Pikes

[Patrick Waterson]

Wouldn't the counterweight have to be even heavier because it is closer to the right hand than the average distance of the shaft in front of the left hand. Levers and all that.

Good question: in practice, we are dealing not with multiple forces but with a single force manifesting through the centre of gravity, the point where equal weight sits on either side, and it is this point of balance which is vital for control of a weapon.

The sarissa is held by the left hand 6' from the butt end, so this is the point of balance and weights on either side of the point are equal.  Because there is a single C of G involved and not multiple Cs of G or moments of force, we do not need leverage calculations.  If one were to lay the sarissa across a 20' wide river and two people were to attempt to sit on it at various points, that would be a very different matter and we would need leverage calculations and bending moments.  And probably a lifebelt or two.

[Swampster]

Perhaps I am being naive, but these various calculations seem to miss out part of the system.
What about the man? The force exerted by his rear arm, whether by muscles, its mass or even resistance of joints to movement.

These do not affect the centre of gravity of the weapon but do affect the way it behaves when held at various points.

[Patrick Waterson]

These are indeed the forces which raise and lower the weapon, and perhaps thrust it when in action.  The beauty of the system is that because the weapon is held at the point of balance, it does not take much force to raise or lower it, or to hold it steady in the vertical - and, just as importantly when hitting something/someone, the horizontal - plane.

Hence, as Peter correctly observes we have looked at just one part of the system.  The left hand, conceivably supported directly or indirectly by the shoulder-strap of the shield, acts as both fulcrum and point of balance.  It has to exert a force equal and opposite to that exerted by the mass of the object through its centre of gravity.  The right hand is both guide and manipulator, exerting downward or upward pressure to bring the shaft into the desired alignment and keep it there.


Because the fulcrum is also the centre of gravity, the system remains in balance and can be adjusted by quite small forces exerted by the right hand and arm.  Furthermore - and to the delight of any engineer concerned with stability calculations - it remains in balance following such adjustments.

Let us consider what happens if the weapon is not held at the point of balance.  We now have two unequal forces acting on the pike one either side of the fulcrum, and a third force exerted by the right hand/arm which attempts to negate the turning movement resulting from the imbalance of forces around the fulcrum.  The weight of the weapon is also mainly taken up by the left hand/arm which in addition acts as the fulcrum.  Calculations at once become quite complicated, as we have in effect four unequal forces involved of which one, the right arm force, is adjustable while the other three are not (well, the left arm force can be adjusted, but not by much). The right arm force now has to resist the continuous turning moment applied by the unbalanced weapon and must in addition apply any guiding force required to adjust and maintain the alignment of the weapon.

Thrusting the weapon does not disturb calculations for a weapon held at the point of balance - these remain downward mass through C-of-G against upward thrust exerted by the fulcrum, and the thrust vector is applied on a different plane while the system remains in balance.  Trying to thrust with an unbalanced weapon requires the right arm part of the system to do two things at once: maintain counterpressure against the weapon's turning moment and apply force in the horizontal plane.  There is, shall we say, potential for misalignment.


In essence counterweighting is a great equaliser, allowing the weapon to be held at the point of balance while providing a generous allocation of shaft ahead of the user.  With the fulcrum being at the centre of gravity, one has a stable system in which application/input of external force (doubtless what Macedonians were told your right arm is for) produces a controlled and stable response.


This started me wondering if the Macedonians extended the principle further.  The Vergina finds included, as Duncan has detailed, a 2.4 lb sauroter/counterweight, which in view of considerations hitherto would appear to be much too light for a sarissa.  What, then would it be for?  The first and most obvious candidate is the xyston.  We are all doubtless aware that the xyston is supposed to be double-headed and hence not counterweighted at all, but a couple of details from Arrian and the Alexander Mosaic call this piece of received knowledge into question, at least with regard to Alexander's era.  In Arrian's (Anabasis I.15.6) account of the Granicus, Alexander breaks his xyston and demands another from his mounting-assistant Aretas, but that Companion's xyston has broken, too, though he was "gallantly fighting on with the remaining half [hemisei] of his weapon".  So far nothing to suggest anything other than a simple two-headed weapon with no counterweight, but then we look at the Alexander Mosaic and see where Alexander is holding his weapon.


Alex is holding his xyston single-handed a quarter of the way along its length.  We may conclude that it has to be balanced at this point otherwise he would have serious retention and aiming problems from a constant and heavy downward turning movement exerted by the front 3/4 of the shaft.

Taking the point of balance to be 1/4 of the way along, and using the rough rule-of-thumb of 1/2 lb per foot of weapon length, the xyston - without counterweight - would, at 12-13', weigh 6-6.5 lbs.  If we take a weight of 6 lbs (as being easier on my fractions), then the length ahead of Alex's hand is about 4.5 lbs while the length behind is about 1.5 lbs.  This would suggest an approximately 3 lb counterweight to keep the weapon balanced, and if the xyston was sufficiently slender to be about a pound lighter than the putative 6 lbs suggested, then the 2.4 lb Vergina counterweight might conceivably be from a xyston.

Aretes' use of a broken half-xyston, presumably the base half, would mean he would either be holding the approximately 6' shaft quite close to the butt or fighting with the weapon unbalanced: decidedly inconvenient, but better than nothing.

[Patrick Waterson]

On the more general subject of pikes, the Battle of Seminara (Italian Wars AD 1495) has a few things happening which could raise a few eyebrows.

First, the Swiss, using 18' weapons, formed their pikes only three men deep.  Then they attacked across a stream, which theoretically should have left them disordered, but did not.  The Calabrians facing them ran, whereupon the Swiss found themselves pitted against Spanish shield-and-sword men (rodeleros), who in theory should have been able to slaughter them, but could not: things happened rather the other way around.

All in all, the Swiss seem to have broken the rulebook in this battle - or perhaps the rules were not necessarily what we think.

[RichT]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Renaissance/Early Modern pikes weren't counterbalanced at all were they? So they wouldn't have been held at the point of balance. I've only handled such a pike once, but I don't remember its balance being a problem - the rotational force of a few pounds of stick is not great, and the rear hand can easily enough hold it level regardless of centre of gravity. Any ECW re-enactors out there...?

A 'xyston' is another matter, since it is wielded one handed, which means not holding it at the CoG would be very awkward (especially on a moving horse), unless it was couched (which it wasn't).

The Vergina butt being a cavalry butt has been suggested - it does appear from Arrian though that when a cavalry spear broke it was replaced or discarded (or the broken end used), not reversed. 

Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? As my history teacher used to say...

[Patrick Waterson]

Quite right, Richard: mediaeval and Renaissance pikes were not counterbalanced, and tended to be held at the centre, which was also the C of G, and, as Anthony and Peter point out, with the hands about 5' apart and the right arm laid along the shaft to help counteract the rotational force.

The Macedonian sarissa was held at the 3' and 6' marks from the - er - sauroter, not at the middle, at least according to our second century BC doyen of these things.  This gentleman also mentions (Polybius XVIII.29.2) that "the length of the sarissae is sixteen cubits according to the original design, which has been reduced in practice to fourteen," or from 24' to 21', making it somewhat weightier than the 12-15' thing popular in mediaeval Europe.

The Sealed Knot use a 16' pike, as did their predecessors - whether they shorten it to 14' or so for easier handling, as did their predecessors, is another matter, this kind of shortening apparently being quite common whenever European shafted weapon users operated on foot - but handling the things in combat does seem to be something of a challenge, judging the the 'Battle' video on this page.  Not everyone seems to be countering the rotational force in quite the same way.

Who knows? Who cares? Does it matter? As my history teacher used to say...

Somehow I surmise he is not a member of the Society of Ancients.

[Dangun]

Perhaps I am being naive, but these various calculations seem to miss out part of the system.
What about the man? The force exerted by his rear arm, whether by muscles, its mass or even resistance of joints to movement.

This is the weight I was estimating in the other thread on this topic...

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=1960.75

Very approximately, 13kg of downward force in the rear hand, given some arbitrary assumptions regarding: 1) pike length; 2) pike weight per foot; 3) weight of tip; and 4) position of hands.

On a separate topic... where are we getting this 5' separation of hands from? Try it, especially at your average 5' 2-4" in height for the period. Extending your arms that far basically renders your elbows and biceps useless, and movement comes entirely from the shoulders and torso. Extremely uncomfortable and unwieldy.

[Duncan Head]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Renaissance/Early Modern pikes weren't counterbalanced at all were they? So they wouldn't have been held at the point of balance. I've only handled such a pike once, but I don't remember its balance being a problem

Nor were the yari nor the chang qiang, both pike-length as previously discussed. Nor do the various sarisa reconstructors report any need for a counterweight. I can't help feeling that the whole point-of-balance/counterweight concept is an entirely unnecessary invention.

[Erpingham]

On a separate topic... where are we getting this 5' separation of hands from? Try it, especially at your average 5' 2-4" in height for the period. Extending your arms that far basically renders your elbows and biceps useless, and movement comes entirely from the shoulders and torso. Extremely uncomfortable and unwieldy.

Well, we did say 4-5ft if you look back.  The flexible part of the system is really the left hand - the right is pretty much fully extended in the charge position.  It was me who suggested five foot originally but I think 4ft is a better figure.  The pike isn't held at the point of balance - you are applying a counterbalance with your right arm.  And, though it is a long time ago now, I spent lots of time drilling with pikes - Dutch drill does work.  However, I admit never to having used an 18ft pike - ours were about 14 ft.  Keeping the head up would be more of a problem with a longer pike but the guys who were originally humping these around were muscular and used to physical labour.  BTW, whence the idea that renaissance men were 5ft 2 in tall?  5ft 6in was pretty much the average through the Middle Ages and Early Renaissance.

[RichT]

Patrick:

mediaeval and Renaissance pikes were not counterbalanced, and tended to be held at the centre, which was also the C of G, and, as Anthony and Peter point out, with the hands about 5' apart and the right arm laid along the shaft to help counteract the rotational force.

But - from this thread and the original shield thread that isn't what I read - Anthony quoted that Monluc quote:

"Gentlemen, it may be that there are not many here who have been in battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at that kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes in the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be."

So there are two styles here - 'German', holding it by the end and fencing (requiring more dexterity), or 'Swiss', holding it in the middle and getting stuck in. These styles can't both have involved holding the pike at the point of balance, if either did.

Depictions in art show a mix of low hold and high hold, but neither are in the centre of the pike - they are either near the aft end, or at the aft end. Without a counterweight, this can't be at point of balance either.

Duncan

I can't help feeling that the whole point-of-balance/counterweight concept is an entirely unnecessary invention.

Indeed, that's what I'm getting at. There seems strong commitment (eg from Christopher Matthew) to the idea that the sarissa must have been held with one hand on the point of balance - but I don't see the necessity, if that wasn't always done in later periods, and if later pikes never had counterweights. If the only evidence for the large counterweight for a sarissa is the existence of the large flanged spike in the Vergina tomb and if the association of that with a sarissa is entirely speculative (which it is), then need there have been a counterweight at all? While a sarissa is a little longer than a later pike, the difference isn't vast.

Anthony

Keeping the head up would be more of a problem with a longer pike but the guys who were originally humping these around were muscular and used to physical labour.

Indeed - a bit like the argument that longbows couldn't have 80 lb draw weights as they would be too tiring to use - what is hard work for a modern reenactor might not have been for someone born and bred to it.

Pol (xviii.29) just says: "of these fourteen [cubits] four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front;" - I don't take this to mean that these rear four cubits weighed the same as the ten cubits in front (though the translation sort of implies that, the Greek isn't so sure, as least so far as I can tell). Plus for what it's worth Aelian I believe says the sarissa was held by its rear two, not four, cubits.

[Erpingham]

Peter Kershaw posted this in the infantry shield thread but it seems relevant here

From left hand at left shoulder to right hand fully stretched back sounds just a touch over a cloth yard, so a bit more than 3'.

If I (at 6' tall) put my hands at shoulder height, to get to 5' gap my right arm is fully extended and my left has a slight bend.
At waist height, both arms are fully stretched to get to 5' and it is decidedly uncomfortable.

I will maintain my belief in the 4ft gap (having acknowledged my error in saying five feet initially).  However, as Rich has noted, Dutch pike drill is a bit of a red herring.  The overam thrust technique certainly existed in the Middle Ages - look at illustrations at MAA fighting with lances and you will see mainly low carry, some middle (often with the spear couched under the arm) and a few with the extended right arm similar to later pike techniques.  But early pike technique mainly seems to use the low carry, with more of the pike extended beyond the rear hand and the front hand well in front of the line of the shoulder.  A very different balance technique in operation, I think, and perhaps its this we should concentrate on as more within our actual period of interest (and probably closer to what the Hellenes did).

[Patrick Waterson]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Renaissance/Early Modern pikes weren't counterbalanced at all were they? So they wouldn't have been held at the point of balance. I've only handled such a pike once, but I don't remember its balance being a problem

Nor were the yari nor the chang qiang, both pike-length as previously discussed. Nor do the various sarisa reconstructors report any need for a counterweight. I can't help feeling that the whole point-of-balance/counterweight concept is an entirely unnecessary invention.

But the yari and chang qiang are both depicted as being held with one hand at the middle, contrary to some modern Chinese assertions.  Polybius' sarissa assuredly was not.

There seems strong commitment (eg from Christopher Matthew) to the idea that the sarissa must have been held with one hand on the point of balance - but I don't see the necessity, if that wasn't always done in later periods, and if later pikes never had counterweights.

One might point out that the Hellenistic era saw quite a few things counterweighted that in later eras were not so.  Just because later generations did things inefficiently does not mean Hellenistic designers had to do so.

Holding a weapon on the point of balance improves control and reduces fatigue.  Until one has held a properly-balanced weapon, even a firearm, one probably will not appreciate the difference.

If the only evidence for the large counterweight for a sarissa is the existence of the large flanged spike in the Vergina tomb and if the association of that with a sarissa is entirely speculative (which it is), then need there have been a counterweight at all? While a sarissa is a little longer than a later pike, the difference isn't vast.

I suggest trying to use a 12' pole held at the butt and 3' mark and a 24' pole (or as long as one can find, but at least 18') the same way.  That would bring prompt appreciation of the difference.

The reason for deducing the existence of a counterweight is that Polybius specifies the sarissa as being held 6' from the butt.  This differs considerably from the usual practice of holding a shafted weapon with one hand on or around the middle, and indicates a different point of balance/centre of gravity.  The Vergina flanged spike has no obvious association, and I suspect it may have come from the third and smallest shafted weapon in the Macedonian triad, namely the logkhe.

Pol (xviii.29) just says: "of these fourteen [cubits] four must be deducted, to allow for the distance between the two hands holding it, and to balance the weight in front;" - I don't take this to mean that these rear four cubits weighed the same as the ten cubits in front (though the translation sort of implies that, the Greek isn't so sure, as least so far as I can tell). Plus for what it's worth Aelian I believe says the sarissa was held by its rear two, not four, cubits.

Either way, it is not being held at the centre, which is characteristic of uncounterweighted polearms.  Ergo, there is either a serious imbalance or a counterweight, and I have too much respect for Hellenistic weapon engineering to suppose that a weapon of this size and importance was used unbalanced, especially when the xyston appears to be balanced at one quarter of its length.  One may note that at the original length noted by Polybius - 24' - a sarissa balanced at the 6' mark would also be balanced at a point one-quarter of its length.

Depictions in art show a mix of low hold and high hold, but neither are in the centre of the pike - they are either near the aft end, or at the aft end. Without a counterweight, this can't be at point of balance either.

One of us needs to go to Specsavers.   Here are the pics Anthony posted in this regard: the Swiss pikes at Fornonvo (pikes held with one hand on the middle) and at Marignano, which after a bit of zooming looks to me like another case of pikes held with the left hand on the middle.

Or is my respected interlocutor referring to pikes of another nationality or period?

[Duncan Head]

Unless I'm completely mistaken, Renaissance/Early Modern pikes weren't counterbalanced at all were they? So they wouldn't have been held at the point of balance. I've only handled such a pike once, but I don't remember its balance being a problem

Nor were the yari nor the chang qiang, both pike-length as previously discussed. Nor do the various sarisa reconstructors report any need for a counterweight. I can't help feeling that the whole point-of-balance/counterweight concept is an entirely unnecessary invention.

But the yari and chang qiang are both depicted as being held with one hand at the middle, contrary to some modern Chinese assertions.

Not really; the qiang illustrated are shorter. If the chang qiang is eighteen feet long, with one hand near the butt, then to hold it in the middle you  need your arms nine feet apart.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mvwy8WwroHQ/VjqyiyTtSqI/AAAAAAAABfA/OxI8LUL0mUQ/s1600/13.jpg
http://www.wutangcenter.com/wt/bajipigua2.htm

[Erpingham]

Here are the pics Anthony posted in this regard: the Swiss pikes at Fornonvo (pikes held with one hand on the middle) and at Marignano, which after a bit of zooming looks to me like another case of pikes held with the left hand on the middle.

For further comparison, here's Paul Dolnstein's take on the low hold (1505 or thereabouts).  Dolnstein was a soldier rather than an artist but had the advantage he had seen action

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/horse_vs_foot_175.jpg

Is the pike held exactly centrally with the lead hand?

Also, here is Dolnstein on an infantry battle - note the awkward high position here, which is probably a better example for our period than the rather more ergonomic 17th century Dutch position.  It is clear that these landsknechts are "foining" i.e. manipulating the pike to fence and stab, rather than hold it rigid.  This is probably what Monluc didn't want his men to try but rather the low position, firmly grasped, and used with mass effect.

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/dolnstein_battle_of_elfsborg_1502b_414.jpg

[Dangun]

Also, here is Dolnstein on an infantry battle - note the awkward high position here, which is probably a better example for our period than the rather more ergonomic 17th century Dutch position.  It is clear that these landsknechts are "foining" i.e. manipulating the pike to fence and stab, rather than hold it rigid.  This is probably what Monluc didn't want his men to try but rather the low position, firmly grasped, and used with mass effect.

https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/dolnstein_battle_of_elfsborg_1502b_414.jpg

Simple physics suggests there is something wrong with that second picture.

The combination of: 1) hands close together; 2) both hands at the end of the pike; and 3) a shoulder height grip looks just about impossible.

Moreover, having the lead forearm at such a tight angle to the pike and a bent wrist grip would suggest almost no force was required to lift the pike - again unlikely.