cavalry and Battle Tactics,” p. 114, argues that the frescoes show no evidence of the weapons being thrown, rather the riders are stabbing their enemies, some using the couched position. »
216 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 28. The pike was considered unwieldy in offensive operations with “no long-range capability”: David R. Lawrence, The Complete Soldier (Leiden, 2008), p. 256. »
217 On Poitiers, Froissart, Chroniques, 1:342: the French “les retaillassent au voulume de cinq pieds, parquoi on s’en pût mieux aider”; 1:397 for Thorigny: “Si coupèrent tous les glaives à mesure de cinq pieds”; 1:405: the English cut down their lances when intending to fight on foot at Nogent-sur-Seine (1359), as did the French at Agincourt (1415) so that they would be more rigid and less liable to break in close combat; Waurin, Recueil des croniques, 2:211; Hewitt, Ancient Armour, 2:78–79. »
218 Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, p. 29; Anglo, Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, pp. 167 and 342–43, n. 38, cites Richard Peeke’s victory over three Spanish sword and dagger men, whom he engaged simultaneously, killing one with the butt of his staff, “where the iron spike was.” De Lee, French Lancers, p. 10, on using the lance as a quarterstaff. »
219 Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, p. 38: “the staffe-man never striketh but at the head, and thrusteth presently under at the body, and if a blow be first made, a thrust followeth… the one breedeth the other.” The fatalities previously mentioned and caused by javelines in street quarrels mainly resulted from strikes to the head. »
220 John Clements, Renaissance Swordsmanship (Boulder, 1997), pp. 118–19; Silver, Paradoxes of Defence, p. 31. »
221 Ibid., p. 42. »
222 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 407. Fiore’s protagonist wields a ghiavarina, a spear pointed at both ends with two short spikes projecting horizontally below the main blade. However, he emphasizes that the same actions could be performed with a javeline, lance, staff, or other weapons; Winnick and Marsden, The Flower of Battle, 6v; Mondschein, The Knightly Art of Battle, pp. 84–87. »
223 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 405: “even if I were attacked a thousand times my defense would not fail me even once.” »
224 Tobler, In Saint George’s Name, pp. 144–45. »
225 Chandos Herald emphasized that the Spaniards threw “strong sharp archegays,” suggesting that the weapon had a penetrative force superior to that of the dart. »
226 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 389; Molinet, Chroniques, 5:41. »
227 The battle of Higueruela shows an individual slain by a lancegay that has penetrated both his shield and breastplate: Oman, Art of War in the Middle Ages, 2:180–81. »
228 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 173; Cesare d’Evoli (1583) cited in Anglo, Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, p. 219. »
229 Livre de Lusignan in Mellusine (c.1395), ed. Francisque Michel (Niort, 1854), pp. 107–08: “Mais d’un giet d’archegaie lors/ Fu-il feru parmy le corps.” »
230 Chroniques de Saint-Denis in Les grandes chroniques de France, ed. Alexis Paulin, 6 vols. (Paris, 1836–38), 1:1312–13, 1:1312, n.1. In Spain in 1334, he fell fighting the Moors: “Et messier Jehan de Douglas fu féru d’une archegaie parmi le corps.” »
231 Istoire et croniques de Flandres, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, 2 vols. (Brussels, 1879), 1:298. »
232 Jean d’Auton, Chroniques, 3:267–68. »
233 Larsen and Yallop, Cavalry Lance, p. 62. »
234 Edward Cotton recounting a cavalry engagement at Waterloo (1815) cited in Philip Haythornthwaite, Napoleonic Light Cavalry Tactics (Oxford, 2013), p. 28; Nolan, Cavalry, p. 97: “charges resolve themselves into mêlées,” with the rider “constantly exposed to the chances of single combat, and the unfortunate fellow who cannot manage his horse is lost.” »
235 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, pp. 199–200. »
236 Xenophon, Cavalry Commander, Scripta minora, p. 267; Benedetti, Diaria, p. 149; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 128: “those who are perfect masters of their horses, will have a decided advantage over those less so.” »
237 Cited in Emanuel Von Warnery, Remarks on Cavalry (1798, repr. London, 1997), p. 28. »
238 Smail, Crusading Warfare, pp. 78–80. »
239 Ibid. »
240 F. L. Taylor, The Art of War in Italy 1494–1529 (Westport, 1973), pp. 71–72. »
241 Scrobie, Commines, 2:209. The Ancient Greeks often mixed mounted archers with light cavalry. »
242 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, pp. 172–77. »
243 Ibid. »
244 Cited in Warnery, Remarks on Cavalry, p. 120. »
245 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 173; Anglo, Martial Arts of The Renaissance, p. 255: in mounted combat, sword fighting was “severely circumscribed” because blows could only be delivered effectively on the horseman’s right. »
246 Warnery, Remarks on Cavalry, pp. 120, 122. »
247 Haythornthwaite, Napoleonic Light Cavalry Tactics, pp. 28–29; De Brack, Cavalry, p. 166. »
248 Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, pp. 300–02. »
249 Carroll Gillmor, “Some Observations of the Training of Medieval Warhorses,” in Military Cultures and Martial Enterprises in The Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of Richard P. Abels, eds. John D. Hosler and Steven Isaac (Woodbridge, 2020), pp. 239–40: collection involves shortening of the horse’s outline so that the hindquarters are gathered under his belly like a “coiled spring.” The concept was known to Xenophon and Duarte and, together with other equestrian maneuvers, set down in writing from oral tradition in Frederico Grisone’s Ordini di Cavalcare (1550). »
250 Ibid., p. 247. »
251 Morgan, Xenophon, The Art of Horsemanship, pp. 43, 49: “He must be collected at the turns because it is not easy or safe for the horse to make turns when he is at full speed. In war, of course, turns are executed for the purpose of pursuing or retreating; hence it is well that he should be trained to speed after turning.” Duarte noted that without good collection, control of the bit could be lost, cited in Gillmor, “Medieval Warhorses,” p. 241. »
252 Carroll Gillmor, “Practical Chivalry: The Training of Horses for Tournaments and Warfare,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 13 (1992), 11–13; Jürg Gassmann, “Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages,” Acta periodica duellatorum 6 (2019), 63–98, discusses “the flying lead change,” making it possible for the horse to turn at speed at the canter or gallop. »
253 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 164. »
254 De la Marche, Mémoires, 3:11–12 ; Commynes, Mémoires, 1: 42–43: his physician’s son, riding a strong horse, forced aside the mounts of the duke’s assailants. »
255 Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, p. 167: riding off, as it is known, is still part of the sport of polo, but there are strict rules to reduce the angle of approach in order to prevent serious injury. »
256 Pope and Lodge, Life of the Black Prince, pp. 88, 159. »
257 Hanson, The Western Way of War, p. 81, cites Plutarch on the Carthaginians at Crimissus: “both the mud and the folds of their undergarments as they filled with water impeded them.” »
258 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 198; Le Jouvencel, 2:242–43, on night attacks; Cuvelier, 2:169–72, on du Guesclin’s night ride against the English in appalling weather. »
259 Oman, Art of War in the Sixteenth Century, pp. 121–29. »
260 Commynes, Mémoires, 2:457 ; Histoire de Bayard, p. 228: “puis leur couppérent les têtes qu’ils picquoient au bout de leurs estradiotes.” D’Auton, Chroniques, 3:111, 4:184, and Molinet, Chroniques, 5:41 mention that the Venetians paid a ducat for each head taken; Taylor, Art of War in Italy, p. 72: as a result of this barbarous practice, Florence decreed that during the Pisan war (1498), all captured stradiots were to be executed. »
261 Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, p. 274, concerning a raid into the kingdom of Granada in 1467. »
262 Beneditti, Diaria, p. 89. »
263 Commynes, Mémoires, 2:462; Smail, Crusading Warfare, p. 170. »
264 Le Jouvencel, 1:73, 1:110–11, 1:159, 1:217, repeatedly stresses the need for a strong mounted rearguard. »
265 Commynes, Mémoires, 2:495–96, 2:457: small artillery pieces, such as falcons, were to prove highly effective in similar situations; D’Auton, Chroniques 1:42–45. »
266 Ibid., 1:41. »
267 De Brack, Cavalry, p.74, considered Cossacks the best light cavalry as they combined the instincts of the wolf and the fox. »
268 D’Auton, Chroniques, 1:192: in 1500, Bernadine Caraiche and his estradiots realized that their stuffed jacks would easily be pierced by the lances of the forty men-at-arms, who opposed them in a head-on assault; 1:41: blows from lances and swords would pierce “leurs jacques embourrés.” »
269 Ibid., 1:42, gives details of the wounded and slain. »
270 Ibid., 2:170: “vistes comme le vent.” 3:259: “courant comme tempeste.” Benedetti, Diaria, p. 148: “equo citatissimo.” Molinet, Chroniques, 5:41. »
271 Xenophon, The Art of Horsemanship, Scripta Minora, p. 339 »
272 Mondschein, The Knightly Art of Battle, p. 107; Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 418; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 148: “the spear of the lance should always be pointed to the rear in retreating before or from an enemy”; p. 57, the right arm should be pushed briskly. »
273 Gassmann, “Combat Training,” p. 78, citing »
274 . »
275 De Lee, French Lancers, p. 10. »
276 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, pp. 199–200. »
277 Tobler, In Saint George’s Name, p. 185. »
278 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 418; Chidester and Hatcher: https://www.wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi#Spear_vs._Other_Weapons. »
279 Pietro Monte cited in Anglo, Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, p. 229. »
280 Ibid.; Cruso, Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie, p. 37; De Lee, French Lancers, p. 11; Montmorency, Regulations, p. 75. »
281 Ibid. »
282 Smythe, Instructions, Observations, p. 176. »
283 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 415. »
284 Ibid., pp. 420–21. »
285 Monluc, Commentaires et lettres, 1:50: “en ce temps-là les Espaignols ne pourtoinct qu’ arces gayes, longues et ferrées au deux boutz.” The Spanish gained considerable notoriety for constantly attempting to dispatch their opponents’ horses: Histoire de Bayard, p. 326; Oman, Art of War in the Sixteenth Century, p. 54. »
286 The combination of knights in heavy armor with protected horses and others riding à la jineta was generally the case among Castilian armies in fifteenth-century Spain: Barbara Holmgren Firoozye, “Warfare in Fifteenth Century Spain,” Unpublished Dissertation, University of California (Los Angeles, 1974), p. 86. »
287 Monluc, Commentaires et Lettres, 1:53: this was done by wrapping the tail tightly around the hand, which was how Lafayette, Grouchy’s aide de camp, escaped at Eylau (1807): David Johnson, The French Cavalry 1792–1815 (London, 1989), p. 82 »
288 Monluc, Commentaires, 1:54 »
289 Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, p. 273. »
290 Walter Raleigh, The History of the World (1614), in The Works of Sir Walter Raleigh, eds. William Oldys and Thomas Birch, 8 vols. (Oxford, 1829), 6:218–19. The weapon is not mentioned either by Livy or Polybius, but Raleigh presumably considered it to be the standard weapon of North African horsemen; Henrico Hornkens, Recueil de dictionnaires francoys, espaignols, et latins (Brussels, 1599), p. 40, defined azagaye as telum punicum, the Carthaginian lance; Scott-Macnab, Archegaie, p. 46. »
291 D’Auton, Chroniques, 1:41–42. »
292 A. F. Pollard, Tudor Tracts,1532–1588 (London, 1903), pp. 124–25: at Pinkie (1547), Scottish fugitives could only be struck on the head and neck, “for our horsemen could not well reach them lower with their swords.” This enabled the more resolute to hamstring the horses, “foin them in the belly,” and injure the pursuers. »
293 De Lee, French Lancers, p. 12. »
294 The History of William Marshal, trans. Nigel Bryant (Woodbridge, 2016), p. 45. Marshal’s biography was written c.1220, just a few years after his death. »
295 Guiart, Branche des royaux lignages, cited in Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” p. 171: “Aus lances et aus archegaies/ Que roidement sus eus esquevent.” »
296 Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, p. 177. »
297 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 96, 173. »
298 Ibid., p. 173. The tactic was previously used in the crusades: “As soon as the knights overthrew them/ the sergeants followed them and slew them”: Ambroise, The Crusade of Richard the Lion-Heart, trans. and ed. Merton Jerome Hubert (New York, 1976) p. 260. »
299 Fallows, Medieval and Renaissance Iberia, p. 273. »
300 D’Auton, Chroniques, 3: 9–10. »
301 Ibid., 3:229. »
302 Ibid., 3:258–59; Monsieur Mercure and his French Albanians, who were about to skirmish, were warned that only twenty-five mounted men-at-arms were available to support them: Michael Harbinson, “Coureurs and Their Role in Late Medieval Warfare,” Journal of Medieval Military History 19 (2021), 147–90. »
303 Gallastegi, “Cavalry and Battle Tactics,” pp. 114–15. »
304 D’Auton, Chroniques, 2:280–82; William H. Prescott, History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, 2 vols. (London, 1841), 2:46–47: Spanish jennets threw the French gendarmerie into disorder as they attempted to cross a small stream. When, however, they wheeled about intending to renew their attack, the Calabrian militia, mistaking the maneuver for flight, panicked and fled the field. »
305 Molinet, Chroniques, 5:206; Oman, Art of War in the Sixteenth Century, p. 51: the French were pursued for more than six miles, “battant tant bien.” »
306 Taylor, The Art of War in Italy, pp. 71–74, gives further examples of stradiot successes including the raid which led to the capture of the marquis of Mantua. »
307 Clifford J. Rogers, Soldiers’ Lives Through History: The Middle Ages (Westport, 2007), pp. 84–85; Harbinson, “Coureurs,” pp. 147–90. »
308 Riding expertise was important as ravaging warfare involved stealing livestock in large numbers and herding cattle, which required significant wheeling and turning skills: Gillmor, “Medieval Warhorses”, p. 246. »
309 Harbinson, “Coureurs,” pp. 147–90. »
310 Le Jouvencel, 2:200, 2:91–92. »
311 Ibid., 1:105–11, 2:271–72, for Escallon, considered to be Marchenoir; 1:213 for Orléans; Georges Chastellain, Oeuvres, ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, 8 vols. (Brussels, 1863–66), 2:347: coureurs were often sent to follow a retreating enemy to prevent him from making a stand. »
312 Froissart, Chroniques, 1:340; Jean Chartier, Chronique de Charles VII, roi de France, ed. Vallet de Viriville, 3 vols. (Paris, 1858), 1:132–33; Waurin, Recueil des croniques, 3:301–02; Chastellain, Oeuvres, 2:243, 2:261, 2:253, 2:269. »
313 De Brack, Cavalry, p. 50. »
314 Chidester, The Flower of Battle, p. 389. »
315 Fiore’s reference to the “well-tempered steel” of the butt and its similarity to the point: Chidester, The Flower of Battle, pp. 397, 407; Duarte, Horsemanship, p. 130, on advice that both ends of the lance should be capped in practice. Butt-spikes were common on poleaxes and other hafted staff weapons, including the short staff. »
316 Cuvelier, 1:154. »
317 Buttin, “La lance et l’arrêt de cuirasse,” pp. 172–73: “pour permettre au cavalier d’utiliser également à deux fins sa lance légére.” »
318 Malcolm Vale, War and Chivalry (London, 1981), p. 128. »