What's the difference between spears and lances?

[taiwandeutscher]

A question, experts:
What's the difference between spears and lances?
As a non-native speaker, I tend to think of a speer as shorter, between 1,8m and maybe 2,6m, used differently (2 ends if needed)whereas a lance would be above 3m, used in groups, against cavalery, with onlz the bladed top in usage.
Any definitions?
Thanks and a happy Chinese New Year of the Ox (Phase Earth 土, Stem/Branch Yi 已 Chou 丑) from Taiwan!

[Peter Dekker]

Hi,

Originally the above question was posted as a question in the thread: Military use of the 2-handed jian
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=788

I was so free to split the topic because it is an interesting question that I think deserves its own topic.

In most Western languages the difference between a spear and a lance is that a lance was made for single handed use: either as a javelin, one handed spear or cavalry spear. As such they came in all sorts of sizes, but in its most original meaning it was used to describe the Roman throwing spear.The type you refer to, as being used against cavalry, is commonly called a pike and their users pikemen.

In Chinese they do not differentiate spears in this way, but according to the shape of the head. There is a mao, which describes a spear with a rather thick and narrow head and the qiang which is usually a thinner leaf-shaped blade. There are however, almost endless varieties of qiang of all sorts of shapes and sizes. The mao is mostly associated with cavalry use, but I am not sure whether it was used exclusively for cavalry. There are also short, single handed Chinese spears referred to as shouqiang or "hand spear" in period regulations. These could have been javelins. Lengths of the qiang type range from just over a meter to nearly 5 meters in 18th century military regulations.

To make things more complicated, even muskets were referred to as qiang, the same character. I think they were originally called houqiang (fire spear) but the name seemed to have been simplified to qiang later on. This has lead to some uncertainties about old texts without illustrations that mention types of qiang, for which it is sometimes hard to determine whether they refer to muskets or spears.

So the two types you refer to, were probably both called qiang by the Chinese although they served different functions.

For a discussion on qiang and mao spears, also see:
viewtopic.php?t=426

On spear shaft lengths, see:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=448

-Peter

[taiwandeutscher]

Thanks, Peter, and again, happy New Year to all!

[Philip Tom]

Happy New Year to all. FELIX ANNUS BOVINUS, here's to a "bullish" 2009!

Some clarifications on the issue of spear terminology. Let's start with the English terms we use. "Spear" is a rather general term covering a variety of weapons which have these common features: (a) a long handle in the form of a shaft or pole, usually of wood and of varying length and (b) a metal head or blade of varying length, primarily intended for piercing but in some cases having secondary utility such as cutting, hooking, etc.

Spears can be used either as hand or projectile weapons. The choice of tactical deployment tends to have a strong influence on the weapon's design and weight. Note the Roman experience: The "hasta" was used in both hands for hand-to-hand combat, its iron head had edges that could be sharpened. The "pilum" was a JAVELIN (this term typically restricted to those spears meant to be thrown), its head had a relatively small pyramidal tip on a long iron shank that joined it to the wooden shaft; the shank was tempered soft so that it bent when the target was hit, and thus the javelin couldn't be thrown back by the enemy. In some cultures, javelins could be quite short -- the "jarid" of the Islamic Near East and India resembled a very large arrow without feathers, and was carried three or four in a quiver suspended from the saddle.

Spears used on horseback tended to be quite a bit longer, for obvious reasons, and are generally called "lances". A very long spear formerly used by infantrymen in ranks to protect crossbowmen and musketeers while reloading is called a "pike".

Now, on to the Chinese term "qiang". As Peter has said, it can be confusing when the same word is used to mean "gun" and "spear". In the spoken language, both utilize the first tone, and an adjective has to be used to separate the sheep from the goats. For instance, when one talks about a "niaoqiang", it's fairly obvious that he means a fowling-piece or one of those "bird[beak] guns", since spears aren't typically used to hunt birds with. But confusion can arise, the word combo "changqiang" can refer to both a long spear and a long gun. In the written language, there are two "qiang" characters with the same phonetic element. Logically, the one which uses a "tree" radical can mean "spear" by association with the wooden shaft, and the one with the "metal" radical is more appropriate to "gun" because of the iron barrel. However, Mathews Chinese-English Dictionary, a standard lexicon for the literary idiom, indicates that in common usage, both forms of the character are interchangeable! This is one of the rare exceptions to the usually precise nature of Chinese arms terminology.

[taiwandeutscher]

Thanks, Tom, that's comming close to my presumptions.
Happy holidays!

[Philip Tom]

Peter raises an interesting point. I haven't found any reference to significant use of throwing-spears or javelins in Chinese military practice; if other readers can provide evidence either from period texts or depictions in art, please post the info.

I would explain this supposed dearth of spear-throwing to the early development of powerful bows in China, and the esteemed place that archery has had in Chinese martial culture from classical antiquity through the Qing. If you can use a bow to shoot with accuracy and power, and carry more ammo with you to boot, it's not hard to understand why.

If "shouqiang" translates to "hand spear", I'm wonder if this term refers to a genre of short spears, with cross-handles at the butt (much like the grips on garden spades) that you see in medieval encyclopedias and manuals such as the 11th cent. WUJING ZONGYAO. They are discussed under the topic of siege warfare and these were probably favored by assault troops in tunnels or on scaling devices, needing a powerful but compact thrust-and-parry weapon, where a full length spear would be cumbersome and the typical sword or saber might pose too much of a hazard to fellow soldiers.

[Peter Dekker]

The "hand spear" in question's full name is: "Green Standard Army Hand Spear"

It is stated as being 3 chi, 4 cun and 2 fen long overall. (Approximately 109 cm / 43 inch.) The head is 5 cun 7 fen long. (Approximately 18.2 cm / 7.16 inch.)

There is no apparent handle in the woodblock illustration but it does mention a "wei" or tailpiece that measures 1 cun 7 fen. (Approximately 5.44 cm / 2.1 inch.) This part is likely only for counterbalance.

Unfortunately the text doesn't state any purpose for the thing. Most period artwork focuses on the successes of the Manchu banner armies and not of the accomplishments of the Green Standard Army, which is why we don't see most of the Green Standard Army stuff depicted on them.

(The Green Standard Army being scattered over many small garrisons across the empire, they mostly dealt with internal problems rather than serving on the front line. There were a few occasions where they proved to be of great value, like with the Three Feudatories Rebellion.)

-Peter