The Armour Archive

Does anyone know how the hollow lances of the 15th century and later were constructed? Did they start with a solid lance, split it, hollow it out and glue it back together, were they built up from staves like a barrel, or was some other method used?

Galleron wrote:Does anyone know how the hollow lances of the 15th century and later were constructed? Did they start with a solid lance, split it, hollow it out and glue it back together, were they built up from staves like a barrel, or was some other method used?

IIRC, a display in the Tournament Hall at the Royal Armouries suggested they were stave construction then turned to shape. I don't have any photos of the display but I thought it was a pretty logical presentation.

My understanding of the Polish Hussar ones were that they took a light softwood, split it, hollowed it, and then glued it back together and reinforced it by wrapping it with thread. I don't know if everyone who used hollow lances did it the same way or not.

Why would one want a hollow lance? Is it a balance thing?

Dave

The Winged Hussars could charge a pike formation and win because their lances were longer than pikes. Only way to get a lance that long and light enough to actually hold couched is to make it hollow. Donno why anyone not making lances that long would want them hollow, maybe they're weaklings?

Those 15th century tourney lances were hollow because they were meant to shatter spectacularly. Also, they looked pretty damn dramatic being constructed as they were.

Keeping the weight constant, a hollow lance will have a greater diameter than a solid one, and thus be stiffer. Stiffness is desirable.

Hollow lances is something I've not heard about until this very thread, and I'd be keen to learn more.

If I were to hypothesize, I'd suggest a method similar to that used by fletchers who make their arrows (hollow) from split bamboo. Essentially six laths with edges planed to 60 degrees glued together that create a hexagonal cross sectioned, hollow member. Then the beast would be turned on a lathe to round it.

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... ows?page=1

Of course, the lances would not need to be quite so parallel (though many split bamboo arrrows are barrel shaped), and a clever armchair mathematician could design a shape of lath to get One much closer to a final curvy lance shape.

Where can i learn more about the hollow lances, who used them, when, etcetera?

Dave

Aussie Yeoman wrote:Hollow lances is something I've not heard about until this very thread, and I'd be keen to learn more.

If I were to hypothesize, I'd suggest a method similar to that used by fletchers who make their arrows (hollow) from split bamboo. Essentially six laths with edges planed to 60 degrees glued together that create a hexagonal cross sectioned, hollow member. Then the beast would be turned on a lathe to round it.

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... ows?page=1

Of course, the lances would not need to be quite so parallel (though many split bamboo arrrows are barrel shaped), and a clever armchair mathematician could design a shape of lath to get One much closer to a final curvy lance shape.

Where can i learn more about the hollow lances, who used them, when, etcetera?

Dave

Here's what I've got:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... ction.html

Galleron wrote:

Aussie Yeoman wrote:Hollow lances is something I've not heard about until this very thread, and I'd be keen to learn more.

If I were to hypothesize, I'd suggest a method similar to that used by fletchers who make their arrows (hollow) from split bamboo. Essentially six laths with edges planed to 60 degrees glued together that create a hexagonal cross sectioned, hollow member. Then the beast would be turned on a lathe to round it.

http://paleoplanet69529.yuku.com/topic/ ... ows?page=1

Of course, the lances would not need to be quite so parallel (though many split bamboo arrrows are barrel shaped), and a clever armchair mathematician could design a shape of lath to get One much closer to a final curvy lance shape.

Where can i learn more about the hollow lances, who used them, when, etcetera?

Dave

Here's what I've got:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... ction.html

A revelation: the hollow lances in the Tower are heavier than their solid counterparts!

Edit: I should have said from the Tower. I'm using an 1898 article by Viscount Dillion, and at least one of the lances he examined seems to now be in Leeds.

Will, you may want to compare the -size- of the hollow Tower and Leeds lances (there are at least one in each place) with the other types. The lance in the tournament gallery at Leeds is extremely large (4+ meters and over 6" in largest diameter), and likely it was never intended for use. I've seen it up close and do not believe it -could- have been used.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Will, you may want to compare the -size- of the hollow Tower and Leeds lances (there are at least one in each place) with the other types. The lance in the tournament gallery at Leeds is extremely large (4+ meters and over 6" in largest diameter), and likely it was never intended for use. I've seen it up close and do not believe it -could- have been used.

Could it have been for ceremonial purposes?

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Will, you may want to compare the -size- of the hollow Tower and Leeds lances (there are at least one in each place) with the other types. The lance in the tournament gallery at Leeds is extremely large (4+ meters and over 6" in largest diameter), and likely it was never intended for use. I've seen it up close and do not believe it -could- have been used.

Why do you think it could not have been used?

In Vienna and Munich museums there are lances that are just trees with a coronet at the top, They are thick like and arm and very long, maye around 4 meters. I don't remember which period they are from.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Will, you may want to compare the -size- of the hollow Tower and Leeds lances (there are at least one in each place) with the other types. The lance in the tournament gallery at Leeds is extremely large (4+ meters and over 6" in largest diameter), and likely it was never intended for use. I've seen it up close and do not believe it -could- have been used.

The one in Leeds matches Viscount Dillon's description of a hollow pair that were 12' 6"" and weighed ten pounds. The heavier group of solid lances were 11' 7" and weighed six pounds. An 8% increase in all dimensions to bring them to 12" 6" would bring them to 7.5 pounds.

The other group of solid lances was lighter, at 12 feet and 4.5 pounds.

Some time back, there was a New Yankee Workshop episode where the project was a tapered flagpole that was built using stave construction. I would imagine the jigs and techniques would work equally well for lances. I recall that a router on a sled was used rather than a lathe to turn the pole round.

I am specifically referring to the lance in the Tournament Gallery Leeds Royal Armouries, and I believe the object number is VII.551
http://collections.royalarmouries.org/v ... p?i=278953

This lance is huge. I've stood next to it many times, and marveled at it's....well...it's "hugeness". And thinking that it's much too large to actually use.

The effective maximum length for a lance of this shape, that is one that would NOT be used in a stechzeug arret and queue, or with a rennen armour (both of which make special accommodation for exceptionally long and thick lances), is about 12 feet. I recall this lance being rather longer than that. Also, as I noted above, it is very large in diameter, which would make it very difficult to use. Also, it has no accommodation for a vamplate, which were in common use in most jousts of the period contemporary to this lance.

While it is known that some whacky Germans 'showed off' by using exceptionally large lances just to prove how strong they were, the lances shown in pictures of such are of a different type and shape.

I would like to also point out that whether a lance is hollow or solid has little to do with its weight, unless made of exactly the same wood. A solid of a light wood can easily be lighter than a hollow lance made in a denser wood. The dimensions also are a factor.

And I agree that a hollow lance can be as strong or stronger than a solid lance. There are far more factors involved in a lance's strength than only whether it is hollow or solid. Inconsistencies in the wood, knots, dryness, quickness of seasoning, etc. all affect wood's properties.

....but I don't know if those factors are relevant to the discussion......just thought I'd throw them out there.

(edited substituting "length" for "weight")

Sounds like it could have been a siege lance.

I've updated my blog post with weights and dimensions for the lances from the Tower:

http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.co ... ction.html

Seeing all the specs on the 551 lance makes me even more convinced that this lance almost certainly was never intended for use.

Key points-
It's nearly 9" in diameter in front of the grip.
With the cited dimensions, there is over 11-1/2 feet in front of the hand, most lances are around 11' -total- length, usually with only 9' in front of the hand.
It weighs 20 pounds!

Jousting lances are usually around 6-8 pounds. Anything significantly heavier than that isn't terribly practical. 20 pounds seems insane for a working lance.

Do you have evidence that this was intended for use? I ask in seriousness, as I'd really like to know.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:Seeing all the specs on the 551 lance makes me even more convinced that this lance almost certainly was never intended for use.

Key points-
It's nearly 9" in diameter in front of the grip.
With the cited dimensions, there is over 11-1/2 feet in front of the hand, most lances are around 11' -total- length, usually with only 9' in front of the hand.
It weighs 20 pounds!

Jousting lances are usually around 6-8 pounds. Anything significantly heavier than that isn't terribly practical. 20 pounds seems insane for a working lance.

Do you have evidence that this was intended for use? I ask in seriousness, as I'd really like to know.

550 is the 20 pound monster still in the Tower. 551 at Leeds is significantly smaller and half the weight.

OK, my mistake. There is however a typo in your blog:
"Viscount Dillon's Nos. 1&2 are VII.551, 3&4 seem to be VII.551, and 9&10 appear to be VII.634."
That's probably where I deviated from the correct reference.

I have seen both the Tower and Leeds lances, but my recollection of one of them (and I believed it was the Leeds lance since I was there far more frequently) was that it was HUGE-- way beyond usable size, both in diameter and length, which leads me to believe it's not for use. I can't honestly remember which one seemed bigger, my primary memory is that they are -both- very large.

Seeing these things up close is much different than looking at photos, so I was just trying to lend my first-hand knowledge of the pieces, combined with my working knowledge of lances.

Next time I'm in England, I'm going to make a point of looking at these pieces, and in the meantime, I'm going to comb my photo files to see if I have any photos. I'll let you know what I come up with.

Sorry for any misunderstanding on which lance was which.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:OK, my mistake. There is however a typo in your blog:
"Viscount Dillon's Nos. 1&2 are VII.551, 3&4 seem to be VII.551, and 9&10 appear to be VII.634."
That's probably where I deviated from the correct reference.

I have seen both the Tower and Leeds lances, but my recollection of one of them (and I believed it was the Leeds lance since I was there far more frequently) was that it was HUGE-- way beyond usable size, both in diameter and length, which leads me to believe it's not for use. I can't honestly remember which one seemed bigger, my primary memory is that they are -both- very large.

Seeing these things up close is much different than looking at photos, so I was just trying to lend my first-hand knowledge of the pieces, combined with my working knowledge of lances.

Next time I'm in England, I'm going to make a point of looking at these pieces, and in the meantime, I'm going to comb my photo files to see if I have any photos. I'll let you know what I come up with.

Sorry for any misunderstanding on which lance was which.

Sorry for the typo. Fixed now, thanks.

Jeffrey Hedgecock wrote:I am specifically referring to the lance in the Tournament Gallery Leeds Royal Armouries, and I believe the object number is VII.551
http://collections.royalarmouries.org/v ... p?i=278953

This lance is huge. I've stood next to it many times, and marveled at it's....well...it's "hugeness". And thinking that it's much too large to actually use.

The effective maximum length for a lance of this shape, that is one that would NOT be used in a stechzeug arret and queue, or with a rennen armour (both of which make special accommodation for exceptionally long and thick lances), is about 12 feet.

(edited substituting "length" for "weight")

Why could the Tower lances not have been used with a queue? Not saying they would have been, but could they have been? if not, why not?

Ya - hollow'd give a nice stiff light structure. Hollow or not - joining pieces together to make a composite would reduce potential for warping.

I recollect looking at the joinery in a couple big 'uns, and they appeared Stave-built. Coulda been Leeds, coulda been Tower - likely both... Maybe Met or Philly...

A competent cooper could do it. No fancy jigs or lathes needed.

(And no, will, I won't make you one. )