Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why do you love polearms? Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next 
Author Message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 10:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

If he had room to move about, why would the pikeman drop or cut his weapon? He can slip the pike back in hands and withdraw a bit to make up for any ground lost to a swordsman who runs in. And more than likely the swordsman would get stuck rather quickly...

As a side note, does anyone really know how heavy and thick pikes were? An eighteen foot pike as thick as good short staff would weight about 10 lbs, which seems far too heavy to me.
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 12:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Based on the reseach that Matthew has shown me, the earlier pikes were indeed stout pieces indeed, upwards of 10 pounds for a 16-18' pike of 1-3/4" diameter. Looking at the illustrations from the era 1500-1550 I agree with him whole-heartedly. In order to stop a charging destrier, armed in plate, going 25 mph, it will take much more than the slender wand that was later issued as a pike indeed.

I have seen (and heard) the arguments in favor of the much lighter pikes, being of closer to 1" or so in diameter, but they are all (that I am aware of) from the later 17th Century, rather than the 16th. By 1650 the worst that Cavalry could offer to dish out to the Infantry were Harquebusiers mounted on rather inferior horses (at least in comparison with the Lancier's horses of a century before), and only clad in a buff-coat and cuirass, with a lobster pot on his head. This is small beer in comparison with the gendarmes of the French or Burgundian compaignes d'ordonnance of the 16th Century.

Further evidence in my book is that Pikemen were recruited from the largest fellows available, with broad shoulders and narrow set eyes who had the same hat and collar size (okay, I made up the last part). But the slender pikes of 1650 weren't needed to fend off gendarmes, while the pikes of 1550 were, thus the need for the better human material was much decreased. Shotte were to be smaller, energetic fellows, while Pikes were to be muscular, stolid types. Or so go the manuals.

Speaking of manuals, it becomes clear when going through the Moritz van Nassau drill (de Gheyn) that while using a light pike you can "cheat" on the drill, if you use a heavy "full sized" pike, you just cannot, and much of the drill begins to make sense in that light. The command for "Advance your Pike" can be easily done without moving your body with a 17th Century pike, but with the 16'X1-3/4" ash pike, the moving of the foot to the rear makes total sense! You really need to do some swinging of your body to maneuver that chunk of lumber. You move your body around the pike, rather than the pike around you. I've worked on a LOT of drill manuals from the 18th and 19th Centuries too, and there just aren't many moves in there that are totally superfluous, or have no good reason for them (at least if you go back far enough to find out just WHY they did a particular movement). Thus my belief is that they did many of the movements and postures in the de Gheyn manual for a good reason, and that good reason was weight of the pike.

To play Devil's Advocate, I will also admit that the illustrations in the de Gheyn manual show a much smaller pike that I would believe was in use. Not sure how to square that as of yet. There is the possibility of "artistic license", but with all of the other parts of the illustrations so true to life, that just doesn't ring true. So I'll have to just say "Don't know".

I fully realize that some of this is total conjecture based upon these factors. However, I do firmly belive that the pikes of the 16th Century were quite a bit stouter than those used in the 17th, which unfortunately seem to be the only ones left around to check on (i.e. Graz). Matthew I'm sure has other arguments, and will admonish a few of mine as well!

I'd like to hear what David Evans has to say on this, since he does a lot of work with pikes in the 17th Century school of soldiering.

Cheers,

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:42 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Interesting... well, with a ten pound pike, maybe dropping it or cutting it would be best... at least for a weakling like me. I could imagine fightning with a seven or maybe eight pound weapon, but ten is really up there.

I wonder how heavy Silver's pike was...
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 7:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ben;

Your right, a 10-pound pike is HEAVY when your holding it parallel to the ground, not to mention when trying to do the "Receive Cavalry" position! Even with it resting against your foot, it's a load, and it takes a strong back and a weak mind to properly use. (Hmmm... one could go into the weird ethno-national concepts that were current in the 16th Century as to what nationality was better with what weapons here, but we won't tread on that thin ice! Eek! )

I'm a fairly sturdy lad, but even at that the big "sequioa gigantia" pikes make me sore after only a short time at drill. No wonder they wanted fellows who were stout of heart and of body to wield 'the puissant pike"! That reminds me, where the heck is Jean Thibodeau when you need him! He must be Swiss... Big Grin

Cheers,

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 8:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Has anyone tried to do what Silver suggests in Brief Instructions with a ten pound pike? Some of the moves invovle thrusting with only one hand (in one case it's a single handed thrust while gripping the pike within less than a yard of the head).
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Kelty





Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Reading list: 61 books

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Sun 29 May, 2005 11:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

You *can* effectively punch with the pike head in hand, but it's certainly not the swiftest action.

One thought that has floated around my head came by way of two of Swetnam's comments. One was is regards to the head being cut off a "pike staffe", and the other was in regards to seeing one fight for the Master's status with "Rapier and Pike". It may be that (and as much I I despise introducing this concept of which I so vehemently railed against many posts ago) that there was perhaps a "civilian's pike" for lack of a better word. A pike of smaller dimension and proportion used for perhaps training purposes, maybe solely within the context of the salon or a "Martyal fyght".

In all of the "war" texts, it is clearly obvious that the Pike of war is a beefy tool, but perhaps the "Morris" pike of Silver, the "Pike Staff" of Swetnam, et. al. is merely a smaller cousin. I believe there are a couple other terms for narrow spears used like Javelin (I can't recall if that was Silver or DiGrassi), and that what the writers of Defence are referring to is a different tool entirely (the ahspeiss?). I'm wondering if there are any Welsh, Cornish or Lowland and March Museums (i.e. old English Converts, e.g. outlying areas less susceptible to rapid language changes) that have someone on hand with an ear for the Early Modern English and a broad palette of older objects that might shed some light on a "Morris Pike".

Gordon, you were carrying on fine without me, feel free to continue... Wink

"Sequoia Gigantica", you slay me.... Happy

The Captain has spoken, you move the man around the pike, *not* the other way around... Happy

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Joe Maccarrone




Location: Burien, WA USA
Joined: 19 Sep 2003

Posts: 190

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 12:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Russ Ellis wrote:
Patrick Kelly wrote:

Why be concerned with waisting effort in chopping the head off? It seems to me simply deflecting the pointy bit, stepping inside the range of the weapon, and putting the smack-down on the "meat" would a more efficient use of time and resources.


I completely agree, however I was thinking along the lines of putting this thing to bed one way or another permanently. Personally I don't think it will work but I've been wrong before. So, this would sort of be along the lines of dispelling mythology...


I can contribute a thoroughly un-scientific test:

I had an A&A ash shaft left over from a bungled axe-hafting attempt (don't ask), and I got the notion to see how vulnerable it was to being attacked by a good sword blade. With my Angus Trim type X in one hand, the ash shaft in the other, and safety glasses on (!), I smacked them together -- rather lightly -- trying to simulate the shaft being used to block the edge of the blade. Just wrist & forearm action (though granted, my forearms are stronger than most). The AT blade went through the ash shaft in just 3 or 4 hits to the same general spot. Had it been a full-power cut with the sword blade, I expect it would have severed the shaft with one shot.

What did this prove? I dunno -- but it convinced me that I wouldn't want to use even a strong wood shaft as a static blocking tool against the edge of a good sword blade. I suspect that when using an axe or polearm shaft defensively against a sword, the order of business would be to hit the flat of the blade.

Here we go again: edge vs. flat.... Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Ryan A. C.





Joined: 22 Mar 2004
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 147

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 1:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

That is interesting...ash is pretty tough stuff. Like you said though it wasn't being moved about, and someone wasn't trying to get a pointy bit to hurt you. It does however serve as a good reminder...don't hold your polearm in one spot. Cool
View user's profile Send private message
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 3:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Silver makes pretty clear that his morris pike is what they used in wars:

The morris pike defends the battle from both horse and man, much better than can the short staff, long staff, or forest bill.

Swetnam also talks about military pikes, but he also calls a staff with a sharp point a "Staffe with a Pike." And his list of weapons includes "The Long-Pike." I doubt his rapier and pike fight used an 18 foot weapon...
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Kelty





Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Reading list: 61 books

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 3:41 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
The AT blade went through the ash shaft in just 3 or 4 hits to the same general spot. Had it been a full-power cut with the sword blade, I expect it would have severed the shaft with one shot.


Cool, one point against me... Happy

Just for the record, what is the diameter of the Ash Pole, secondly, would you characterize it as a "break" or a "cut", and lastly, did the Ash splinter, which would, to me, indicate the damage to be mass/pressure related, and possibly the wood grain, or did it it fairly well sever the fibers, which would indicate more of the cleaving characteristics of the edge and the tensile strength of the wood fibers themselves as opposed to the structure of the wood grain itself.

Inquiring minds want to know... Happy


Quote:
And his list of weapons includes "The Long-Pike." I doubt his rapier and pike fight used an 18 foot weapon...


Yup, I had noted that which was why I was wandering down that line of reasoning. I had noticed Silver's comments too, and with Silver, I was particuarly intrigued by his specific words for weapons throughout his text. Not having seen too many other examples that mesh with his terminology, I was wondering where his colloquialisms stemmed from. The joys of etymology... Happy

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Joe Maccarrone




Location: Burien, WA USA
Joined: 19 Sep 2003

Posts: 190

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 5:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hey guys,

It having been 2 or 3 years, and my memory hazy, I just scoured my garage and found I still had a 4' length of Arms & Armor ash shaft -- so I was able to repeat the experiment. Same conditions: AT type X in one hand, ash shaft in the other.

The shaft is the flat-sided type A&A uses for their large axes; it looks to be 1-3/8" front to back (where it is rounded) and about 1" side to side (where it is flat).

Anyway, the effects weren't quite as dramatic as I'd remembered, but the sword was still the victor: individual (half-power) cuts went 1/4" to 1/3" deep into the wood, and were clean. After 6 or 8 cuts to the same general (6") area, chunks were flying off and the wood on the opposite side to the cuts was splitting and splintering. I hit it in two different spots, one against the 'flat' and the other against the rounded edge of the shaft.

My suspicion is that, were the shaft clamped in one spot -- not able to bounce away -- a single full power cut would completely sever it...but that isn't the case in combat.

So I'm still thinking that oblique parries with a wooden shaft/staff would have been the order of business against a sword, rather than direct, perpendicular blocks -- which coincidentally is what we'd do for sword vs. sword. Wielded in that manner, I think the staff/shaft would come through the fight just fine, though perhaps slightly worse for wear. Happily, it's just a piece of wood, and easily replaced! Big Grin
View user's profile Send private message
Felix Wang




Location: Fresno, CA
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Reading list: 17 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 394

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 6:17 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I will chime in late, not having followed this thread closely.

Joe Maccarone's experience is useful, but it represents one set of conditions (as he noted). Two issues are of some importance. First, Joe is a big fellow, and has a heck of a sword arm. A few years back, he drove an Atrim XIIa blade through 22 inches of 1/4" plywood (as I recall). Most people, as I recall, would have had trouble getting through half of that much plywood. Second, he was cutting directly at the shaft. As mentioned above, a better test might be to have a helper hold the shaft pointed at the swordsman. In this position, the blade is cutting obliquely at the shaft. If a swordsman is cutting directly perpendicular to the shaft of a polearm, by definition he has gotten in past the weapon's pointy bit - he may as well step one pace further in and cut the man holding the polearm.

Certainly, polearm shafts were broken in combat. Di Grassi speaks of cutting pikes with a partisan, he also speaks of the two-handed sword - and does not teach how to cut pikes with it. I have not yet found evidence of a routine use of either two-handed swords or other polearms out in front of an oncoming pike column. To repeat a point already made, these kinds of troops are clearly shown inside or behind a pike column in many pictures, usually gathered around the ensign of the unit.

On the smallest viable pike unit, Gervase Phillips' The Anglo-Scots Wars discusses a document of some significance. In 1548, an English force sortied out against the Scots. This force was 308 men, and commanded by an Italian mercenary named Tiberio. A plan of the formation he intended to use has survived. This was an independent unit, not meant for a major battle but expected to be able to accomplish its mission and survive. The core of this unit is pikemen - 7 ranks of 14 men each. In front of this is the "shotte" with three ranks of arquebusiers. The screen is a thin line of mixed arquebuses and longbows. The flank guards are archers and sword + shield men, and the back of the formation is 4 ranks of bills. It seems likely that the 98 pikemen were expected to be able to stop anything they were likely to encounter.
View user's profile Send private message
George Hill




Location: Atlanta Ga
Joined: 16 May 2005

Posts: 614

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 6:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

On the whole general subject of damage to polearm shafts, How thick were they at differnt times throughout history?

I'm told the Greeks used a very light weight shaft for mobility, which might be easy to cut through with a thick later period steel blade. We usually think of a relatively thick shaft, or atleast I do, but how accurete is that?

To abandon your shield is the basest of crimes. - --Tacitus on Germania
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Matthew Kelty





Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Reading list: 61 books

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 7:47 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
How thick were they at differnt times throughout history?


A good question. Now mind you, my frame of experience is pretty solidly rooted in the Middle and Late Renaissance/Early Baroque, 1400-1620, and primarily Western European. My wriiten data is primarily English, although my Museum and Reseach collections are pretty pan-national in nature. With that caveat out of the way...

First, they tend to break down into a few different groupings.

Halberds, Bills, Glaives and the other, shorter, polarms are primarily square shafted. Most examples tend to be 1 1/8" or so, plus or minus 1/8" here or there.

The heavier axe forms I've seen, including Bearded Axes and Bardiches, tend to be ovoid handles, about 1" - 1 1/4" deep on the sides, and 3/4"-1" thick on the rounded fronts and backs, much like our modern Axe handles.

Pikes are generally round, and many examples are found at 1", 1 1/4", 1 3/8" 1 5/8" and 1 3/4", and those sizes have no real geographic or era-related boundaries.

Later 17th century pikes (1650+) started slimming down, and 1" - 1 1/8" becomes the norm.

The biggest problem with the documenting of the Pikes is that many collectors would only save the last 4' or so, so many collections have pikes that you can't tell what it's application was for. Most period documents agree on the lengths, and in most regards to the head, langets or cheeks, but of the diameter, the most precise descriptions are only revealed near the end of that particular era:

`Certain Discourses Concerning Formes And Effects Of Weapons'
Sir John Smythe
1590

"I would wish that all the piques throghout England (that are for the
field) shold be reduced into one uniformitie of legth, that is,
either to seventeene foote long by the rule, or else to eighteene
foote, and not above, which are two foote longer tha the Spaniardes
do use in their milicia, & therewithall, I wold have them to be made
so light & of very good wood that they shold be both portable and
maniable, which many of our piques at this present are not."


`Approoved Order Of Martial Discipline'
Gyles Clayton
1591

"They must have Morions Swordes and Daggers, their Pikes of usuall
length, sharpe pointed, and well nayled: and cause them in time of
marching, to lay their Pikes on theyr shoulders, and their thums
under the same, the but ende on the outside of his leades Legge.
After this sorte to march to Muster, to retyre, and Imbattaile as
aforesayd: having a great care and regarde, that no Souldiour of
spite or negligence doe cut the same, or any way impayre it, for the
greatest strength of the battaile consisteth therein."


`Art Of Warre'
Thomas Garrard
1591

"…because I will not be over prolite upon every particular point, I
will onelie say thus much more concerning the pikeman, that he ought
to have his Pyke at the point and middest trimmed with handsome
tassels, and a handle, not so much for ornament as to defend the
Souldiers bodie from water, which in raine doth runne downe alongst
the wood."


`Certain Instruction Of Orders Militarie'
Sir John Smythe
1594

"...that because the longest piques that are in these daies used by
any nation are not above 18. foot long…"

"Their piques also I would wish them all to bee of the length of 18.
foote, and neither longer nor shorter for the causes in my former
instructions and discourses mentioned, as also conteined in my Booke
of certen Discourses printed 1590. and that they shoulde have verie
good and foure square heads of good temper, and lowe armed with long
cheeks, and in the midst covered or armed with black lether or black
vellure, or with some other such thing, and y they should not be too
great nor heavie in wood, that thereby the souldiors may carrie them
and manage them with ease."

"Also I would that the staves of the picques should bee of a tite and
stiffe ashe, and not of ashe that dooth sagge, and bend when the
piquers doo carrie their piques breasthigh before hand couched,
because that such sagging and bending ashe, although it be verie
tough yet it is more heavie then the other ashe; besides that the
piquers cannot carry the piques of such sagging, and bending piques
so even and straight in their Enemies faces, as they may carrie the
other piques that doo not bend nor sagge, but are tite and straight."


`Soldier's Accidence'
Gervase Markham
1625

These shall have strong, straight, yet nimble Pikes of Ash-wood, well
headed Steele, and armed with plates downward from the head, at least
foure foote, and the full size or length of every Pike shall be
fifteene foote, beside his head.


`Instructions for Musters'
Charles I
1631

"It is required, that the Muskets be all of a Bore, the Pikes of a
length: But to the end this course may not by a sudden alteration
turne to a generall charge and burrthen upon the people, the Lords
Lieutenants, and the Deputy Lieutenants are rather to use the way of
advise and encouragement, as a matter which will be very acceptable
to his Majestie, who will take notice of the affection of such as
shall most readily provide Armes according to this order, then to
enforce a present generall observation thereof. But in case where the
Armes shall be decayed, and must bee renewed, this order is to be
strictly observed."


`Directions For Musters Wherein is shewed the order of drilling for
the Musket and Pike'
1638

"The Pikeman must be armed with a Pike seventeen foot long head and
all; (the diameter of the staff to be one inch 3/4, the head to be
well steeled, 8 inches long, broad, strong, and sword-pointed; the
cheeks 2 foot long, well riveted; the butt-end bound with a ring of
iron"
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 9:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nice period sources Matthew! I notice that Smythe stressed the importance of the pike being light...

As for cutting shafts, just because it could be done doesn't mean it was a good idea to try. The reverse is also true. I think some men were capable of cutting/breaking some shafts with one handed weapons. I doubt it was ever very useful in a duel (as Swetnam says), and only sometimes worth trying in battle.
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Mon 30 May, 2005 10:38 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

AS usual Matthew, your scholarship is wondrous! Thank you for those great tidbits! (Especially the last one where the diameter of 1-3/4" is mentioned! Big Grin )

Of course, the fact that all of the authors insist that the pike have "cheeks" (spelled variously "Cheke, Cheeke, Checke" etc.) aka langets coming down to between two and four feet from the head suggests A.) that it was thought possible that a sword could cut through the shaft, and B.) that it would be made bloody difficult by the addition of the cheeks.

Gordon

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
David Evans




Location: Rotherham, West Riding
Joined: 09 Sep 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 229

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2005 1:54 am    Post subject: Pike's         Reply with quote

Right. Sorry for the delay in picking up these points. Just finished in Iraq and finally got home, first to dribble over my new A&A 40" Italian Rapier. Wooof! It feels heavy in the hand, as in having a real presence but moves with ease. Thrusts just flow to target.

The Pike. All Pike are Ash made, for preference, and tapered. Thicker at a point that can be defined as chest to head height when stood at Order, this will be about an 1˝ inches. The shaft thins out noticeably to the head at maybe an inch or slightly less. The head is secured by 2 long languets, maybe 2 or 3' in length. The best head are tiny, like Bodkins. The butt is only just tapered and secured with a ring to stop the wood splitting.

Tapering the pike makes it very agile in the hand. The weight is unnoticeable. I can hold at charge for 10 minutes and longer without too much pain. "Charge to the rear from Shoulder” is a graceful, poetical move with the pike flowing in the hands.

I don't see why pikes would have changed shape. The tapered form gives the best response and ease of movement for the pikeman. I think, and as far as I'm concerned, Pike have held a similar tapered shape from the 14th Century to the 17th Century. Length changes, the degree of tapering changes but the shape itself is consistent.

It's not the thickness of one pike that holds Horse off, It's the wall of 240 pike heads, 3, 4, 5 or 6 ranks deep that hold Horse off.

Oh. Before I forget. Some Fence masters include lessons on the use of pike, or the 12' Half pike.
View user's profile Send private message
Russ Ellis
Industry Professional




Joined: 20 Aug 2003
Reading list: 42 books

Posts: 2,608

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2005 7:14 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Joe Maccarrone wrote:

I can contribute a thoroughly un-scientific test:

I had an A&A ash shaft left over from a bungled axe-hafting attempt (don't ask), and I got the notion to see how vulnerable it was to being attacked by a good sword blade. With my Angus Trim type X in one hand, the ash shaft in the other, and safety glasses on (!), I smacked them together -- rather lightly -- trying to simulate the shaft being used to block the edge of the blade. Just wrist & forearm action (though granted, my forearms are stronger than most). The AT blade went through the ash shaft in just 3 or 4 hits to the same general spot. Had it been a full-power cut with the sword blade, I expect it would have severed the shaft with one shot.

What did this prove? I dunno -- but it convinced me that I wouldn't want to use even a strong wood shaft as a static blocking tool against the edge of a good sword blade. I suspect that when using an axe or polearm shaft defensively against a sword, the order of business would be to hit the flat of the blade.

Here we go again: edge vs. flat.... Big Grin


Now that's interesting, you wouldn't happen to have that thing still around would you and be willing to take a full swing at it?

TRITONWORKS Custom Scabbards
View user's profile Send private message
Matthew Kelty





Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Reading list: 61 books

Posts: 164

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2005 9:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

David,
You are this *FIRST* person in 13 years to speak of the taper with such familiarity that I'm actually excited to be wrong... Eek!
I sit with rapt attention... Happy

I've poured through many a Museum Catalogue, Inventory, Auction House, period Manuscript, etc., and have never seen a taper (with the sole exception of lances), so I would love to get more details from you.

The bodkin tips seem to be on only about 25% of the pikes I've come across, but I'm fairly certain this is what Smythe is talking about when he says "verie good and foure square heads of good temper". The later heads (1650+) were definitely slimmer across the board (along with the shafts), and I've seen more of the square heads in the later rather than the earlier years.

At any rate, I'm dying to know, have you been handling actual Museum Pikes, or reproductions, and which museums/collections have the pikes like you describe. I would love photos if possible, and also any data as to the date of manufacture.

At any rate, you've got my attention, so no dilly-dallying... Happy

Matthew
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Benjamin H. Abbott




Location: New Mexico
Joined: 28 Feb 2004

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,248

PostPosted: Tue 31 May, 2005 4:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I second that. I'd love to get stats on the weight of actual pikes. And tapering makes a great deal of sense. I've heard about it before, but never in depth.

Someone really needs to publish a proper study of the pike.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Why do you love polearms?
Page 6 of 7 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum