1886 Cavalry Lances for comment

[khanda]

Had these a while 2x 1886 Cavalry Lances vgc complete with unbroken loops, male bamboo shafts with good patination, leather sheathed protection on both and various markings on heads, shoes and shafts . This type were used in a number of conflicts... African campaigns including the Zulu and Boar Wars and were re-issued during the War. As I understand it ....the male bamboo (solid compared to the hollow 'female' ) was more desirable than the Ash, it was due to the lack of regular supplies of the bamboo, that Ash was substituted. In the early stages of the Great War, lancers were used in the battlefield, but once it became trench warfare they became 'little used'. However, after the allies began to break through, the Lancers were used to attack fleeing / retreating German soldiers. They were so effective that it is said that retreating soldiers would often surrender immediately they were seen on the horizon.

David

[khanda]

Some more pictures

[jscott]

Great photos David, thanks for posting. I'd be interested to hear how wide a role the lancers played in 1914 (and again in 1918)

[Steven Broomfield]

In 1914 the British Army had 6 regiments of lancers:

5th (Royal Irish) Lancers

9th (Queen's Royal) Lancers

12th (Prince of Wales's Royal) Lancers

16th (The Queen's) Lancers

17th Lancers (Duke of Cambridge's Own)

21st Lancers (Empress of India's)

The 21st remained in India for the whole war; the others all served on the Western Front: 9th in 2nd Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division; the 5th and 16th in the 3rd Brigade (initially 1st Division, latterly 2nd Division); 12th Lancers (5th Brigade, 2nd Division) and the 17th initially with the Indian Cavalry Corps, then (from early 1918) in the 8th Brigade, 3rd Division.

Additionally, all British regiments on the Indian Establishment carried lances in one squadron, and interestingly there is a sketch in the history of the 7th Dragoon Guards showing that regiment still using lances in late 1918 after they had also transferred to the 3rd Cavalry Division.

According to Anglesey (History of the British Cavalry), Vol I, the lance as finally established in the British service in 1829, was 9' 1" in length, weighing 3lbs 11oz, the shaft being of ash.

In 1864 the Bengal Army went over to bamboo, not less than 10' and not more than 11'. In 1877 the in the British service ash "... was generally superseded by bamboo".

Selection of bamboo was a matter of great difficulty, and the plant had to be the right sixe to fit the sockets of the point and butt, as bamboo when cut or scraped is liable to perish. Additionally, diseases affecting the plant are not easily detected, with the outcome that, according to one account, 11/12ths of the bamboo sent was rejected. (I think - might be wrong - the Germans used aluminium, but can't recall where I read that... if I did read it and didn't dream it).

There was quite a debate about the lance in the pre-war years, it having been officially abolished at one point, but re-introduced later.

Regarding the morale effect, personally any cavalryman charging broken infantry is going to cause panic: the reach of a cavalryman with sword at the point is pretty much the same as a lance, to be honest, so a foot soldier on his own and demoralised is not going to stand much chance!

[Lancashire Fusilier]

David,

Great photographs. These are the first detailed images I have seen of genuine lances.

It is also interesting to note, they have inspection markings similar to those on bayonets ?

Thanks for posting.

Regards,

LF

[Guest]

Are you sure that "male" bamboo refers to a gender? I always believed that it referred to a type of bamboo from India.

On the issue of the lance in WWI, it was an insignificant weapon. On the Western Front among the five million (plus) men in the British Army there were less than 2,500 Lancers.... That is less than 0.05% of all British troops. They were hardly used on the Western Front where 89% of British servicemen fought. Most of the anecdotes about the prowess of the Lance came from people with a vested interest in its mythology. The reality as one commentator said (Hamilton), it was a Medieval toy on the modern (mid 1910s) world.

It is arguable that it would have made any difference to the outcome of the war. It was irrelevant in the great scheme of things. Roberts managed to rid the Army of it post the Boer War (other than for ceremonial purposes) with Army Order 39 of March 1903 only for Haig to reintroduce it in 1909. Remarkably there is evidence that the abolition was ignored by some units during training and manoeuvres.. In the interwar period (Boer War to Great War) there was a huge battle of wits within the command structure over the Arme Blanche (the debate was not confined to the Lance but extended to the sword as well) which was fought in Parliament, the press and in publications. The key inter-war period documents are the Cavalry Training Manual 1904, 1907 and 1912 and parliamentary debates 1902-1914 (Hansard).

The most relevant book is "War and the Arme Blanche" by Erskine Childers (author of the Riddle of the Sands) which acted as a lightning rod for the pre-war debate on the Arme Blanche where he argues about the futility of using swords and lances in a period that had seen massive technological advances. it was heavily steeped in examples of the limited "success" of the Cavalry in the Boer War. Elandslaagte seemingly was the best example of a succesful charge with the lance (5th (Royal Irish) Lancers). Arguably the Cavalry came out of the Boer War with their reputation in tatters. The book was published in 1910 and Roberts wrote the preface from his seat in the stalls of the House of Lords, no longer influential on the Army Council (he was the last C-in-C).

The Great War killed the lance - perhaps the best proof that it was a weapon from medieval times not suited to industrial, modern, total war.

Useful books:

A History of the British Cavalry Vol V by the Marquess of Anglesey pages 391 - 393
Horseman in No Man's Land: British Cavalry and Trench Warfare 1814 - 1918 by David Kenyon
Doctrine and Reform in the British Cavalry 1880 -1918 by Stephen Badsey
War and the Arme Blanche by Erskine Childers
Cavalry Training Manual 1904, 1907, 1912.

Any mistakes are mine. Edited with additional info.

MG

P.S. beautiful pictures by the way.

[Guest]

.....However, after the allies began to break through, the Lancers were used to attack fleeing / retreating German soldiers. They were so effective that it is said that retreating soldiers would often surrender immediately they were seen on the horizon. David

I would be interested to,know the source of this quote. Regards MG

[Guest]

One of the main factors against the lance was the cumbersome procedure for dismounting and what to do with it during dismounted action. In the inter-war period (BoerWar - Great War) one enterprising Officer (Major Martin Archer-Shee 19th Hussars) invented a folding lance however it was never introduced. MG.

[Steven Broomfield]

Just a point: although, as Martin says, the lance was statistically insignificant in the general scheme of things, of the five brigades of cavalry which the BEF took to France in 1914 (1st to 4th in the Cavalry Division, and the 5th Independent), there were four Lancer regiments (5th, 9th, 12th and 16th), which out of 15 cavalry regiments makes a proportion of a little under 27%. When the two Indian cavalry divisions arrived in France that proportion will, of course, have increased.

So, although cavalry per se was (in terms of numbers) pretty insignificant, the proportion of lancers within that number was actually quite high.

Just a thought.

[Guest]

And it is worth adding that the Yeomanry did not use the lance in WWI, despite six of the Yeomanry regiments nominally being designated as Lancers. The Lanarkshire Yeomanry, Surrey Yeomanry, Lincolnshire Yeomanry, City of London Yeomanry, Bedford Yeo and the East Riding of Yorkshire Yeomanry were all in the Corps of Lancers.

MG.

[T8HANTS]

Given that Germany had retained their lancers up to the start of the war, and that during the pre-war era the envisaged war was still going to be one of movement, surely giving up the lance would have put our cavalry who are now acting only as scouts and mounted infantry at the same disadvantage as the ordinary infantry.

Should the Uhlans manage to get through the dismounted cavalry's rifle fire, they now have to mount up and get away, with no means of mounted defence against the nasty man with the lance bearing down on them. I presume the French still retained lancers in some form, so the retention or even reintroduction of the lance comes down to the old question of "we won't give up ours till the other chap does", and it was only the unforeseen nature of the war that doomed the lance to history and "Tales what thrilled the Empire".

Its retention was not because of the feelings of nostalgic senior officers, but rather there was still possibly a need for it against similarly armed hostile armies. Or am I completely wrong on this?

Gareth

[Guest]

Given that Germany had retained their lancers up to the start of the war, and that during the pre-war era the envisaged war was still going to be one of movement, surely giving up the lance would have put our cavalry who are now acting only as scouts and mounted infantry at the same disadvantage as the ordinary infantry.

Should the Uhlans manage to get through the dismounted cavalry's rifle fire, they now have to mount up and get away, with no means of mounted defence against the nasty man with the lance bearing down on them. I presume the French still retained lancers in some form, so the retention or even reintroduction of the lance comes down to the old question of "we won't give up ours till the other chap does", and it was only the unforeseen nature of the war that doomed the lance to history and "Tales what thrilled the Empire".

Its retention was not because of the feelings of nostalgic senior officers, but rather there was still possibly a need for it against similarly armed hostile armies. Or am I completely wrong on this?

Gareth

When the lance was reintroduced the "Annual reports of the Inspector General of the Forces... had called attention to the alleged lack of 'effective steel weapons with which to oppose a continental opponent' [Anglesey pagVol 4 page 410]

The British Cavalry were on occasion used in larger formations and while scouting was one function there are a few examples of brigade level actions on the Western Front and in Palestine. The supporters of the Arme Blanche would probably have agreed with most of your comments. The main debate was how to arm the Cavalryman when dismounted and given the sword was attached to the saddle (as well as the SMLE in a leather bucket), this did not encumber the Cavalryman. The lance was not attached to the saddle and the question what a dismounted lancer would do with it occupied the minds of the Cavalry thinkers. In dismounted action one Trooper would control four horses while the other three used their SMLEs. It was very difficult to do this with four lances.

The proponents of discarding what Dundonald called 'ironmongery' would argue that cavalry charging dismounted cavalry armed with the SMLE would lose. Every time. The opportunity for 'shock action' or the knee-to-knee charge was seen to be decreasingly likely on the modern battlefield. It is worth noting that there is a difference between Cavalry (Swords, Lances and SMLE) and Mounted Infantry (SMLE)

According to Anglesey (if I recall correctly), the introduction of the longer 35 inch-blade of the 1908 pattern sword with an outstretched arm would almost match the length of a lance.

MG

[T8HANTS]

There is some sense in the theory that dismounted cavalry will always succeed against mounted cavalry, unless faced by overwhelming numbers.

I did not realise there was a stowage problem with the lance, and had always assumed there was a "hands off" stowage for it within the equipment, so the difficulty presented to horse holders in the event of a dismounted action is apparent. It also illustrates why the sword would retain a degree of usefulness. Devoid of both sword and lance, cavalry are then reduced to little better than M.I.

G

[Guest]

..........Devoid of both sword and lance, cavalry are then reduced to little better than M.I.

G

Lord Roberts argued that the rifle should be carried on the Trooper, not the horse. He cited examples of killed horses falling on the rifle bucket and trapping the weapon, leaving the horseless Trooper in a precarious position. The doctrine at the time was that the sword and lance were only used when mounted and the rifle only used when dismounted. MG

[T8HANTS]

I slightly misunderstood, I though there had been a move to do away with both sword and lance. The trooper with his weapon trapped under his fallen mount is also a point I had never considered. An interesting point - Thank you!

G

[Guest]

I slightly misunderstood, I though there had been a move to do away with both sword and lance. The trooper with his weapon trapped under his fallen mount is also a point I had never considered. An interesting point - Thank you!

G

Roberts generally promoted the idea that the rifle should be the primary weapon - the main thrust of the Cavalry training Manual 1904 largely authored by Roberts with a preface stressing this point. When he left the Army in 1905, the pro arme blanche camp regained control of the newly formed Army Council and diluted his influence with revisions to the Cavalry Training manual 1907 and further changes in the Cavalry Training Manual 1912. His only voice was from the House of Lords after 1905 or through public support of publications such as Childer's book (1910).

The sword was always part of the Cavalry equipment right up to and including the Great War. The Lance was reintroduced in 1909 and used throughout the Great War. All Cavalry had the SMLE. The Yeomanry lost their swords after the Boer War. Later there were plans to issue them to the Yeomanry on mobilisation. This ridiculous situation triggered debate in Parliament which in turn forced the hand of the reformers who capitulated and provided swords for training in 1913. On mobilisation all the Yeomanry had swords (1880s pattern I believe) and rifles and later bayonets too.

On topic, the lance was used for annual training by the South Notts Hussars in 1907 ( a period when it was officially relegated to ceremonial and escort duties). This is one of the more bizarre aspects of the debate on the arme blanche. There is a photo of the SNH paraded with their lances in their published history (see below). Interesting for three reasons;

1. Yeomanry with an arme blanche when the Yeomanry were only officially armed with a rifle

2. A Hussar regiment armed with the lance

3. A mounted regiment armed with the lance but with no sword (Note: Officers - swords only)

[khanda]

I would be interested to,know the source of this quote. Regards MG

Martin, if I remember correctly it was in the History Channel's 'The Real War Horse'

A few extracts here

http://www.history.co.uk/shows/real-war-horse/videos/the-real-war-horse-preview.html

[Welch Regiment]

By way of an anecdote I can't currently back up with any primary evidence (mainly because I'm several hundred miles away from the diary where the events are described) my stepmother's grandfather was captured by Uhlans during Ludendorf offensive in March 1918. He was apparently the passenger in the cab of a lorry, well behind the lines and not thinking himself in any special danger, when Uhlans cantered up either side of the moving vehicle and poked bith him and the driver with the tips of their lances to attract their attention. Needless to say 'for them the war was over'...

[Steven Broomfield]

According to Anglesey (if I recall correctly), the introduction of the longer 35 inch-blade of the 1908 pattern sword with an outstretched arm would almost match the length of a lance.

MG

Yes, it would.

By way of an anecdote I can't currently back up with any primary evidence (mainly because I'm several hundred miles away from the diary where the events are described) my stepmother's grandfather was captured by Uhlans during Ludendorf offensive in March 1918. He was apparently the passenger in the cab of a lorry, well behind the lines and not thinking himself in any special danger, when Uhlans cantered up either side of the moving vehicle and poked bith him and the driver with the tips of their lances to attract their attention. Needless to say 'for them the war was over'...

There's a thing. I was under the assumption that German cavalry had been dismounted, and the lack of an effective force for exploitation hampered the offensive.

Did the Germans maintain a mounted arm (however small)?

[Welch Regiment]

No idea, though the story is an often-told one in the family. I'll check the details next time I'm back in Wales.

[Latze]

Yes, it would.

There's a thing. I was under the assumption that German cavalry had been dismounted, and the lack of an effective force for exploitation hampered the offensive.

Did the Germans maintain a mounted arm (however small)?

As far as I know only the regiments of the cavalry divisions were dismounted. The 'divisional cavalry' of German infantry divisions (a squadron each in 1918) retained their horses.

[Stoppage Drill]

One of the main factors against the lance was the cumbersome procedure for dismounting and what to do with it during dismounted action. In the inter-war period (BoerWar - Great War) one enterprising Officer (Major Martin Archer-Shee 19th Hussars) invented a folding lance however it was never introduced. MG.

Just spotted this - as a matter of interest, Martin Archer-Shee was the older brother of George A-S who was the inspiration for "The Winslow Boy", Rattigan's absorbing play.

George was killed in action in October 1914.

Sir Edward Carson QC, currently being mentioned on the Casement thread, to something less than advantage, acted for the Archer-Shees in the real life case