SoA Forum

[New topic continuing the discussion which began under Macedonian Infantry Shields (http://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=1960.45) ...]

Quote from: Erpingham on Jan 11, 2016, 05:37 PMA hold with hands only three feet apart feels awkward - are you sure that's how they did it?

No, not at all. I just picked something to keep the maths easy, with the goal of highlighting how unwieldy an "end grip" would be.

But... I politely suggest that 5ft apart seems too wide.
Average arm span is roughly the same as average height - Vitruvian man and all that.
So by implication you are suggesting the arms are spread almost perfectly perpendicular from the body at shoulder height. That seems unlikely.

Quote from: Dangun on Jan 12, 2016, 01:44 AM
But... I politely suggest that 5ft apart seems too wide.

Yes, that's me making rough estimates again.  However, it must be 4ft to be parallel to the left shoulder and pushing the left hand further out another foot would be comfortable, so somewhere between 4-5ft  dependent on the balance point of the pike would work for me, if anyone is doing the mechanics.  A renaissance pike is nose-heavy compared with a sarissa (smaller head but iron langets to reinforce the first couple of feet and no balancing spike) - don't know the make up of a chang qiang

Quote from: Duncan Head on Jan 11, 2016, 02:04 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Jan 11, 2016, 01:09 PM
By contrast, I would estimate the weight of a 21' Macedonian sarissa at 22-24 lbs, not least because of the counterweight.

Assuming cornel wood, or ash? Constant-width shaft, or tapering? Large spearhead, or small?

Cornel wood, probably tapering and not sure about the spearhead but inclined to think small, if small means 2 lbs or less.  My reckoning is about 15-16-ish lbs for the shaft and head and 7-8-ish lbs for the counterweight/butt spike.

Quote
Markle in the 1970s estimated 14.5 lb for an 18-foot cornel sarissa, constant diameter, large spearhead - someone quoted this on RAT:

QuoteThe eighteen-foot sarissa minus the length of the point and its socket (0.51 m. = 1 ft. 8 in.) and that of the butt-spike (0.445 m. = 1 ft. 6 in.) would equal 178 in., excluding the cones of wood inserted into the sockets of the head and butt. The volume of this shaft (π r2 h: 3.14 x .56 x 178) would be 313 cu. in., and its weight would be this figure times .03 lbs. per cu. in., which would be 9.39 lbs. The weight of the iron sarissa-head is 1235 grammes = 2.7 lbs. and that of the butt-spike 1070 grammes =2.4 lbs. (The weight of the coupling sleeve is not given and is hereby excluded.) The total weight of the eighteen-foot sarissa is thus 14.5 lbs. On the assumption that a fifteen-foot sarissa had iron parts of the same weight and size as those described above, it would weigh about 12 lbs.

The rough rule-of-thumb figure of 1 lb of weight per 2' of wooden shaft seems to apply here, with metal bits being extra, and by pro-rating Markle's 12 lbs for a 15' pike we would be looking at about 16 lbs for a 20' pike.  My main assumption - which is where much of the difference originates - is that the butt counterweight would be a lot heavier because the centre of gravity of a 21' sarissa (sarisa if we want the correct Greek spelling) would be 6' from the butt not 11.5' from the butt.

Ergo, throw in the extra 5-6 lbs for the heavier butt counterweight and the original 16 lbs becomes 21-22 lbs.  This seems to work out and might even mean I am not totally talking off the top of my head ... :)

I think the key element here is that estimates to date do not allow for counterweighting (a 2.78 lb sarissa head and 2.4 lb butt spike is seriously weighted the wrong way).  Add in the counterweight and we seem to be reading from much the same script.

Re Cornel wood, figures I have seen suggest it is denser than ash.  However, there is some dispute whether they were made of cornel wood I believe.  The key text seems to be Theophrastus (Hist. Plant. 3.12.1-2), if anyone has access.

The Theophrastus text is why cornel is traditionally assumed for the sarissa, yes. What he says is:

QuoteOf the cornelian cherry there is a ' male' and a 'female' kind (cornel) ... The wood of the 'male' tree has no heart, but is hard throughout, like horn in closeness and strength; whereas that of the ' female ' tree has heart-wood and is softer and goes into holes; wherefore it is useless for javelins. The height of the ' male ' tree is at most twelve cubits, the length of the longest Macedonian sarisa, the stem up to the point where it divides not being very tall.

However Sekunda's article points out:

- Theophrastus does not actually say that the cornel is used for sarisai (indeed no-one does);
- He does imply that the "male" tree is used for javelins, the "female" being too soft;
- The sarisa is mentioned only as a comparison for the height of the tree;
- And in fact the full description - at most 12 cubits, not very tall before the trunk divides - suggests that very few cornels would be suitable for providing a 12-cubit spearshaft (he doesn't believe in "made in two halves joined by a tube");
- And indeed a Latin poet (Statius, I think) explicitly says that sarisai were made from ash (which is a traditional wood for spears, including Renaissance pikeshafts, and which S argues is much more suitable, and lighter).

I tend to agree, now.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Jan 12, 2016, 11:53 AMMy main assumption - which is where much of the difference originates - is that the butt counterweight would be a lot heavier because the centre of gravity of a 21' sarissa (sarisa if we want the correct Greek spelling) would be 6' from the butt not 11.5' from the butt.

But Markle's figure includes the actual weight of the big winged buttspike found by Andronikos, which almost everyone accepts as a sarisa butt (I think Sekunda may reject it) so I do not think you can be justified in assuming anything heavier.

If the weighting doesn't work, that's just more evidence for a tapering shaft and smaller spearhead (Connolly, Sekunda) and/or a lighter ash shaft (Sekunda).

Quote from: Duncan Head on Jan 12, 2016, 01:28 PM
But Markle's figure includes the actual weight of the big winged buttspike found by Andronikos, which almost everyone accepts as a sarisa butt (I think Sekunda may reject it) so I do not think you can be justified in assuming anything heavier.

That is absolutely true, which is why I subtracted Markle's estimate of butt-spike-weight from the calculation of per length (of wood only) weight and then added a pike point.

Statius yes:

From NV Sekunda, 'The sarissa',  Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Archaeologica 23, 2001

QuoteThe ancient Greeks displayed a similar preference for ash for spearshafts.
Homer refers to ashen spears several times (eg. II. 5. 66, 19. 390,
22. 225) and occasional references also appear in later authors (eg. Tyrtaios
frg. 19. 13). As regards the sarissa, Statius, a poet of the first century A.D.,
specifically states that (Theb. 7. 269) "The Macedonians by custom shake
ash sarissai" (fraxineas Macetum vibrant de more sarisas). Statius is a most
unsatisfactory source for information on weaponry, being much given to
mentioning items of military equipment as improbable as bark shields etc.,
but this remains our only piece of evidence for the wood of the shaft of
the sarissa from ancient literature. Given the universal demand for ash for
pikes in the seventeenth century, and the abiding popularity of ash for
spears in Antiquity, his testimony should be accepted. We should note that
Macedonia was well provided with ash in Antiquity (Theophr., Hist Plant
3. 11. 3-4).

Here http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/ (http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/) is a reconstruction to add to Connolly and Markle and Matthews

Quote from: RichT on Jan 12, 2016, 04:37 PM
Statius yes

Sometimes my memory impresses even me  ;)

A few thoughts, albeit not directly relating to Duncan's impressive memory. :)

1) We may be looking at different varieties of cornel-wood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornus_%28genus%29).  If Theophrastus' cornel-wood divides low and does not grow straight, it is unlikely to be the same tree as was used for the 'cornel-wood' xystons of Alexander's Companions (xustois kraneinois, Arrian, Anabasis I.15.5).

2) We have to be at least as careful with 'ash' as with 'cornel-wood'.  As John Smythe indicates, the 'tite and stiffe ashe' would be distinct from the common variety, and if one uses common ash in a spear-shaft one will probably be in for a mild disappointment as happened here (http://hetairoi.de/en/living-history/experience-reports/sarissa-experiment/).  The tougher and heavier 'mountain ash' - although this itself can be a bit of a blanket designation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_ash) - would be the variety of choice for shafted weapons, cf. Achilles' spear of 'Pelian ash'.  I am assuming the sorbus family (rowan) is usually meant by this when weaponry is concerned and that the fraxinus species are not, although fraxinus excelsior, the common ash of England, has traditionally been sufficiently highly regarded to use in weaponry.

3) The winged buttspike found by Andronikos (a mere 2.4 lbs or less than the assumed spearhead of a sarissa) would not act as an effective counterweight.  In any event I suspect it actually belongs to a logkhe - along with the spearhead found at Vergina.  An effective counterweight for a sarissa-length weapon would have to be significantly heavier.

I have dogwood (cornel-wood, species unspecified) growing in my garden, and it grows long and straight.  I have not measured the trunks but they are at least twice the height of a man plus something - admittedly not 21' but on the way there.  This makes me really wonder about Theophrastus and exactly what he was describing, perhaps this (https://www.rhs.org.uk/advice/profile?pid=360), the flowering dogwood, although as the entry notes even these if unpruned can grow to 25', coincidentally just right for Polybius' original 24' sarissa.

Theophrastus is surely describing the cornel cherry cornus mas? And do we have evidence that sorbus species were used for spears, as opposed to fraxinus?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Jan 12, 2016, 08:47 PMWe may be looking at different varieties of cornel-wood (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornus_%28genus%29).  If Theophrastus' cornel-wood divides low and does not grow straight, it is unlikely to be the same tree as was used for the 'cornel-wood' xystons of Alexander's Companions (xustois kraneinois, Arrian, Anabasis I.15.5).

I don't agree. If the "male" cornel grows to 18 feet, it shouldn't be impossible to get the 10-12 foot shafts of a xyston from a fair number of specimens. Theo was of course writing in Alexander's lifetime, knows that his cornel grew in Macedon and was used for making spears of some sort; no need to postulate further species.

QuoteI am assuming the sorbus family (rowan) is usually meant by this when weaponry is concerned and that the fraxinus species are not, although fraxinus excelsior, the common ash of England, has traditionally been sufficiently highly regarded to use in weaponry.

And "fraxinus" is precisely the word Statius uses, though of course ancient usage need not correspond to modern taxonomy.

QuoteThe winged buttspike found by Andronikos (a mere 2.4 lbs or less than the assumed spearhead of a sarissa) would not act as an effective counterweight.  In any event I suspect it actually belongs to a logkhe - along with the spearhead found at Vergina.  An effective counterweight for a sarissa-length weapon would have to be significantly heavier.

What you seem to be missing is that neither Sekunda nor Connolly (nor I) accept that Andronikos' and Markle's "assumed" sarisa-head actually comes from a sarisa. The original grave contains the winged butt, the mysterious iron tube, the large heavy spearhead that A and M thought was a sarisa-head, and a smaller, lighter iron spearhead that they assumed was from a separate weapon. C and S argue against this interpretation, because (a) as C points out, the large spearhead is blunt, no sign it was ever combat-sharp, so it may not be a practical spearhead at all; (b) Grattius' Cynegetica refers to huge Macedonian spears with small "teeth", ruling out such a large spearhead (quid, Macetum immensos libeat si dicere contos? quam longa exigui spicant hastilia dentes!). Therefore, the second, smaller head from the Andronikos grave is the sarisa-head.

(Also (c), according to S, the large spearhead is made of bronze, like the buttspike - but I am not sure where he gets this from, as the original Andronikos article says clearly that all parts are iron - http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/bch_0007-4217_1970_num_94_1_2168.pdf )

Since this second lighter spearhead has a smaller socket diameter than the winged butt (or the larger spearhead) the shaft must taper to fit it, which would in turn make the shaft both lighter and balanced further back than A and M's consistent-diameter thick shaft. The reconstruction at hetairoi.de  has a two-part shaft with the front half tapering, but I think C used a one-piece shaft tapering throughout.

The results of both Connolly's and the hetairoi.de reconstructions suggest that, given these conditions, the idea that you need a heavier counterweight than the Andronikos winged butt is in practice simply not true.

So what is the large, blunt, spearhead? Someone, I think perhaps in an earlier discussion on ancmed, suggested that it might be another sarisa buttspike (same socket diameter as the winged one). Sekunda suggests (in his two books on the Antigonids) it's from a ceremonial spear, an emblem of rank - but then he thinks it's bronze, which would look flashier.

Ably argued, Duncan, but the reason I consider a counterweight imperative has to do with simple physics and arithmetic.

Polybius tells us that a 21' shaft is grasped at the 3' (right hand) and 6' (left hand) points.  If the sarissa were not counterweighted, it would need the left hand at around the 11.5' point, a difference of 5.5 feet.  Otherwise, with the left hand at 6' along the shaft, assuming a 20' shaft including spearhead, plus a 1' counterweight of x mass to complete the 21' weapon, we would have - pro-rating Markle - a mass of, say, 16 lbs, of which 1/4 plus x is aft of the point of balance and 3/4 ahead of said point.

Hence we have 1/4 of 16 lbs aft of the balance point, i.e. 4 lbs, and 3/4 of 16, i.e. 12 lbs, ahead of it.

x, the counterweight, should thus weigh 12 - 4 = 8 lbs.  This puts 12 lbs aft of the balance point and 12 lbs ahead of it.

Does that make sense?

[Edit:] Given your interpretation that the smaller spearhead is in fact a sarissa head, which I find convincing, and that a tapered shaft is thus likely, we can scale down the counterweight according to the likely saving in weight ahead of the point of balance.  I would however be surprised if we could thus save more than a couple of pounds on each side of the point of balance, which would at least get us down to a 6lb counterweight and a lighter and handier weapon (20 lbs overall rather than 24 lbs).

Also can you coppice Cornel wood? I would assume that they would have people who were ensuring that their cornel grew long and straight rather than just having cavalry units blundering about hoping to find straight trunks

Quote from: Jim Webster on Jan 13, 2016, 01:06 PM
Also can you coppice Cornel wood? I would assume that they would have people who were ensuring that their cornel grew long and straight rather than just having cavalry units blundering about hoping to find straight trunks

One of the things I read about Cornel Cherry was that it tended to multi-trunking.  So in theory but, given its reluctance to grow straight without bushing, I think it would be hard to manage.  However, someone would need to work through the arboricultural resources to really answer.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Jan 13, 2016, 11:05 AM
x, the counterweight, should thus weigh 12 - 4 = 8 lbs.  This puts 12 lbs aft of the balance point and 12 lbs ahead of it.

Unless I misunderstood your estimate...
Wouldn't the counterweight have to be even heavier because it is closer to the right hand than the average distance of the shaft infront of the left hand. Levers and all that.

Quote from: Dangun on Jan 13, 2016, 02:06 PM
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.

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.

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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Napoli_BW_2013-05-16_16-25-06_1_DxO.jpg) 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.

On the more general subject of pikes, the Battle of Seminara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

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... :)

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 (http://www.thesealedknot.org.uk/media).  Not everyone seems to be countering the rotational force in quite the same way.

Quote from: RichT on Jan 31, 2016, 06:24 PM
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. ;)

Quote from: Swampster on Jan 31, 2016, 10:07 AM
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://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=1960.75 (http://forum.soa.org.uk/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.

Quote from: RichT on Jan 31, 2016, 06:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 01, 2016, 05:19 AM


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.

Patrick:

Quotemediaeval 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:

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

QuoteI 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

QuoteKeeping 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.

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

QuoteFrom 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).

Quote from: Duncan Head on Feb 01, 2016, 08:58 AM

Quote from: RichT on Jan 31, 2016, 06:24 PM
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.

Quote from: RichT on Feb 01, 2016, 12:34 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

QuoteDepictions 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 (http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk50/Dstaberg/The%20Renaissance%20at%20War/OrdonnaceArchersatFornovo.jpg) (pikes held with one hand on the middle) and at Marignano (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Marignano.jpg/220px-Marignano.jpg), 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?

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Feb 01, 2016, 05:01 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on Feb 01, 2016, 08:58 AM

Quote from: RichT on Jan 31, 2016, 06:24 PM
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

QuoteHere 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 (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 (https://myarmoury.com/talk/files/dolnstein_battle_of_elfsborg_1502b_414.jpg)

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 01, 2016, 07:10 PM
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 (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.

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

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

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 02, 2016, 09:19 AMWhile 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.)

Quote from: Duncan Head on Feb 01, 2016, 06:40 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Feb 01, 2016, 05:01 PM

Quote from: Duncan Head on Feb 01, 2016, 08:58 AM

Quote from: RichT on Jan 31, 2016, 06:24 PM
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 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHKKlB9PwrE/VRKlobWP-9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/y7Y2MP1hsRk/s1600/Chang_Qiang.png) 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 ...

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 02, 2016, 09:31 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 02, 2016, 09:19 AMWhile 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.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Feb 02, 2016, 11:43 AM
Yet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHKKlB9PwrE/VRKlobWP-9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/y7Y2MP1hsRk/s1600/Chang_Qiang.png) 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.

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Feb 02, 2016, 11:43 AMYet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHKKlB9PwrE/VRKlobWP-9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/y7Y2MP1hsRk/s1600/Chang_Qiang.png) 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.

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

QuoteThis 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.

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://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 (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. 

Quote from: RichT on Feb 02, 2016, 02:03 PM
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. ;)

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote from: Duncan Head on Feb 02, 2016, 02:00 PM

Quote from: Patrick Waterson on Feb 02, 2016, 11:43 AMYet what appears to be a period illustration of what is said to be a chang qiang (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-DHKKlB9PwrE/VRKlobWP-9I/AAAAAAAAAaQ/y7Y2MP1hsRk/s1600/Chang_Qiang.png) 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):

QuoteHistorically, 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.

Quote from: RichT on Feb 02, 2016, 02:03 PMarguments 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?

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 03, 2016, 01:35 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 02, 2016, 02:33 PM
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://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 (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

QuoteI 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?

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 03, 2016, 09:29 AM
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.

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 03, 2016, 11:13 AM

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 03, 2016, 09:29 AM
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.

Patrick:

QuoteOne 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:

QuoteSurely, 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.

Quote from: Mark G on Feb 03, 2016, 06:41 AM
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?

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.

Quote from: RichT on Feb 03, 2016, 11:49 AM

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.

Quote
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. ;)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Feb 03, 2016, 05:32 AM

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 03, 2016, 01:35 AM
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 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Napoli_BW_2013-05-16_16-25-06_1_DxO.jpg) 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).

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 03, 2016, 11:26 AM
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 (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mvwy8WwroHQ/VjqyiyTtSqI/AAAAAAAABfA/OxI8LUL0mUQ/s1600/13.jpg), 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 (http://www.chineselongsword.com/speartranslation.shtml), 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.

Quote from: RichT on Feb 03, 2016, 02:04 PM
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 ... ;)

QuoteGiven 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.

QuoteThis 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).

Quote from: RichT on Feb 03, 2016, 11:49 AM
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.

QuoteI'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.

Quote
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).

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

I am in a state of shock...

QuoteGiven 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.)

Quote from: RichT on Feb 03, 2016, 04:49 PM

QuoteI'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.

Quote
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 ...

Quote
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.").

Quote from: Dangun on Feb 03, 2016, 03:07 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Erpingham on Feb 03, 2016, 03:03 PM

QuoteThis 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. :)