Lances at San Pascual

[machinist]

I do not have anything specific to the battle, I do have a picture that is supposed to be from the museum of the battlefields state park but I believe they are two Mexican swords of the second half of the eighteen hundreds, one sword I cannot say and a lance head that looks more like a buffaloes hunters lance all with no provenance given.
I have two Mexican spearheads one of which is for a lance, I think was collected in northern Mexico (modern boundaries) and the other one is a much larger, in my opinion too heavy for a horsemans lance that was supposed to be dug from the Carpenteria area, They are ten and eighteen inches long.
The smaller one has been hammered on the socket as if to drive it into the ground, I have seen this with other Mexican spearheads and have been told they were used to stake horses or tents.
I have seen one other very similar to my large one that was from the San Juan Capistrano area that was twenty inches.

[Jim McDougall]

Machinist thank you so much for the response and great input!!
I didn't expect much traffic here as this topic is not much of a draw as far as interest, but as I noted, there is so much history here in this part of the U.S. and it is so little understood.
The reason that the lance was so key to Spanish colonial weaponry was mostly that the firearms, even when serviceable , the powder in Mexico was poor quality. In recent reading on the Alamo battle, one of the most overlooked factors was the terrible gunpowder. I have understood that even few of the Mexican cannon shots even reached the target. The Spanish muskets when fired failed to even penetrate, however they did in the attack severely penetrate the Mexican ranks directly in front of those firing.
It was the bayonet which did most of the damage.

Thank you again for you help with this.

Jim

[Philip]

The limited utility of firearms in 19th cent. cavalry encounters, as compared to that of hand-to-hand weapons, was commented on by Lt. Gen. Sir Wm Warre, liaison staff officer for Marshal Beresford in Portugal during the Peninsular War. Observing a number of encounters, he wrote,
"A strong proof of how ineffectual the skirmishing of Cavalry is, except to cover the retreat of larger bodies, and prevent the columns being fired into. Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yards of one another firing with no effect, though neither party had any idea of fear. When it can possibly be avoided the less powder wasted this way the better. The best arm for the Cavalry is the sword or saber, a well-broken horse, and firm presence of mind...

[Jim McDougall]

Philip, thank you so much for this very well placed excerpt regarding the conservation of powder and use of edged weapons with cavalry. It is well known that cavalrymen in Europe and England were taught to rely primarily on the sword in the 19th century.
A great book on these topics is "Charge to Glory" by James Lunt, where it is noted that the cavalryman learned that his weapon was always the sword.

In Spains frontiers in northern Mexico and the American southwest in the 19th century, the most effective weapon was the lance, as they fought against marauding Native American tribes. It seems that firearms were often optional as the serviceability of the weapons and availability of powder were primary issues. The well known espada ancha was more a utilitarian implement used more against rugged chaparral than in fighting.

While your expertise is of course immense in so many aspects of arms and armour, I know you have broad contacts through museums and collections in these areas formerly of Spanish dominion. I wonder if you might have seen examples of lance heads used and information on them in the early 19th c.

[Philip]

I'm not aware of any systematic attempt to study lance heads from the era, of course that's not to rule out the existence of such effort which has escaped my notice! Seems to me that on specimens without visible markings, or lacking firm provenance, classification may be difficult because these utilitarian and generic-looking things can resemble each other so closely across national and cultural boundaries.

Interesting to read your comment about the role of the lance in the military history of Spanish America. Reminds me of what I've learned about the hunting of wild boar with spears in Continental Europe. In most countries where it was practiced (to this day, in some areas), it was done on foot but in Spain, the favored method was/is from horseback with a lance. Also, Azorean bull handlers are adept at managing the bovines with long staffs with metal ferrules at the end, resembling the pikes of Renaissance armies except that they have no sharp points -- you see these guys in action when bulls are "run" through the streets during festas, or to prompt them to exit the arena alive since killing the animals in bullfights was banned in Portugal centuries ago.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Philip

The limited utility of firearms in 19th cent. cavalry encounters, as compared to that of hand-to-hand weapons, was commented on by Lt. Gen. Sir Wm Warre, liaison staff officer for Marshal Beresford in Portugal during the Peninsular War. Observing a number of encounters, he wrote,
"A strong proof of how ineffectual the skirmishing of Cavalry is, except to cover the retreat of larger bodies, and prevent the columns being fired into. Our people and theirs were constantly within 30 yards of one another firing with no effect, though neither party had any idea of fear. When it can possibly be avoided the less powder wasted this way the better. The best arm for the Cavalry is the sword or saber, a well-broken horse, and firm presence of mind...

Good shot, Philip.
May i add that, context is important in these issues; a man trotting or galloping a horse has hardly enough stability to shoot a weapon at target with effectiveness ... whatever the quality of the weapon may be. While on foot all quality miseries arise, despite immobility and discipline bein taken into account. Listen to Peninsular War chronicles written by A.H.Norris and R.W.Bremner: A soldier that gets wounded by a musket at a distance of 135 mts. should be in fact rather unlucky, this assuming that his enemy is aiming at him.The ratio of missing shots could be so high as 13 to 2, even with good weather and, in rainy days, it was improbable that any shot could take place.... gunpowder was very crude, gun barrels had to be frequently cleaned, the French ones more than the British. Heavy rain could simply inutilize the weapon, as the gunpowder got wet and would not explode.
And adding to that, the smoke; there are countless narrations of soldiers mentioning that, the (black) gunpowder smoke in battle was so dense that they couldn't discern where to aim at.


.

[Philip]

May i add that, context is important in these issues; a man trotting or galloping a horse has hardly enough stability to shoot a weapon at target with effectiveness

...EXCEPT, FERNANDO, IF IT IS HAPPENING ON A HOLLYWOOD FILM SET WITH CAMERA ROLLING!

gunpowder was very crude, gun barrels had to be frequently cleaned, the French ones more than the British.

...THE FRENCH OPTED FOR A SMALLER BORE (.69 inch) BECAUSE A SUPPLY OF BULLETS WEIGHED LESS THAN FOR THE BRITISH .75 in. BORE, AND WITH THE SAME POWDER CHARGE THE VELOCITY AND MUZZLE ENERGY WOULD BE GREATER. BUT THE TENDENCY OF BLACK POWDER TO CREATE LOTS OF FOULING, DUE TO THE SULFUR CONTENT, MEANT THAT SMALLER BORES NEEDED MORE FREQUENT CLEANING.


Heavy rain could simply inutilize the weapon, as the gunpowder got wet and would not explode.

...ALSO FLINT DOES NOT STRIKE AS MANY SPARKS ON A WET STEEL. AS FOR A MATCHLOCK, FORGET IT! CHARCOAL AND SALTPETER, THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF BLACK POWDER, HAVE A TENDENCY TO ABSORB ATMOSPHERIC MOISTURE EASILY, MAKING THE SITUATION EVEN WORSE.


And adding to that, the smoke; there are countless narrations of soldiers mentioning that, the (black) gunpowder smoke in battle was so dense that they couldn't discern where to aim at.


.[/QUOTE]
...THAT IS WHY MILITARY UNIFORMS WERE BRIGHTLY COLORED, AND UNITS CARRIED LARGE FLAGS SO AS TO BE RECOGNIZABLE .

AND THE SLOW RATE OF FIRE OF MUZZLE-LOADING FIREARMS IS YET ANOTHER ISSUE TO BE TOUCHED UPON. NOT UNTIL THE DEVELOPMENT OF BREECH LOADING GUNS USING CARTRIDGES IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 19TH CENT. DID MILITARY FIREARMS CATCH UP TO THE BOW AND ARROW FOR FIREPOWER. A REASON THAT MOST ORIENTAL CULTURES THAT RELIED ON CAVALRY KEPT USING THEIR POWERFUL COMPOSITE BOWS WELL INTO THE CENTURY.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Philip

...THAT IS WHY MILITARY UNIFORMS WERE BRIGHTLY COLORED, AND UNITS CARRIED LARGE FLAGS SO AS TO BE RECOGNIZABLE .

Somehow a two ends stick; you could better visualize your mates but also make your self better spotted by the enemy, if he was at close quarters; yet the shining safety vest was not yet invented . Michael Glover compared hand to hand shooting ambiance with the dense fog of London. Lieu Tenant Colonel Wilson, during the atack of Erlon (before Waterloo) reported that he could not see the enemy, having then been instructed to direct his fire towards and over the bodies of some death horses laying ahead.

Originally Posted by Philip

... AND THE SLOW RATE OF FIRE OF MUZZLE-LOADING FIREARMS IS YET ANOTHER ISSUE TO BE TOUCHED UPON.

It is said that a well trained soldier could reload twice in a minute; such an eternity. Still having to often pause for cleaning the barrel and changing the flint every thirty rounds.

[kronckew]

most attacks would succeed or fail in 6 volleys or less, ranges were much too short for more, tho one at short range just before bayonet contact were deadly. napoleon's old guard veterans all, broke with 6 at waterloo and retreated.

even after the issuance of rifles and cartridge weapons, most battles ended after a few volleys, not extended firefights. the famous battle of rourke's drift, most zulu were killed at a range of a few hundred yards & very few made it to hand to hand range. unlike the movie. (and they were not yet a welsh regiment). the zulu king had told his brother not to attack fixed positions or he wpuld be defeated. he ignored that and was. the impis that attacked the mobile and split forces at islandlhwana listened and won. also after just a few volleys as they overan the unprepared british and their unfortified camp.

up till the beginning of the american civil war uniforms and flags signalled to units who was who as there were no radios, telephones and as noted, lots of smoke. union and confederate troops at the beginning both wore an assortment of colours, the southern officers, many ex-union, continued wearing blue, especially their hats long after they changed to grey coats. the fog of war still caused many blue on blue casualties. lees' loss of stonewall jackson to 'friendly fire' being one of the most telling. the south changed their national flag a couple of times to avoid confusion with the yankee one in battle.

an aside, polish cavalry with long (14ft. +/-) lances defeated a large swedish army with pikes and halberds. they also slaughtered the turks outside wien (vienna) at the latter part of the 17th c.

edited:somehow swede turned into swiss, fixed now.