Why did cavalry during the Napoleonic era stop using spears?

>>1685530

Different units have different purposes, and different doctrines may make some units, such as lancers, unnecessary

As example, a recon unit whose doctrine is based upon mobility and enemy avoidance would certainly not need a spear

>>1685644
Yes but 95% of NW era cavalry used sabres only.
why

>>1685946
Because more effective on infantry when charging
Spears have to be taken out of the dead body after each use, while you can just slash with a saber

Also I can imagine if your cavalry gets bogged down against a unit of infantry or another unit of cavalry then a sword would be easier to defend yourself with than a lance.

>>1685530
Custom. While every so often some military innovator will force others to play the game his way or die, most often in history a military machine will be run on the whims and fancy of the military aristocracy combined with the practical realities of logistics and comfort for the lower recruits.

Swords became the overwhelmingly popular weapon for Napoleonic cavalry because the cavalry sabre over the past century had acquired a gallant, noble, and flashy image for itself in stories, art, and parades. Eastern European and Turkish cavalry became renown decades earlier for their daring and decisive actions, and as Western European armies rushed to incorporate their own Hussar regiments this style of soldier quickly gained the airs of an 'elite' which meant anyone who could afford to be a cavalryman aspired to be like them. And being mostly aristocrats, they made it happen more often than not.

>>1685958
If that was the reason then they'd have never used spears.
>>1685972
Most spear cavalry had a side sword anyway.
>>1686502
Now that makes more sense, i definitely know about the hussars and yeah, the Sabres at the time were just copies of eastern swords.

I guess its like the French not adopting rifles.

>>1685530
French Napoleonic Lancers were feared across the continent.

>>1685958
The French did not slash with their sabers. They pierced.

>>1687459
>If that was the reason then they'd have never used spears.

Spears had the advantage over sword cavalry
That's why lancers were almost exclusively a counter-cavalry unit during the Napoleonic Wars

>>1685530
Maybe for shock impact but how easy is it to defend with a spear from horseback with one hand? Cavalry didn't just charge and retreat. Swords were definitely superior for any drawn out fighting from horseback. It's almost as if different tools have their own strengths and weaknesses.

>>1686502
This is just bullshit. People use weapons because they work. All of them have their purpose. This dumb argument keeps coming up and it's just as stupid each time. The tactics and equipment of any time period were used because that's the best they had at the time. It's a pretty fringe case where a military deliberately uses things known to be effective because of "muh ceremonial."

>>1687508
>>1686502
How are hussars even relevant here? The majority of light cavalry engagements were done on routing enemies or light troops. Most of the heavy fighting was left up to heavy cavalry or cuirassiers.

>>1688275
>This is just bullshit.
It's not, you're just putting words into the argument that were never there. No one said soldiers of the day purposefully used ineffective weapons for impractical reasons. At the end of the day a sword is still a deadly and effective tool no matter the reason it was used over other, also effective, weapons.

The point is the choice between one form of effective warfare over another form of effective warfare was cultural first, and finely honed to deadly precision after the fact.

>>1685530
Because the British and French aristocracy no longer trained with spears in civilian life. Cavalry officers pushed their personal biases in training and outfitting their soldiers. So you end up with one group armed with curved swords with Indian hilts because that was fashionable and another group armed with straight swords because slashing was for dirty peasant foreigners.

Lancers had to be trained up and outfitted from scratch because of this. You could drum up a bunch of rich kids and reasonably expect them to have trained in horsemanship and swordsmanship already, but not spear fencing.

>>1685530
A lance isn't always the best weapon. It's superior in reach, but not as easy to wield in melee. In an ordered, disciplined charge no weapon was more deadly.

The problem was that in Napoleonic times, cavalry melee combat was ubiquitous and most cavalry regiments were just not that organized and disciplined enough for a proper lance charge. Sword-armed cavalry can be very effective with just their personal skill, but it takes training as a unit to become effective lancers.

In earlier times lancers were trained to work together, which made them exceptional, but by the Napoleonic Era cavalry regiments were raised by recruiting a motley band who were all trained individually with the sword and their first taste of group combat training would have been the army.

I suppose a lot of cavalry were dragoons as well

It's unwieldy and cumbersome to bring. That's it.

>>1685530
There were pike armed cavalry in Napoleonic wars.