Pikes

[Erpingham]

Here is another Dolnstein sketch of his comrades practicing pike fencing. 

http://s277.photobucket.com/user/Dstaberg/media/Dolnstein/Dolnstein_speiss_fechten2.jpg.html

He is consistent in showing the high grip.  Notable to me are the hands are reversed as against the Dutch drill position, which I think would make it easier to manipulate the pike but be much more physically draining as the whole pike weight is being borne by the arms, without bracing against the body.  It doesn't look particularly balanced, so strength would be needed to keep the pike level.   It is hard to say how long the pikes are as he seems to vary it from picture to picture.  None look the full 18 foot though.

While his limited artistic skills may distort things somewhat, I don't think we can easily write him off.  He took part in some of the actions he drew and his sketches often seem to represent named individuals from his company, so he should know first hand what pike fighting looked like.

[Dangun]

While his limited artistic skills may distort things somewhat, I don't think we can easily write him off. 

Absolutely. But then what do we do with the apparent shortness of the weapons?

Its interesting that in the first drawing he has drawn the pikeman as left-handed, in the second as right-handed, and in the third drawing (4 individuals) as a mix.

The grips in the first and third drawings are consistent - with the rear grip being palm-towards-wielder in the low position and palm-away-from-wielder in the high position. **

Although, if this implies that they can switch from low to high position with a single twitch of one bicep (the leading arm) the pike is possible shorter or lighter than we might otherwise think.

** actually one of the four figures in the third drawing has the grip reversed, and he is only the right hander. I wonder if this is an error, or intentional? I lean towards error because the right-handers in the second picture have the normal grip (rear grip being palm-towards-wielder in the low position and palm-away-from-wielder in the high position).

There is another oddity in the second picture. The figure in the foreground has the grip most common in picture 1 and 3  but the other figures - while using the same grip - have very awkwardly angled leading forearms (left elbow at waist and left forearm rotated uncomfortable anti-clockwise.)

[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.

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.

Yet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang is definitely held in the middle, shorter or no.

One wonders why.  What would be the reason for holding something the length of a da qiang in the middle but eschewing this practice with a chang qiang?

The chang qiang holder below is trying his best, but ...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mvwy8WwroHQ/VjqyiyTtSqI/AAAAAAAABfA/OxI8LUL0mUQ/s1600/13.jpg

Now try lowering that to attack position.  See how it is already drooping, and the holder does not look entirely happy.  One wonders how he would feel after a few hours on the battlefield.

http://www.wutangcenter.com/wt/bajipigua2.htm

Now let us see him advance.  By the time one gets to Figure 7A, it is clear a) the weapon has no spearhead, b) it is a (shorter) da qiang not a chang qiang and c) the whole routine is a muscle-strengthening exercise (actually a series of exercises for developing chan si jing, fajing, and overall internal/external strength) rather than a proper way to handle a weapon.

I think those holds show what is physically possible in pursuit of a mistaken concept but trying to mass a contingent of re-enactors and getting them to advance in formation will show the participants the error of their ways.  As in weight-lifting, it is one thing to hold a static pose and quite another to advance in formation over a battlefield.

[Erpingham]

While his limited artistic skills may distort things somewhat, I don't think we can easily write him off. 

Absolutely. But then what do we do with the apparent shortness of the weapons?

Some of the shortness can be down to compositional requirements (he also tends to shorten cavalry lances, unless Swedish men-at-arms used short lances).  The image of the infantry fight is prone to this I think.  Even if we take the cavalry fight image though, where he has given himself more room in the composition, the pikes aren't a full 18ft but rather shorter (14-16ft?).  We know pikes less than 18ft were still in use in the late 15th century (Flemish civic records show them buying a mixture of lengths and the Scots regulations of this time were about 16ft) and we know that 16th century pikes could be as short as 14ft (at least in part because troops cut them shorter in the field, as Patrick has already noted), so it isn't impossible that the pikes genuinely are shorter.

[Dangun]

Yet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang is definitely held in the middle, shorter or no.

One wonders why.  What would be the reason for holding something the length of a da qiang in the middle but eschewing this practice with a chang qiang?

It would certainly be easier to move, if you were holding it in the middle - centre of gravity and all that. Maybe that is the optimal compromise? One hand in the middle for carrying that gets thrust forward during engagement? Just guessing.

I am not sure we can do much with modern pictures when the flex in the shaft is so great. If anything, as you suggest, it shows the improbability of some apparent options.

[Duncan Head]

Yet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang is definitely held in the middle, shorter or no.

Appears to be, yes. I think it's shortened for representational convenience ("compositional requirements", thanks Anthony). An eighteen-foot spear just takes up too much room to draw properly.

Have a look at http://www.chineselongsword.com/speartranslation.shtml

Again, the spear shown as an example, both in the original Ming illustrations and in the modern video, is shortened. But the Ming text clearly refers to spears up to 18 "feet" being used in training, 16 "feet" in battle ("feet" is chi, a Ming-era chi being more like 14 inches than a modern foot, so a 16-chi battle-spear is over 18 feet). And it is consistently held at the butt, so the lead hand could not reach to the centre of the full-sized spear.

[RichT]

I guess on sarissa counterweights we are in the realms of firmly held beliefs again, so there's probably little point discussing it.

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.

This is the point at issue - so far as I can see from numerous illustrations, while some pikes were carried at the point of balance, many others were not.

Marignano and Fornovo - I think we have agreed that the Swiss hold (as in the Monluc quote) was more or less central (on the pike), so depictions of this are not surprising (though in one of those particular images, the pikes shown can only be about 9 feet long so it's a bit hard to tell where the point of balance would be if the pike were full length - but it's not relevant, as the Swiss hold is not a counter example to the 'pikes were always held balanced' position).

Other pike holds however are another matter. The German hold is at the end. The high position (is that what the Dutch hold is?) is also at the end. There are plenty of examples (mostly 15th-16th C).

Anecdotal evidence on the lines of 'a 24 foot pike is really awkard if not counterweighted' is all well and good, but I'm wondering if there's anything more rigorous? This is what I would have hoped Christopher Matthew would have supplied, but unfortunately he just begs the question - he starts from the position that the sarissa had a counterweight and was held at the point of balance and proceeds from there. It is not, given the practice of other eras, self evident, and arguments along the lines of 'it must have been awkward' or 'it must have been tiring' are worthless given they are so subjective.

[Erpingham]

Two examples of the Dutch drill charge position

http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2015/9/27/2/d/5/2d51a792-6519-11e5-87e8-da87f89cd883.jpg

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-military-17th-century-infantry-pikemen-during-an-exercise-colured-28127207.html

Note they are different - I was taught the one the guy in blue is using, which I would guess is more comfortable but gives you less pike control.  The orange one is closer to Dolnstein but, as I noted before, the hold is different. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I guess on sarissa counterweights we are in the realms of firmly held beliefs again, so there's probably little point discussing it.

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.

Other pike holds however are another matter. The German hold is at the end. The high position (is that what the Dutch hold is?) is also at the end. There are plenty of examples (mostly 15th-16th C).

I would question the relevance of high-position pike holds to sarissa use or construction when the Macedonians used a low position.

Anecdotal evidence on the lines of 'a 24 foot pike is really awkard if not counterweighted' is all well and good, but I'm wondering if there's anything more rigorous? This is what I would have hoped Christopher Matthew would have supplied, but unfortunately he just begs the question - he starts from the position that the sarissa had a counterweight and was held at the point of balance and proceeds from there.

One can only surmise that either it seems logical to him or his earlier re-enactment attempts led him to this conclusion.

It is not, given the practice of other eras, self evident, and arguments along the lines of 'it must have been awkward' or 'it must have been tiring' are worthless given they are so subjective.

They are not subjective, but are based on the known difficulty of carrying unbalanced objects, particularly weapons.  The practices of other eras are not necessarily relevant, particularly as the weapons involved were different, notably in length.  The maximum length of an uncounterweighted pike appears to be 18' or perhaps 18.5', with the European average trending between 16' and 14', not the 21' or 24' of Polybius XVIII.29.  Perhaps my respected interlocutor would like to explain why the Swiss and/or their adversaries never went to the lengths of adding a few more feet to their pikes to obtain a reach advantage over their opponents?

Yet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang is definitely held in the middle, shorter or no.

Appears to be, yes. I think it's shortened for representational convenience ("compositional requirements", thanks Anthony). An eighteen-foot spear just takes up too much room to draw properly.

Have a look at http://www.chineselongsword.com/speartranslation.shtml

Again, the spear shown as an example, both in the original Ming illustrations and in the modern video, is shortened. But the Ming text clearly refers to spears up to 18 "feet" being used in training, 16 "feet" in battle ("feet" is chi, a Ming-era chi being more like 14 inches than a modern foot, so a 16-chi battle-spear is over 18 feet). And it is consistently held at the butt, so the lead hand could not reach to the centre of the full-sized spear.

This gives us a problem: either the length is wrong or the hold is wrong.

The problem is simply this: the illustrations have the weapon held in the middle of the shaft.  It is also held at the butt, or apparently so unless the butt has been left out on account of 'compositional requirements'.  Personally, I think the illustrator would be more inclined to make economies with the butt than to misplace the central hold on the shaft.  Either way, as Duncan correctly points out, a 9' span of reach is not possible for the average 5'-6' human.

We are thus left to decide whether the illustrator has been economical with the length and accurate with the butt grip but not the central hold, or accurate about the central hold but losing the part of the shaft beyond the hand, or has fudged the illustration all round.

Complicating the issue (perhaps) is the text itself (p.5):

Historically, it is said that the long spear (chang qiang) is 10.8 feet
If according to the Zhou method of measurement, it's only 14.4 feet
As taught by my teacher, the wooden pole used measured:
First type, 18-feet long, 12-catty heavy
Second type, 17-feet long, 9-catty heavy
Third type, 16-feet long, 7-catty heavy

If nothing else, we can extract from this - assuming the information to be accurate - that an 18' chang qiang, or its shaft, weighed almost twice as much as a 16' weapon, or shaft.  This in itself makes the idea of a butt-hold for the 18' weapon extremely questionable.

[Dangun]

arguments along the lines of 'it must have been awkward' or 'it must have been tiring' are worthless given they are so subjective.

I don't think it is that subjective.

Mechanically, the pike is very simple.
We can calculate its weight.
We can calculate the force required to counterweight with one hand, if you don't hold them in the middle.

A more subjective probelm might be the weighting of literary evidence for longer weapon length with pictoral evidence for shorter lengths.

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?

[Justin Swanton]

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.

I personally suspect this is one reason for multi-rank battlelines - as the weapons in the front ranks get 'used up' the rear ranks pass theirs forwards as replacements. There's that passage from Arrian of Alexander looking around for a new spear at the Granicus in away that suggests it was a normal event.

[Mark G]

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.

[Jim Webster]

Two examples of the Dutch drill charge position

http://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2015/9/27/2/d/5/2d51a792-6519-11e5-87e8-da87f89cd883.jpg

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-military-17th-century-infantry-pikemen-during-an-exercise-colured-28127207.html

Note they are different - I was taught the one the guy in blue is using, which I would guess is more comfortable but gives you less pike control.  The orange one is closer to Dolnstein but, as I noted before, the hold is different.

Struggling to remember now but I'm sure that when I took part with the ECW society, you had the thumb of the right hand over the end of the pike. Like the orange one but with the right hand the 'other way round'

Jim

[Erpingham]

I would question the relevance of high-position pike holds to sarissa use or construction when the Macedonians used a low position.

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?

[Dangun]

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.

A thought experiment... If you tried holding a 18' pike weighing 0.5/kg per foot and held it at shoulder height at the pike's end and 3' from the end, you would have to constantly apply a 9kg force upwards in your forearm, and constantly apply about 19kg of downward force in your right reararm to keep it level. Now admittedly, all the numbers I've used are arbitrary, but that is an awful lot of force to be applying at shoulder height.