Two Handed Weapons in Combat on HORSEBACK? Mounted Martial Arts with
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- What is the problem with using two-handed weapons on horseback? With @ZacharyEvans
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#cavalry #medieval #swords
Interesting to hear you two discuss this topic. I've done a few videos on the subject showing a pollaxe used two handed from horseback at speed. It takes a good horse who knows their job.
I was going to share this with you Jason. Good to se that you were already here while I was watching Dr. Clarke.
And there one of the first things to become rare on campaign, injurys and disease mean that there's a lot of replacement horses with riders that have just met them.
Hi Jason since you are one of the few people who are actually able to test horseback combat, I'm asking here that have you read about Warhorse Project's claim that Medieval horses are often relatively smaller than modern breeds (13-16hh)? Would you think that the size of horse can make difference while testing different horseback skills? Thank you?
@@wolfensniper4012well, to be fair, looking at armor in museums, knights weren't all giants. That stuff is comically small.
Yes I have and I've worked with them on that project a little too. One of mine, Ghost is 15.1hh so small by modern standards and can happily carry me in tournament.
@@wolfensniper4012
I think there is an underlying psychological problem here that pops up all the time in historical analysis which is the atrophy of a practice results in the historians inability to understand the limits. Very few people ride anymore, thus very few people have spent time every day understanding the possibilities of what can and cannot be done while riding. This then comes to the imagined limit of the historian as the assertion of what can and cannot be done. I imagine a contemporary example will be how we interface with computers, and 1000 years from now people will be debating just how fast fingertips can move over a mapped input.
Fair comment.
that is an interesting observation I was playing a pvp game and got into it with another player via text chat, and he was amazed that I could type that fast and play the game at the same time. I blew his mind when I told him I was playing in my room with the lights off. Some zoomer who does not know that touch typing is a thing.
@@MusMasi My one high school regret is NOT taking a typing class (Yeah, I pre-date home computers).
I can type fast, but I have to be looking at the keyboard to do so, and my mistake rate is still higher than a touch-typer.
@@MusMasi That zoomer needs to play some dota, trash talking while playing is a skill everyone has honed
@@MonkeyJedi99 get a job as a check in agent at an airport, training done in just 6 gruelling months
As a person who grew up on a horse farm and has ridden horses in many contexts and environments, I very much appreciate your discussions regarding cavalry and weapons used on horse. Nice to meet Zachary. Cheers and thank you.
How important is it to have one horse one rider to have the best communication ?
I might have ancestors who lived on a horse farm. Currently I am trying to find out if I did, and if so, how I am going to find my way back.
@@ducthman4737 Of course it depends on context. We do not know the relationships riders had with their horses back then. In my experience most people have pretty basic relationships with their horses. It is the rare horseman who is really in close, clear communication with his horse.
For more on horses and a section on horse training look for the three part documentary series called "Equus: The Story of the Horse" from PBS NOVA. It is excellent.
It follows the development of the horse from the proto-horse 44 million years ago to how sensitive and intelligent horse trainers can get amazing behaviours from their horses in the modern, enlightened era.
Cheers!
12:35
This might be why we see the rider depicted using two hands. They clearly seem to be in a very close melee so reach may not be an issue in that scenario shown. I think using two hands on a sword makes sense when your enemies are already that close to you
I was thinking the same. The image shown looked like a crush with horses basically side by side. In that case the longsword as the secondary weapon they discussed being carried in case you dismount, would seem a better option than a spear.
Exactly my thought. Where could the horse go other than "forward, with the rest of the horses"? Even after a charge into infantry if the combat is a pretty tight press there probably wouldn't be a lot of room for the horse to go one way or the other. I suspect swinging a two handed weapon in a more open fight would be a real problem, however in a really tight melee there really isn't much directional choice.
Especially if they are heavily armored. You would need the extra hitting power.
Yeah, my thoughts too. Those depictions are of course not completely reliable as to the exact situation, but for the type of fighting it's clear that a very close combat is depicted. If your horse more or less stands still than having more power and reach by using two hands - especially if neither has a shield - is certainly something a good rider would do.
The korean Muyedobotongji (“Comprehensive Illustrated Manual of Martial Arts”), which was published in 1795, details the use of the glaive on horseback in a section called Masang woldo (마상월도, 馬上月刀), which you can find demonstration of on youtube. It's pretty interesting.
Thanks! I'll look that up.
@@scholagladiatoria th-cam.com/video/7Hb1RTfJkf0/w-d-xo.html , th-cam.com/video/FTxH5tCRl-k/w-d-xo.html , th-cam.com/video/ofmpvTi-Loc/w-d-xo.html , th-cam.com/video/79iOt-rvVdI/w-d-xo.html here are some of these videos with korean horse riders wielding two-handed glaves, dual swords, bows, etc. etc.
That sounds like the classical depictions of Guan Yu's duals on hoseback with his glaive from the Three Kingdoms media.
@@scholagladiatoria from the same source there's a manual for using 2 swords on horseback
@@IntranetusaYes, Guanyu's legend is widespread in East Asia, especially Korea where its most influenced by Confusious culture. It debated tho whether Guandao Came from Guanyu or is Given to a legendised Guanyu in later periods but Chinese and Korean since 12th century call the Glaives GuanDao nontheless because Guanyu is so famous.
Of note, I think one often sees the use of two handed weapons on horseback while in a press, packed in tight melee with friend and foe alike. In a stationary combat like that, where maneuver is unavailable, swinging hard and fast might be the tactic.
Riding a horse is like having a conversation.
This feels like a funny yet perfect explanation at the same time.
Rider: Asfalot, palpatine is evil !!
A: From my point of view the jedi are evil !!
R: Well then you are lost !!
X) couldn't help but imagine that convo making as much sense as this one x)
@vedymin1 thank you for making my brain play out that scene 🤣
@@vedymin1 When I read this, the horse was a gleaming exemplar of the Mearas (sp?), and the rider is Gandalf, with his ancient lightsaber Glamdring held high.
Having a conversation on the other hand is often more like talking to a horse than riding one.
There's a saying amongst horse people:
Tell a gelding
Ask a stallion
Discuss it with a mare
Pray if it's a pony
While they received only passing acknowledgement here, 'horse cultures' like the Plains Native Americans and Mongols did not rely on bridles, bits and reins for control, it was all done with the seat and legs. Not as familiar with Mongol riding styles, but Native Americans only used a hackamore and a blanket, essentially riding bareback. Now you'd need powerful legs to make this work, but I suspect that was not an issue for these people. My horse taught me how to ride, and at first I thought one rode like the movie cowboys, using the reins and heels. Eventually my horse taught me how to ride him using my butt and knees. Eventually I could just let the reins go slack and 'steer' him with my body. Were I to ride today, I'd only use a hackamore and an English saddle. I also have to mention the Spanish Riding School Austrian Lippizaners. Those "airs above the ground" that are so beautiful to see were originally combat tactics where the horse was a weapon as well. Anyone who's ever been kicked by a horse (can't include myself there) would attest to the uncomfortable result of horse's hoof-vs-human body.
Never been kicked by a horse, but I work on a cattle farm. Can attest even a glancing blow from a large, hoofed animal is very unpleasant.
The Lippizaners are just fantastic. And their history contains a very special tidbit - the Austrian ones were rescued from getting (very likely) slaughtered by the Russian Army from a breeding farm in Czechia by a detachment from Pattons Army, working together with the German, Austrian and Czech personnel on the farm - and fighting their way into American-controlled territory against the damned Waffen SS.
They were only later sent home to Vienna.
Look up Operation Cowboy, if interested. There is even a Disney movie about it, but it is… Disney, so not accurate at all…
Have seen photographs of old water buffalo hunter's in Australia some of those blokes used to ride in a similar way including using hackamore and old army saddles some would shoot rifles at a gallop with either 1 or 2 hands. They tended to use spine shots to immobilise the animal before going to the next one.
Using two-handed close-range weapons from the saddle appears to have been somewhat more common than the video suggests. As mentioned, using staff weapons in both hands while mounted appears in many Japanese, Chinese, & Korean sources. Holding a lance in both hands was widespread across the Middle East & North Africa in the furūsiyya tradition, practiced by the Mamluk military among others. So that's a lot of the world already. Even in Europe, a number of two-handed techniques with even the heavy lance appear in manuals, & Pedro Monte recommended using a warhammer in both hands from the saddle. That's in addition to the various images of Europeans wielding two-handed weapons from horseback that this video notes. The weight of the evidence suggests that wielding a close-range weapon in both hands on horseback was an effective technique even if it made controlling the horse more difficult. As described by Michael S. Curl & Noel Fallows, riding style influences how much a person relies on the reins. They present it as a tradeoff between stability & control, with the bridle style being secure but relatively clumsy while the jennet style puts the rider in greater danger of being unhorsed & grants easier maneuvering without using the reins. It's telling that two-handed techniques appear even by men-at-arms in full harness riding in the bridle style. Part of the reason using close-range weapons in both hands may have been more popular outside of Europe could be riding style.
Pietro/Pedro Monte recommends using the sword/estoc (and lance) with both hands from the saddle too
The conversation makes me wonder if using a weapon 2 handed is a way to disengage from close combat. The added power from the swing may encourage your opponent to back away, while the weight shifting tells your horse to back away.
Different type of two handed weapon, but the Cataphracts were known to use pikes with both hands, steering the horse with the legs instead of reins. Of course, the kinematics of directing the point of a pike and letting the momentum do the stabby action is very different from swinging a two handed weapon.
I actually wonder if this sort of static stab wasn't more common with two handed weapons on horseback. It would be very similar to the way it's done with a one handed cavalry saber, it's just able to get further in front of you. Less motion means there's less to confuse the horse as well.
@@novembermike512 It is frequently illustrated in Medieval Chinese and Persian visual sources as well, lancers would wield their weapon with two hands in combat but appear to couch them outside combat. The Persian sources I have seen though were compiled under Mongol rule and depict primarily Mongol military equipment/practices (with some Iranian and Turkic influences mixed in ofc.) I have no horsemanship experience though and cannot comment on how this might play in practice, only how the people back then drew it. If you are interested the main illustrations I thought of were from the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh.
Speaking of Kingsley, I'd love to see a collab between you and him at some point!
We've been trying to organise that for a while. Watch this space!
@@scholagladiatoria awesome!
My favorite game of all time, "Shadow of the colossus" made the horse an NPC, not a vehicle.
Agro, (The horse) generally will follow your commands, but will chose her own speed, will path find her own way, will avoid dangerous paths, and if you let go of the controller, will even try and guess where you want to go.
While rudimentary, the interaction as so convincing in 2005, that the sequel, "The last Guardian" was entirely based around riding a fantasy creature that has it's own personality, and treats different players differently based on how you treat it, disobeying your commands if it's scared, you mistreat it too much, or you allow it to become lazy by letting it get away with whatever it wants all the time.
For Shadow of the Colossus, Fumito Ueda, the designer took houseback lessons along with his entire design and animation team to make it feel as real as was possible for 2005.
My initial impression before running the video: horse archery is a thing, and that involves two hands, but not necessarily the precision horse maneuvering that mounted melee combat requires. So maybe?
Matt, ask Zachary to sit you down (chair or bar stool) and to teach you about weight shifting. That will teach you faster - really feeling what he articles while also allowing you to manipulate the sword - than all the words.
I think its more of some cultural stuff that Europeans often don't care about. In many Eastern Asian country like China and Japan, staff weapons on horse are Strictly two-handed such as lance(马槊), halberd(画戟), Glaive(关刀) or nagigata. Archery on horseback is also mandatory for heavy cavalry, therefore they often see no problem depicting using lance with two hands in contemporary and modern arts. Persian also did this if I remember right.
It should be noticed that China had kept a "Martial Examination(武举)" system to it's military officers throughout history, and in such exams the skills for horseback archery and two handed lance are tested. So it would be no problem for Heavy cavalry who are trained and tested their whole life to master two handed skills on horseback (or maybe the equipments are different?)
Or maybe the horse size? Warhorse Project had made a famous claim that Medieval horses are often relatively small (14-16hh) comparing to modern breeds, We also know that Mongolian and Japanese horses are even smaller (11-13hh), and Chinese breed are often not that big either (horse breeding grounds were often occupied by its enemies), Maybe smaller horse is more easy to control? I really hope someone should test Medieval horseback skills on smaller horses (13-16hh) instead of modern breeds to test the differences
Historical Archery just did a video about using slings from horseback. its almost like anything you can do on your feet (if you are comfortable on your feet) you can do on horseback (if you are comfortable on horseback)
The horse is also a herd animal. Imagine a couple of knights riding in the same direction on trained war horses. The guys in the middle don't even need a reins at all, you can swing all day in melee.
I grew up with horse people and learned to tide bareback, many times just hanging on to the mane. I had to learn even more when using a saddle. A well trained horse is likebuying a specially designed car. Some training does not react well to another discipline. I knew a reenactor who would get an older Thoroughbred that was past racing prime for cheap. He wanted it because it was common for US horse cavalry. After many years on a race track it wasn't much good for anything else with out hours of retraining. Point being if you could afford armor you spent the money on a well trained war horse. You were as well trained in it's handleing as you were in arms. It's cost was probably equal to a Bugatti.
Yes a war horse for heavy cavalry in the middle ages was very expensive and a knight would have more than one because it could get injured easily and you needed young ones under training.
There's regular complaints of knights are not bringing there best horse or moaning that the pay for replacaments was too low, or that the army had been provided with only old broken nags.
Great way for Zach to describe riding a horse as a conversation -- it really is two-way communication, which can be transmitted through any of the natural or artificial aids. Entirely feasible to train a horse to move in all directions solely off the seat. (And yes, my school horses, too, would become dull to all the novice riders bouncing about, and I'd need to periodically tune them up to be responsive.)
Let me put it like this: Just as we have today the Christopher Nolans and the Michael Bays they did back then; some manuscripts are highly accurate while some manuscripts show crusaders cleave through fully armoured sarazens with falchions. Could you use a two handed weapon on horseback? Yes. Can you split a iron encased dude from shoulder to groin in a cavalry pursuit? No, it looks f*cking cool though.
Can't believe you compared Nolan to Bay. I mean, "Tenet" wasn't _that_ good but still... 😂
@@colbunkmust Well, to give something to Bay, he is really good at technical camera work and SFX. Like apparently a lot of the stuff he does with that stuff is really really difficult to do
Oh I just meant their approach to realism: Gritty practical effects vs. Rule of Cool-CGI.
@@mnk9073 I don't mean to be taken too seriously, but, I'd argue Nolan's use of CGI and Bay's are for very different purposes. Nolan's is usually more for the purpose of visual story-telling while Bay is typically credited more for the bombastic spectacle.
oh shit, my dude Z is making another Medieval Cinematic Universe appearance. All you fellas are missing is a bookcase for a backdrop.
Awesome discussion by Matt and Zach! I was just looking at some French seals and spotted some very early 13th century longsword/great swords of war depicted being used from horse although I believe they were mostly one handed.
I know you pointed out the naginata, and while we don’t have that much information about their wartime use I should mention we have a couple of depictions of Nodachi being used (twohanded) from horseback as well.
I had to go and watch Jason's videos after watching this 😄
I ride and fight I've been learning Japanese martial arts for over 2 decades now and although you CAN use a polearm from horseback but I've never really seen a reason to, a sword or spear work fine (I really love our European weapon set though the lance looks fun and crazy effective 😋) but the only thing no-one's mentioned because I guess it is more of a far Eastern especially Japanese thing is using large bows from horseback. You need that instinctive relationship with your horse, because you need to almost entirely stand and find space to draw it and bowstrings do frighten the horse a lot. What do you think Matt? 🤔
I'm not very good at it because I'm more a bowman than a horseman, but the bow is probably the only 2 handed weapon I'd be comfortable using from horseback, I can see why guns like the dutch arquebus became the preferred weapon in Japan
Ofcourse it is done! Bretonnian Questing Knights are famous for it...
Steppe cavalry and pre-Augustan rome used their thighs and knees to steer the horse.
The two handed kontos lance was a steppe invention adopted by Macedonian cavalry and in Samurai context Kanabo clubs and the Japanese battleaxe were both used on horseback since shields weren't in common use and opponents would be armoured against swords.
Mr. Easton on a roll w/ very interesting, rapid-fire content!
Great thanks!
The manuscript that Matt showed, illustrates the 2 handed sword being used in a equestrian melee. Perhaps that makes it more useful, than a targeted single strike on a specific opponent where there is room for the horse to move away from the seat though incorrect leg aids. Just a thought as a retired equestrian and now HEMA enthusiast.
It makes quite a bit of sense if the horse and rider are armored so they can remain static and the goal might be something like getting leverage to dismount the opponent.
Matt, my fave podcasts are when you have Zac or Capwell on (and I agree with the commenters, Jason would be an excellent addition to discussions like this one) - for myself and I may be misinformed but we’re not the Huns, Scythians both master horsemen who rode using commands with only their legs (freeing up both arms)?
Great episode, Zac is a great guest, would love to hear him with Jason!
I'm not sure how good the evidence is but it seems that Alexander the Great's cavalry may have used a two-handed lance. This was called as "xyston" and later a "kontos" (as used by the Sassanians, as you mention).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyston
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)
There's also George Catlin's picture "War on the Planes" which shows a Comanche using a lance two-handed against an Osage warrior (though who knows if he actually saw this).
I dare say, the mongols could probably control their horses, without hands, as easily as they could walk.
They do now. I can only imagine they were better in the past!
Hands-free horse control is more common than not. Once you understand, it is like riding a bicycle with no hands, but the horse has common sense, which the bicycle doesn't. The horse is trained to respond to knee pressure and other signals if your hands are not using the reins for control. Western vaquero-tradition cowboys rope cattle with the rope in one hand, and throw the loop with the other. Then wrap "a dally" around the saddle horn. Farther east, - e.g, Texas - the rope may be pre-tied (hard tied) to the saddle. A well-trained horse, such as a warhorse, will respond to very subtle guidance from the knees, feet, even voice. They are capable of knowing the rider's intent, and can maintain a course even though the rider does some unusual motions in the saddle. My horse could maintain a full gallop in a straight line, while I leaned out of the saddle to pick an object, such as a bottle, off the ground. The horse is also smart, and can often tell as soon as the rider whether a cast with a lasso was good, and a well-trained roping horse will be slowing and settling back on its haunches brand bracing for the cow's encounter with the limit of the rope's length leaving you to throw the dally, and get your fingers out of the way of a hemp guillotine slamming into the saddle horn when several hundred pounds of bovid hit the end of the rope. Warhorses need to be just as well-trained, and tracing that training historically leads back to Spain and Portugal and cattle handlers who also were trained as lancers.
How much does the horse know about what it is supposed to do? If you have an experienced warhorse charging at someone, does it know where it has to go independent of your weight distribution?
On a wide open field, precisely controlling a horse without using the rains is difficult. Most of the depictions I have seen from mideval Europe, the rider is in formation or bunched up in a melay. In those situations, your horse isn't likely to veer off no matter your lack of imput or riding position. A well trained war horse was likley trained to be controlled by only leg commands and ignore the riders positioning.
From what little bits I can recall, many of the famous "warriors" had their favorite horse that they would regularly ride into battle. Maybe the combination of training and regularly using that particular horse would make the horse more "aware" of movements meant to guide the horse and it would ignore other movements done in using a weapon.
I'd love to see a discussion of the use of those cataphract kontos. I've never been able to get my head around the two handed lance thing, why anyone would choose to use a spear like that on horseback. I kind of get that it was a pre-stirrups alternative to couching the lance, but I still struggle to visualise how it would actually work.
I would love to see bannerlord do something like allowing you to wield in both hands on horseback if your riding skill is at least 2 above the horses requirement
I feel like the realistic outcome of two handing a sword on horseback in a melee such as depicted in manuscript art is a similar outcome to that frogmouth bearing man show in the video lol, stabbed somewhere important.
Massive props for bringing in an expert on a topic adjacent to your expertise rather than assuming that your own knowledge will be sufficient. Always great to see a knowledgeable person show the integrity to bring in an expert when they need to.
Matt, polish tradition has always emphasized cutting with saber when the horse steps with its right front leg. Thus using his Energy to cut. Just like cutting in fencing using Energy from the hips and rotation of the entire body in long sword.
While it would take alot of practice, just like when they were training in the last samurai movie, I'm sure horse archers would definitely be too op for the game rising lords, and although I'm sure a sword or spear is more likely, anybody with throwing hammers like battle brothers could be even more fearsome without any armor or shield; hopefully not a wider and thinner riot shield for me personally though, if it wasn't as challenging to forge my favorite shield, and do some fun armor ballistic tests usually these days, although I can be pretty focused on some things like armor making occasionally anyway.
I used to go to a friend’s dressage competitions in high school. I have no doubt she could have trained her horse to understand what she wanted him to do even if she was swinging a sword.
Pretty good discussion, but i have to add a few points, which were missing (no critique, it's a large topic and we stand just at the beginning to understand, thanks to people like Zachary, Tobias Arne, Dom and so on).
1.) The point with disturbing the horse when "swinging" (i don't like that therm, because specially on horse back, i think the technique of using any kind of sword, is more critical and complex an on foot, at least that's my experience as rider) the weapon is not as a problem as explained, when we look at the more detailed sources, we have of the XVI century (unfortunately no clear medieval sources till know) like Pluvinel or Guérinière and as it is still common for more classical riding schools, the horse gets trained to follow the riders point of gravity. Means when the horse is trained in a classical way, it will follow the blow. Also the reins are called SECONDARY in the old literature, what clearly explains, that the main way of communication is done by the pelvis and legs, as Zachary explained.
2.) As you both mentioned, horses have their own brain. Thank can be challenging, but their are smart as well. Riding in a more medieval like way, or comparable schools, the education and training of rider and horse takes a decade or even more. We are talking here of a highly complex form of art, bio-mechanical and intellectual, for both. That just shows how smart horses are and when trained well, they absolutely know their job. Even today there are many videos out there of raining horses or Spanish horses fighting a bull, or raining cattle even without rider. In logical consequence the same count for well trained war-horses of the past. There's a reason why a good destrier had cost a fortune. And there are even clear examples, which lead to that conclusion. I think the most famous is Gustav Adolf in the Battle of Lützen 1632. The legend says that they bound his dead body on the saddle of his war horse, named Streiff (i saw him irl in Stockholm) and that they were so able to keep the illusion, that he still is alive. But when looking at the leather jacket Gustav worn (also conserved in Stockholm) we can see that he got hit in the left side of his abdomen. So probably a wound, which not killed him immediately, but slow bleeding to death. No proof, but a good sign that the horse was able to do his job, even with a wounded person on his back, to such a degree, that no one was able to realise that Gustav was dying. Just a foot note here.
Good video. I've ridden horses a little bit and conversation is definitely the right word for it: sometimes a good talk and sometimes you just don't get matched well and things get a bit chatty until they're sorted out. With an experienced cutting horse you basically just point at the cow, give the command to go for it, and you're mostly just along for the ride. If you start trying to micromanage a well trained cutting horse, it'll probably fight you because it knows its job just fine and thinks you should stick with yours. An experienced horse will generally have a lot more cow sense than the rider, to anticipate the cow, with the rider's delayed reaction. I'm not sure if cavalry horses would work similarly, but it would make sense since cutting horses also have to be bold, and since you've got your job and the horse has its job in the advance to contact.
I've had a rifle on the saddle, but never shot or swung at stuff from horseback. A lot of riders won't even carry a fixed blade on their belt because they're afraid of getting the handle in their side if they fall off the horse (scout carry of small fixed blades or carrying folders are generally preferred).
I remember few tidbits about this topic:
Monte mentions using some weapons two handed on horseback iirc. One case its in a duel with another knight where you drive your horse (he talks about stronger vs weaker horses) against the enemy horse and that in some cases you should grasp your warhammer two handed to deliver a powerful blow on either rider or horse. Whole situation seem to imply that basically the horses are shoving against each other or something like this. Think monte mentions or imply similar usage a few times in his book.
Oakshott iirc mentions something about the germans using two handed swrds on horseback presumeably with type 13a swords two handed and devlivering powerful cuts and were defeated because while being well armoured they needed to raise their arms and thats when the french stabbed them.
I remember a contemporary picture from the thirty years war where one guy also holds his sword in two hands to deliver a blow.
There are also some mentions of odachi being used on horseback though i have no clue how believable those sources are. I assume that overall it can be done when there is no worrying about the horse or the there is only one way/path for the horse to move along.
Yeah, Monte seems to have been a big fan of using a warhammer in both hands from the saddle.
Great video. Zac is a great guy and guest. Very interesting subject.
Interestingly various Turkic, Mongol and Tungusic peoples (notably the Jurchen, ancestors of the later Manchu) also used two handed lances from horseback, and indeed numerous accounts (and archaeological finds) show that the Mongol armies of the Jochiid Ulus (the Western Steppe region which now makes up parts of Russia, Ukraine and Western Kazakhstan) used a specific type of hooked lance to hook opponents and drag them from the saddle, something which must have taken a lot of movement of the core muscles. However, like Mongol archers and swordsmen, these lancers seem to have fought primarily by standing up in the saddle so that their knees, shins and feet were in contact with the horse and could be used to guide it, however there was no contact between the seat and the horse. I can't speak from experience but I do wonder if this may have allowed them to use their hips to "insulate" their core muscles from the horse and minimise the impact of the movement of the torso on the parts of their body which are in contact with the horse, thus enabling them a greater range of torso movement without giving unintentional signals to the horse. Similiarly this technique would likely have been very helpful for Mongol archers because, while I agree with Matt that the act of drawing a bow wouldn't have much impact on the horse, Steppe archers were typically trained to shoot in a roughly 180 degree arc from directly in front to pretty much directly behind themselves-which means that aiming the bow and aligning the torso in order to safely draw the often quite heavy warbows would take a lot of torso rotation which could easily give a false signal to the horse unless the rider was trained to manage that issue by some means.
Yeah, riding styles were different in different times & places. Cavalry across Asia & North Africa used lances & other close-range weapons in both hands. Medieval Europeans gravitated toward the bridle style of riding, which grants more stability but makes guiding the horse without the reins harder. Despite this, Europeans still sometimes used lances, warhammers, swords, & the like in both hands on horseback.
Being a pure theoretic, some notes. Mouted Cavallry drummers had ( still have) stirrups conected to headgear (?) , in german Zaumzeug of the horse. In riding sport there is racing, obstacle jumping, snd what is in german called , Dressur ' where the riders sometimes a top hat, this riding style looks a bit srange. But i have somewhere read, that also this riding style has military roots in middleage and Rennaisance, but don' t know, if this is true.
Most important thing not covered here affecting the horse are the actual combat and the panic and violence overriding the subtlety of the cues from the seat and the leg. This is where the rein hand becomes most important. Here in Colorado, we practice mounted combat weekly and we have found that this is the item most often neglected by reenactors. It is especially true in the gunpowder era because of the noise panicking the horses, but equally so without gunpowder. To say nothing of the fact that other people are trying to do the same to you and your horse. Subtlety is important in use of the leg, seat, and hand, and as classical horseman we strive for it all the time here, but it would have been difficult to do in warfare. The manuals of horsemanship show this change in approach from the 16th to 19th centuries. N.B. the herd can have a mitigating affect here. The horses will want to stay together. This can keep you well organized as a group in combat, but if they all start to go, you better have your hand on those reins. It's important to remember as well, that tournament jousting as a sport, whether in the historical era or today, has about as much to do with real battlefield combat as Olympic fencing has in a street fight.
Yes for this reason alone I suspect using longer weapons on horseback was more about stabbing, head smacking, levering people off their horse, killing the horse etc., rather than something akin to dueling on horses. That's why when they go two handed they want reach.
Cavalry horses where also bred and individually selected for their job and trained for it from the beginning, and then practise it daily. I'm sure your horses are as well but maybe not as rigorously as in the old days.
@@alicelund147 Too true!! And not just trained for cav overall but very specific roles which may or may not call for long weapons. Different breeds also take to different demands differently, so I mustn't be too quick to (over)generalize.
I wonder if the limited representation in art to two handed use is because during the charge you would use some of the weapons one handed, out stretched. But during the press of the melee you would need to shorten your reach to maneuver, and you may have to react to opponent coming from directions other then the front.
Maybe Jason would be willing to reply to this with a video demonstration? (Or Zachary could do a followup?)
Jason already did:
th-cam.com/video/n5kiJrSC7SU/w-d-xo.htmlsi=dqOB4mU7LDJYN3OV
I have the opposite type of experience. My experience lays mostly in many hours on horses and many on motorcycles. In reality of motorcycles is that much of the input is in the foot as in pressure and leverage heel to toe. When you ride either with stiff ridgid arms you are shooting your response time. Counter steering on a motorcycle is taught by pushing slightly on the inside handle, but could also be taught as putting body weight/leg pressure into and Infront of the toe. As this can also be done in the communication you are having with a horse. There is also a counter weight or counter balance as opposed to counter steering but this is only necessary at slow speed and increases lean and hand input turn the opposite way as counter steering, like you would experience on a bicycle; logical direction turning weight opposing the lean angle. At slow speeds it's harder to get the horse to understand pressure in the saddle, tapping one foot are the other helps and forward or back saddle pressure helps communicate the speed. Most beginner horse back riders give mixed signals, the reigns are not to really be used except for slowing dramatically; like the e break in your car a horse will have a delay when foot tapping; it will actually wait to see if you are tapping once twice or three times so it knows what gear to be in before it moves.
As a final note, when a riding, the faster your going the more off the seat you want to be; the knees rest on the saddle in turns. So for swinging without communication to the horse or bike it might be best to try and limit that communication to the contact closet to the center of the saddle.
Historical as hell! Bretonnia has them for sure: Questing Knights, featured heavily in Repanse's campaign.
Quid pro quo you limey bookwyrms!
A really interesting conversation! Always good to see Zac. Great content as always, Matt!
I always figured Kurosawa's 1958 film "The Hidden Fortress" settled this question. The chase scene showing a mounted 2-handed strike is the first 5 seconds of this video: th-cam.com/video/6Gp4lRLF0SY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=4JFwPl4128AREfc8
I find this topic very interesting because I've heard a few times how the Mongol horseback archers were famed for being able to shoot on the move and also about horseback samurai that wielded nodachis which, because of the difference in weight distribution between most katana and longsword/greatsword designs, DEFINITELY required a two-handed grip to control it. XD
In Peter von Danzig and in Paulus Hector Mair where Spear use two handed described on horseback !
And in Peter von Danzig is Halfswording described mounted!
See Viennese Spanish Riding School, Lipizzaner horses. Highly trained riders and highly trained horses can still be experienced. I've seen them. My uncle was involved in their rescue in WWII.
Cowboys ride their horses and frequently control them without the reins depending on the application. You see it in rodeos. I've ridden cutting horses trained to be steered with the knees at Harriman State Park (Halo Ranch) in Island Park, Idaho near Yellowstone. They use rodeo horses for the public. So I would believe knights, who are highly trained horsemen, would be capable of it. Mounted archers would probably do it, too.
Well, historically ancient Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Mongolians etc were using two handed weapons such as spears, lances, long handled axes, wolf teeth maces or even double swords, axes, maces and etc. From what little I know about horses (almost zero!) from what I read of course, those riders controlled their horses with their feet or legs while fighting with two handed weapons or even shooting a bow. Would like to see somebody shoot a bow on a Harley though!~🤣🤣🤣
Paused as I started the video and now I'm staring at Zachary's face like Alan Ruck stared at the painting in Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Reading the comments, I have to agree that people that had the time to train would benefit greatly from practicing from their horses. Modern re-enactment doesn’t get that benefit because few people now are able to train full time with trading with horse based combat. In antiquity a number of people had the opportunity to train for horse based combat all the time. I think that would produce some great qualities. Things we can’t get today. Like if the NFL required pass throws from horse back, we would see outstanding throws from horse back. Horse back control is like circus level shit, but if national security depended on it, corpe’s would depend on it.
The biggest sword I ever saw was the great two-handed one in the Tower of London. I cant imagine wielding that on a crowded field. Swinging it at full gallop on horseback is just crazy to think about. They were men of iron. Very cool video! Thanks.
Just watch present day Mongolian, Hungarian, Kozaks, Indian riders, shooting bows, steering with their legs. Just like a motorbike really; you steer with your legs when neing an experienced rider, both on horse as bikes as well
Fwiw: Liechtenauer's glossers advice, in the mounted combat section, to use both hands on the lance if you need it.
Moreover, there is a specific mounted play where you hold your lance with both hands, like a quarterstaff of sorts.
The whole video completely misses one point - the problem with using a two handed sword on a horseback is problematic not because the control of the horse, but because without footwork and rotating the hips, you cannot cut effectively with a two-handed sword while cutting. I have seen a ways of using a pike two-handed while riding in some Japanese movies, and that looked believable, but for the most part - if two-handed swords were practical on horseback, we would have historical examples (same argument as for dual-wielding swords)
Very interesting to know the communication thing. I'm just a little curious that since it was so difficult to control a horse without using both hands, why do Asian countries like Japan, China, and Korea preferred to use slashing pole arms that required a lot of movements on horseback? Especially Japan where was famous for using naginata on horseback nearly a hundred years before yari evan became a thing because it was considered easier to use? Here’s a duel on horsebacks with Naginata th-cam.com/video/LVEEwZaMKnE/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2PLp9eQlOixVg04-
Your thinking of it from modern saddles sense.
use a 4 post roman saddle or the Assyrian sort that used fringes & cruppers to ride.
The Romans & Assyrians didn't have stirrups or even some time reins.
Ride with a front & back board you will realize you can swing anything you want around as you steer with your thigh on the front single or double posts.
Thing is unlike most I have rode wild horses with my thumbs wrapped around their mane without a saddle.
Assyrian saddles were really a thick bit of fabric or a rug for the most part unless wealthy in antiquity.
Only around the 6th or 7th century did Europe get stirrups through central Asia not really perfected till the 13th/14th century likely by the Mongolians in large part.
I personally prefer riding the Roman & Celtic way with posts-boarded saddles as your feet dangle with your thighs doing the work.
Is tiresome to those that aren't use to it as takes a lot of core strength & thigh muscles which is strenuous if not familiar.
If you don't do it young you won't learn to ride without stirrups & reins.
You do sit up more forward on the horse mind that some find it can make them feel a tad sick.
More fun I find as you are almost on the horses neck leaning forward that you are looking at the same place as the horse is looking on the ground roughly.
It's as close as a person gets to looking through the eyes of a horse.
You do look odd compared to today riders sitting back in the seat rather then forward gripping posts with your thighs.
The rear board or post keeps your arse in place.
The real disadvantages of these old methods of riding that were used with stirrups early on till faded into obscurity is you mount & dismount slower while you can't ride as long as you are not sat in the saddle but straddle it sort off.
Some riders in the wild west used these methods with posts to straddle ride for gun men-ship to duel wild multiple ready loaded revolvers.
I suspect Small war & Caracole tactics mounted pistoleer used similar saddles with ready loaded multiple duel wielded flintlocks & such.
Charge out of the brushes with a dozen or so pre loaded pistols then firing them off before you gallop of in bands for hit & run was rather effective according to historical HRE accounts I read.
though I can't recall the specific source, memory for you!
I find it ridiculous that someone can think that not using your reins will degrade your skill at controlling a horse. Lajos Kassai was born 80 years ago and whatever you may think of the draw weight of the bows he is using, there is very little difference between how well he can control a horse with or without reins. I'm starting to think this is a result of horseback archery and jousting not being very popular in UK and USA, and people there thinking that if they can't do it, no one can.
Although one caveat that wasn't mention is the saddle - jouster I've spoken with told me that the period-accurate jousting saddle keeps your legs straight (and you push into the stirrups with them making them even more stiff) and that makes using them to control the horse with them harder. Still, that is just one pretty specialized saddle.
I'd like to know how these types of 2 handed weapons would or wouldn't work with chariots and on elephants. I know both often had a driver separate from the main fighter, but I know fairly little about it. My only point of reference here is the Bagsvad Gita, and that was mostly archery of I remember correctly, although it's been over a decade since I read that.
I really enjoyed this conversation. Thank you for bringing Mount and Blade into the conversation Matt, legitimizing two handed use. Bannerlord is what came into my mind reading the title.
Fascinating discussion. I think things like this go a long way to show the massive disparity in training required for firearms compared to older forms of combat. Like you'll have this samurai cavalryman that has spent decades mastering the art of using two handed spear from horseback and his day would just get ruined by a peasant that picked up an arquebus a couple of months ago.
Using a two handed weapon from horseback is near impossible. Which is why mounted archers typically used the one handed bow.
Exactly
I can definately say it's MUCH harder to use two handed weapons on a unicycle than 1 handed weapons. I'm talking about both melee, ranged, and firearms.
Crossbows and some 2 handed small arms are okay if you can learn to fire with one hand, and also if you can take snap shots.
Ultimately it's important to be able to learn to ride without relying on one's hands.
One addition might be the difference of the saddle system in nomadic horsemen as they did not possess stirups as the European knight disid but as much as I know from some Anthropology classes that they had some hook like structures on them that held them on the saddle and allowed them greater control over the said communication with the legs with the horse. What is more, they lived and died with their horses and the level of communication probably allowed them a greater level of control. Sassanids and Eastern Romans had similar horse archers as it was the most effective weapon systems at the time, as much as I know Romans had their horse archers meticulously trained for at least 6 months until they grasp the basics of horse archery and possibly they could move away, stop, shoot and move again.
Regarding the use of two handed spears on heavy cavalry, as discussed, it was a slower movement and not at all singular. A large body of horsemen moved together, if we consider the Eastern Roman cataphracts as well, the horses might not have a way of moving that much depending on the miscommumication produced by the movement of fighting. When the block would arrive, and if the adversary has not escaped from the sheer psychological warfare produced by the heavy cavalry, the 2 handed heavy spear might be effective as long as the momentum continued. If the attack came to a halt, I would assumed they would disregard their spears for a mace or sword. However, as it is a block of several ranks, those behind would still find value from the two handed spear.
I have no idea how swinging a naginata while riding fast might work though. It might be simply temporary use depending on the situation and not the rule. A naginata can become a temporary spear I believe?
Thank you for such an interesting topic. Sorry for any mistakes that I might have claimed, these are all personal considerations.
Wielding two handed weapons on horseback must be down to horse training and conditioning and perhaps the type of 'seat'.
You alluded to this in the video. Wielding two handed weapons whilst mounted may have been rare but during the Roman period it was commonplace.
The cataphract-style heavy calvary used by the Romans and Persians fought with the Kontos. A heavy 3 metre+ spear or Pike wielded with two hands. It was not 'couched' but used underhand or over arm for thrusting. This type of weapon was used by cavalry for several hundred years.
The tradition of horse archery and Kontos use indicate to me that the viability of using two-handed weapons when mounted is entirely down to the training and conditioning of the horse. If it is used to the inputs given while riding then it will react in a predictable manner to them.
I also wonder if the saddle and stirrups are an important factor. Horse archers and cataphracts rode without stirrups riding Roman or Persian-style saddles thus they would have been cradled or gripped around the hips and gripped the horse with their thighs rather than pushing their weight downward onto the stirrups when leaning outward.
I've done half swording on horseback, but not this. Guess what I'm doing next session, lol.
Just watch Spanish "rejoneadores", and you will know what riders can do without using their hands for controlling the horse.
This turned out to be more interesting than I expected. I too am completely ignorant when it comes to horses and riding. Thank you both 👍
Matt inadvertently has struct on why the couched lance was such a big deal. So many writers of the past have ignored the horse aspect of cavalry combat. The couch lance likely increased the speed which the horseman was able to contact his enemy at. Combine that with European horses becoming heavier breeds and you begin to understand what the Byzantine were trying to describe of their Frankish mercenaries.
Exemplary video thank you. Wonderful insight.
I guess there are several scenarios which give different opportunities related to the space available to horse and rider. Two loose formations passing each other have plenty of space and room for maneuver. In this scenario it might be beneficial to just give point and focus on controlling the horse. On the total opposite, you might find yourself in a densly packed melee of riders, with very little room, in this scenario, you may very well swing about with your two-handed weapon regardless of the messed-up cues you give your horse, because it has nowhere to go.
Two handed weapon used on horse can definitely be done, but it seems to be a "one hit and then grab your reins again as soon as possible" type of thing. Actually it's the very second technique showed in Paulus Kal's mounted fencing section. Holding a lance with two hands while still keeping the reins, quite similar to earlier XIVth centiry mamluk two-handed lance techniques, which they had quite a lot of.
The main issue with letting go of the reins is that yes you can control the horse for a while, but doing tight turns or sudden stops becomes more and more difficult as time passes, so you would want to grab the reins again as soon as you're done with the technique, which usually is implied to be at a canter against another cantering opponent, so it happens in the blink of an eye. So as soon as you went past your opponent with the weapon in two hands, you want to regain the reins again. Which in armour with gauntlets is a real pain in the ass, hence some rein systems like you see in XVth century Italy there they had only one pair and it had a big "handle", which makes it a bit easier to find the reins again, especially if you're wearing a helmet with your visor down.
Another issue is when having let go of the reins, is that the nemey can grab them and control your own horse, or like Fiore suggest, you just throw the horse to the ground from the bit and reins. So using two hands was definitely done, and it's much more common that one might initially assume, as it's also present in quite a few famous fencing manuals, but it's a risky technique and as Zac said it requires very good riding and a very good horse, which eventually will feel the fact that the reins are gone and might start taking advantage of it and wondering around with the head and neck, which can be a problem if the horse suddenly decides to swing the head up or sideways when you're trying to execute a strike or a grappling technique.
"its more complicated to get teh point out than get it in" its always hard to pull out....
Early Cavalry in the time of Alexander used a Two handed Lance..of course.
The horse and its training isa fundamentally the most important element. The Monguls would shoot bows from horseback. Horses are stupid and skittish animals, so it is the most vital component of a mounted warrior. The horse IS vital to the riders survival in combat, it was not a disposable tool.
Hey matt just also want to ask what's the titlecard from? I just noticed it's a 28mm STL >_>
Excellent conversation and some really good points on rider balance and horse control made by Zachary, please do more with him. My 10p on the comments is I don't see the similarities with horse archery where weapon use has a low risk of unbalancing the rider and most importantly the horse is being asked to run parallel and away from the enemy with no requirement for accurate and close proximity to the hostile
Watch some vidoes on American cutting horses. They are controlled completly with knees and feet. Not a direct corelation but it shows how horses can move.
Shout out to bannerlord.. We are working on a free Wars of the Roses mod called Dell'Arte Della Guerra. Keep your eyes peeled for updates ;)
I don't know why people who practice martial art constantly misunderstand reach. Why holding the weapon in one had give might give you more reach in the direction parallel with the direction of movement, a two hand weapon give you much more useful reach advantage in the direction perpendicular to the horse movement.
It is hard to agree or disagree. East Asian artwork has a lot of depiction of mounted warriors using pole arms on horseback. Today, it is no longer viable in practice for obvious reason. We can assume that most of them uses one handed weapon and 2 handling weapons on horseback are a minority. That is all we can do. Assume. The thing is we don't really know. It is easier to settle for an answer we are more familiar with.
I understand why they were confused, but I grew up around natural horse riding so my gut reaction was "why would there be a problem with two handing on horseback?"
Just by looking in the direction you want to go, your body naturally will push the sides of the horse to guide it in the same direction
Wouldn't it be most likely to be used 2handed if the rider was bogged down in a press at that point standing in your stirrups to protect yourself from being dehorsed would be preferable to remaining seated and clearing a path to get out of the press would in my mind be much more efficient with the power you can strike with using both hands. Even strikes against helmets from above would be likely to maneuver bodies enough to get free vs more leathal sword work.
in such a melee depicted in the manuscript the horse probably couldn't go anywhere anyways, so any false signals it might get couldnt be carried out, so the knight could go at it with both hands to deliver stronger blows
in such a melee depicted in the manuscript the horse probably couldn't go anywhere anyways, so any false signals it might get couldnt be carried out, so the knight could go at it with both hands to deliver stronger blows
Did he really say the most powerful blow someone could muster, if not giving point, in the age of plate harness, is useless?!
Just a thought, would 2 handed sword use be something a cavalryman would switch to in a press or if a charge was stalled and they remained in contact with their opponent?
It's always amused me that Empire Knights in Warhammer Fantasy Battles are sometimes armed with halberds or hammers etc...
When people in manuscripts are using longswords on horseback, they are often shown in a losition where the horse would not be moving very much. I imagine that they would use a sword two handed once they are within enough distance to hit their opponentvor even grapple. I dont think that they would be using it two handed while galloping.