Pikes

[Erpingham]

Surely, the mechanics don't change?  If you can hold an 18ft pike at shoulder height with a grip in the last 4ft., you can hold it at hip height the same.

I think it would be very different.

In the shoulder-height position, you are supporting all the weight - all of the time - with only your biceps in a bent position. Probably quite tiring.

Whereas in the hip-height position you are holding the same weight but with your entire arm in a relaxed and extended position.

You are basically comparing a deadlift with a shoulder press, and everyone can deadlift more than they can shoulder press.

I agree it would be physically harder to hold the pike level in the high position (though I think the moments and forces would be the same, its the muscle use that's different).  That is why the blue position is easier than the orange one - the left arm is braced against the body and the right arm is counterweighting, rather than just pulling downwards.  However, enough high position stuff.  If you can hold an 18ft non-counterbalanced pike in the high position, you should be able to do it with the low position is the point I wished to make.

[RichT]

Patrick:

One of us may be: the other is simply noting that a 21' or 24' pike held 6' from the end indicates the standard Hellenistic solution of a counterweight.

I have no position on whether sarissas did or did not have counterweights, I'm just trying to establish what the evidence is that they did.

So far as I can see, the evidence that the sarissa did have a counterweight is:
Archaeological - a large spear butt in the Vergina tomb (plus the smaller 'Newcastle butt') - but these may or may not be associated with a sarissa.
Literary - Polybius' comment that the sarissa was held with two cubits of shaft extending behind the rearward hand due to the weight of the projecting part of the spear. Note that Asclepiodotus/Aelian do not have this rearward projection - they have the sarissa held by the last two cubits.
Artistic - none, so far as I am aware.
Comparative - here the evidence is entirely negative, since (AFAIK) no other pike in any other era had a counterweight - but these other pikes were all somewhat shorter than the full length sarissa (18' against 21'-24'), and in some cases they were held more centrally (Swiss hold).

For this last point Antony's question is key:

Surely, the mechanics don't change?  If you can hold an 18ft pike at shoulder height with a grip in the last 4ft., you can hold it at hip height the same.  So, a non-counterweighted sarissa would be possible at a similar length.  The extra 4-6ft of the recorded sarissa then become critical - would they change the mechanics so much that it was not possible for a muscular pikeman to use effectively on a battlefield without a counterweight?

If we could establish (through experiment or mathematics) that the extra 4-6ft do indeed make an essential difference, then we would have strong reason to suppose that a counterweight must have been used. But (to my knowledge) that has not been established, merely asserted.

I re-read Peter Connolly on the sarissa - his reconstruction (with a Vergina-style butt) had a point of balance approx 30cm (from memory) forward of the front hand. He also tried a sarissa with a point of balance 48cm forward, and found this 'less handy but still usable'. The photographs of the sarissas with which he equipped his experimental phalanx, however, do not appear to have butts, so this evidence is somewhat contradictory. While I would like to suppose that Christopher Matthew first established through experience or experiment that the sarissa must have been held at the point of balance, I do not share your faith in scholars, Patrick.

[Erpingham]

I think it impossible to pass forward pikes from one man to another in combat.  The space alone would make it impossible to do it.

Besides, any trained knife fighterwill tell you the good users look to slash sideways, not stab, until the guy is beaten.

Lots of side to side and aimed at face to break his defensive posture.  Little stab deep at the shield area, where the armour is.

This does open up a whole other set of discussions.  Never mind how they were made, how did you use them.  Mark's reconstruction does suggest that the individual pikement fenced and feinted, rather than the whole thing worked like a machine.  Now, we know, because we have quoted John Smythe and Monluc, that how to get the best from a pike formation - whether individual "foining" or group thrusting - was a live issue in the 16th century, so do we have indications from ancient writings the prefered method then?

On the subject of passing pikes forward, I agree this would be difficult to co-ordinate even on a drill field, let alone in combat.  It would appear that in the Renaissance, if your pike got stuck (either in other pikes or in an unfortunate enemy) you ditched it, drew your sword and defended yourself as best you could.  Might that have been the way of it for the ancient pikeman?

[RichT]

I get the impression from Polybius, Plutarch (Pydna) et al that group thrusting was the preferred method - no more than an impression, but all the talk of a 'barricade' of spearpoints, of the rearward ranks pressing forward with their bodies etc suggests to me a mass, forward-driving effort rather than 'stand off and foin'. Though if we aren't careful, we'll end up talking about othismos...

The Peltasts at Pydna abandoned their sarissas and fought with their 'little peltai' and 'daggers' so yes - I think once the pike was no longer usable for whatever reason, the sword was resorted to. Which while still in formation might have been something of a relief, as it must have made the shield easier to use.

[Patrick Waterson]

If we could establish (through experiment or mathematics) that the extra 4-6ft do indeed make an essential difference, then we would have strong reason to suppose that a counterweight must have been used. But (to my knowledge) that has not been established, merely asserted.

And will not be established to everyone's satisfaction unless and until counterweighted sarissas are constructed and used by re-enactors.

I think what we have at present is the boundary between reasonable assumption and clear proof.  I would regard the asymmetric grip on a very long shaft as evidence that a counterweight was used.  Another person may consider it as no more than a reason why a counterweight could have been desirable.  Given the Hellenistic use of counterweights on such things as oars, there is a prima facie reason to suppose its use on pikes.  Absolute proof is another matter, and for the present we may have to be content with a balance of likelihood plus an exercise in arithmetic.

While I would like to suppose that Christopher Matthew first established through experience or experiment that the sarissa must have been held at the point of balance, I do not share your faith in scholars, Patrick.

Join the club.

PS: On a different topic... and please excuse my over-active imagination... If you actually impale someone with a sarissa, (apart from it upsetting the weapon balance) is it trivial to get them off again? Admittedly, the impale-ee is incentivized to deal with the problem. Presumably, at a minimum, you have to stop moving forward and possibly even have to wrench your weapon backwards. What does that do to the formation around you?

If you push a sharp object through the muscle wall of the stomach the muscles contract around it, immobilising it. I imagine it would be difficult - if not impossible - in battle conditions to get it out. You would have to brace your foot against the impalee and pull hard.

The stomach muscles do contract around a flat blade; I am less sure they would manage to hold a blade of leaf-shaped or triangular section, especially one with air channels.  We may note that on the Alexander Mosaic Alex's xyston has passed through the stomach muscles of the unfortunate Persian, and his back, and his armour (twice), and a foot or so of fresh air.  The question is: what happens next?  Does Alex withdraw the shaft with a wet sucking sound, or does it break as the casualty collapses off his mount, leaving Alex to call for another?

We may note that the impale-ee already has one hand on the shaft, as if trying to remove the interloper.  Here he and the weapon user share a common aim, so an attempt to draw back the weapon will be assisted by the victim, and if it does not get stuck (as it went through to begin with it will probably come back out the same way) then it will be available for re-use.

For a phalangite to achieve this, the weapon would have to be withdrawn; given the hold suggested by Polybius' description, there should be 2-3' of play allowing the shaft to be pulled back and out of a foe, but mostly it would seem the point went into an opponent's shield and was held there provided the opponent was not moving fast enough to give sufficient mutual impetus to exceed the penetration threshold (the Paelignians at Pydna did add the extra speed and were accordingly spitted; we are not told how the phalangites cleared their weapons).

If you can hold an 18ft non-counterbalanced pike in the high position, you should be able to do it with the low position is the point I wished to make.

There are other factors to consider.  If we look at our Chinese volunteer and his chang qiang, is that weapon as much as 16' long?  Doing an on-screen measurement suggests the shaft up to the red tuft is about twice the height of the man, suggesting an overall weapon length of no more than 14' (allowing for a bit of foreshortening through perspective) and certainly less than 16'.  From the previously quoted Chinese spear text, the weight of the weapon, or at least the shaft, almost doubles between 16' and 18'.  The only reason I can think of for this is that the extra length requires extra stiffness a) to avoid bending and b) to avoid wobble.

This is a lot of weight to be carting around ahead of one's left hand or shoulder.  I suspect (without knowing for certain) that European pike lengths of 16' to 18' came from similar limitations of materials (similar woods and shaft thicknesses) to the Chinese and wonder how many of the pikes held with a non-central grip are actually 18-footers as opposed to more slender 16-footers or conveniently shortened 14-footers.

I get the impression from Polybius, Plutarch (Pydna) et al that group thrusting was the preferred method - no more than an impression, but all the talk of a 'barricade' of spearpoints, of the rearward ranks pressing forward with their bodies etc suggests to me a mass, forward-driving effort rather than 'stand off and foin'. Though if we aren't careful, we'll end up talking about othismos...

I am in total agreement with Richard here.  Unusual, I know, but it does happen ...

[Erpingham]

Given the Hellenistic use of counterweights on such things as oars, there is a prima facie reason to suppose its use on pikes.

Renaissance galley oars were counterweighted but pikes weren't, so this doesn't automatically follow.  We can only really say that the principle of counterweighting was well understood and could have been applied.

This is a lot of weight to be carting around ahead of one's left hand or shoulder.  I suspect (without knowing for certain) that European pike lengths of 16' to 18' came from similar limitations of materials (similar woods and shaft thicknesses) to the Chinese and wonder how many of the pikes held with a non-central grip are actually 18-footers as opposed to more slender 16-footers or conveniently shortened 14-footers.

Not entirely sure where you are going here.  Weight carried around is certainly an issue but the longer sarissa will need to be stiffer (thicker) and heavier than either the Chinese or European example, even without a counterweight.  I also think the material issue is common to all - most modern commentators quoted in this discussion seem to think that a Macedonian sarissa was made of Ash like a renaissance pike.  Clearly, Hellenistic military technologists/tactitians thought the extra weight worth the burden on their troops (though whether the troops felt the same, we don't know).

[Dangun]

If we could establish (through experiment or mathematics) that the extra 4-6ft do indeed make an essential difference, then we would have strong reason to suppose that a counterweight must have been used. But (to my knowledge) that has not been established, merely asserted.

A thought comparison... very simply treating the pike as a lever and examining the hold-at the-end scenario.

As per the previous comment - if you tried holding a 18' pike weighing 0.5/kg per foot and hold it at end and 3' from the end, you would have to constantly apply a 9kg force upwards in your leading-arm (resisting gravity), and constantly apply about 19kg of downward force in your trailing-arm to keep it level.

However, if we cut the pike down to 12' (but still weighing 0.5/kg per foot) and hold it again at the end and 3' from the end, you would have to constantly apply a 6kg force upwards in your leading-arm, and constantly apply about 7kg of downward force in your trailing-arm to keep it level.

Its quite a significant reduction in work, and I'd suggest it is far more feasible in the low/waist position, but still a mightly effort in the shoulder/high position.

Of course, all previous caveats about the numbers being arbitrary etc. still apply.

I'd also point out that a significant counterweight does not help in a grip-at-the-end scenario, except in that it shifts the burdon from one hand to the other. A counterweight only reduces total work in grip-in-the-middle scenarios.

[RichT]

I'd also point out that a significant counterweight does not help in a grip-at-the-end scenario, except in that it shifts the burdon from one hand to the other. A counterweight only reduces total work in grip-in-the-middle scenarios.

That seems like a good point, and rather troubles me about Christopher Matthews' heavy counterweight plus grip at the end - it seems to just make a lot extra weight for small gain in balance.

Incidentally, if we do take it as established that an 18' pike can be held within 4' of its aft end without need of a counterweight, then this is 22% of the length along the shaft. For a 24' shaft, a hold 6' along as described by Polybius is 25% along - so in fact a little further forward, relatively. This (though admittedly simplified) seems to me to make sense, to preserve the testimony of both Polybius and Asclepiodotus/Aelian, and to fit with the practice of other pike users.

I think what we have at present is the boundary between reasonable assumption and clear proof.  I would regard the asymmetric grip on a very long shaft as evidence that a counterweight was used.  Another person may consider it as no more than a reason why a counterweight could have been desirable ....  Absolute proof is another matter, and for the present we may have to be content with a balance of likelihood plus an exercise in arithmetic.

Fair enough. For my part, the balance of likelihood seems to be that Hellenistic pikes were used in the same way (broadly) as all other pikes through history. (In which I've changed my view since engaging in this discussion - I'd always accepted the counterweight idea without question, but now I'm no longer convinced).

I am in total agreement with Richard here.  Unusual, I know, but it does happen ...

I am in a state of shock...

Given the Hellenistic use of counterweights on such things as oars

Do we know this? (Edit - ah OK, Olympias' oars were weighted in the loom, plus there's for example http://www.iconography.co.il/lead-weights.html
OK move along, nothing to see here.)

[Patrick Waterson]

I'd also point out that a significant counterweight does not help in a grip-at-the-end scenario, except in that it shifts the burdon from one hand to the other. A counterweight only reduces total work in grip-in-the-middle scenarios.

That seems like a good point, and rather troubles me about Christopher Matthews' heavy counterweight plus grip at the end - it seems to just make a lot extra weight for small gain in balance.

This is something which seems characteristic of Christopher Matthews: he has a good idea up to a point and then goes off track without thinking it all the way through.  As I think Nicholas meant to say (please correct me if this is not the case) the purpose of a counterweight is to make the fulcrum, or point of grip, coincide with the point of balance/centre of gravity.  Adding a counterweight and then holding aft of the centre of gravity is not efficient.  If CM thinks a grip that far back is on the centre of gravity it implies a rather heavier counterweight than one would expect from Polybius' grip 6' along the shaft.

Incidentally, if we do take it as established that an 18' pike can be held within 4' of its aft end without need of a counterweight ...

If ...

For my part, the balance of likelihood seems to be that Hellenistic pikes were used in the same way (broadly) as all other pikes through history. (In which I've changed my view since engaging in this discussion - I'd always accepted the counterweight idea without question, but now I'm no longer convinced).

A small problem here is that 'all other pikes through history' tended to be held differently and were mostly used without a shield, not to mention being a mite shorter.  It may be just as valid to arrive at conclusions about mediaeval lances by trying to draw inferences from Napoleonic and 19th-20th century cavalry weapons (e.g. "I used to believe in lance rests but now I am convinced they were never used.").

A thought comparison... very simply treating the pike as a lever and examining the hold-at the-end scenario.

As per the previous comment - if you tried holding a 18' pike weighing 0.5/kg per foot and hold it at end and 3' from the end, you would have to constantly apply a 9kg force upwards in your leading-arm (resisting gravity), and constantly apply about 19kg of downward force in your trailing-arm to keep it level.

That is quite a lot of force - more than 40 pounds of force constantly applied by one arm, or about double the total weight I suggest for a counterweighted Macedonian pike.

However, if we cut the pike down to 12' (but still weighing 0.5/kg per foot) and hold it again at the end and 3' from the end, you would have to constantly apply a 6kg force upwards in your leading-arm, and constantly apply about 7kg of downward force in your trailing-arm to keep it level.

Such a configuration has the advantage that the loads are a) much lighter and b) more or less balanced and hence easier to coordinate - and to endure for long periods.

This is a lot of weight to be carting around ahead of one's left hand or shoulder.  I suspect (without knowing for certain) that European pike lengths of 16' to 18' came from similar limitations of materials (similar woods and shaft thicknesses) to the Chinese and wonder how many of the pikes held with a non-central grip are actually 18-footers as opposed to more slender 16-footers or conveniently shortened 14-footers.

Not entirely sure where you are going here.  Weight carried around is certainly an issue but the longer sarissa will need to be stiffer (thicker) and heavier than either the Chinese or European example, even without a counterweight.  I also think the material issue is common to all - most modern commentators quoted in this discussion seem to think that a Macedonian sarissa was made of Ash like a renaissance pike.  Clearly, Hellenistic military technologists/tactitians thought the extra weight worth the burden on their troops (though whether the troops felt the same, we don't know).

Sorry, the point here was meant to be to highlight the degree of unbalanced load the poor long-suffering pikeman would have to endure lugging around an 18-footer sans counterweight if some military genius insisted he hold it by the end as opposed to with one hand in the middle.