the end of the pike in British army

[nikharwood]

Just spent ages looking for an image of Pike, with a pike, all I get are fishing photos!

You need to get out more. Like me 

[Ithoriel]

Pike with a pike.

OK very hastily done but still ...

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

 

[nikharwood]

Luvvit 

[Hertsblue]

They're not all going to get over the bar together....

[toxicpixie]

It's ok Hertsblue, beer was rationed anyway so they'd have to queue!

[Hwiccee]

Iain,


I look forward to seeing the work on the Guelph Duchies - when do you think they will be available.

On to the comments - I have left the ones we seem to have finished.

1.   There certainly seems to be a lot of recruiting up to strength/changing strength in the early years. While minor changes in composition are evident in the units sent to Iberia - an extra officer or corporal is common.

3.  Yes that would be brilliant if you can find it, I suspect it might be tricky in practice On a quick look I think this is going to be tricky from the Treasury papers - they don't seem to break things down enough to tell.

4.  OK good that would be very useful.  

On the fusiliers leading the way yes I have heard this before. This is interesting but I am less sure that it is connected with pikes. The Russians put their pikes in the baggage for sieges because they are basically useless in a siege, but for assaults they always used them. It maybe that things were different in the East but again I suspect this is not a decisive argument for/against pikes.

5.  I am not sure the Spanish contingent is really relevant at all to the orders in the sense we are talking about - the text is not that clear.  I think it is saying that the guards , probably the London based ones as this is where the Spanish detachment came from, are short of powder because of the detachment and changes in their organisation. As I read it the London based guards had their powder allowance reduced in 1704 when these 600 men went to Spain from London. But that is the end of the relevance of the Spanish contingent. I can't see any reason why the powder allowance of the Flanders group would be changed as they stayed the same size at this time. Since then the London guards have added 10 men per company and also they have replaced the pikemen so they need more powder and the deduction from their allowance made in 1704 should at least be stopped.

I think it is most likely it is just concerning the London guards as the Spanish contingent came from there. That of course doesn't mean that the same is not true for the Flanders and Spanish groups - i.e. that they would need extra powder. They would also need extra powder for the 'new' musket armed soldiers in their ranks - the additional 10 men and/or ex pikemen. But presumably that was done with some other order or in some other way.

On guards first the yes for 'combat' troops, they get the new stuff first. But arguably the London based group are more like a place guard type unit and so 'traditional' arms might be more appropriate.

Steve's article uses Tower Armouries records for the various issues. I am pretty sure that if the troops in Flanders were not using the pikes issued someone, somewhere would have asked for them back and they would also be asking where the extra muskets, powder & ball came from – some colonels may have paid out for these from their own pockets but many (as we have seen from the 1695 – re-order from William) certainly would not.

Yes I agree but of course the problem is we have no records of this happening at any time. This means either we have lost the records entirely (i.e. it has been destroyed) or not found them yet.

6.   OK good

7.  I think often there is a lot of useful support evidence in the images and 'real' details. But they are still works of art and so often the artist will add things/leave them out or just change them to be more 'artistic'.

8.   Yes I know about this and it is yet more 'circumstantial' evidence for British pikes (and Dutch for that matter) but I was thinking more of something like Drake's reference or a similar mention of pikes actually in use in the field. These references are all theory and  it would be good if we can find some practice as we have both said.

The evidence in favour though does now seem to be stacking up. Do you know what evidence was offered to support their disbandment between 1698-1701 in the first place??

I don't think there was ever any evidence. Many of the older works are heavily British biased and influenced by 'patriotism'. Before Chandler they knew that they had pikes in the Nine Years War and had not got them by the 1720's. They knew the French got rid of them in 1703 but they had no information on when they went from the British army. Working on the patriotic assumption that the British army had become better and more advanced than the French the obvious switch over point was in the peace before the WSS. I think we would both be critical of Chandler for often being British biased but to his credit he was the one who changed this situation. He 'discovered' Drake and proved that the British still had pikes in 1702. Chandler was criticised by some for what we would call 'revisionism' because of this! But it was accepted and no further investigation was carried out because this left the key concept intact - i.e. the British were still more 'advanced' than the French because they got rid of the pike first, if only by about a year.

All the best,


Nick

[iain1704]

Nick,

Would not think Guelph Duchies will be available before 2016 – depends on how much Robert finds in the archives ... he has found a fair amount of interesting material already.

1.   Agreed
2.   Done
3.   It's going to be like trying to find the proverbial Needle in a haystack – it needs to be examined though ... will also look at regimental bills for accoutrements - such as extra cartridge pouches issued ... somewhere someone will have issued a bill for payment
4.   Will keep looking – I note that the involvement of English Regiments in sieges was low until Lille in 1708
5.   I think we may be going round in circles with this one ... have you got figures for the strengths of the Guards in Flanders 1706-8 ... I have 1703-4 but not later reports? Would be interesting to see if the extras were also sent to Flanders with other replacements ... or whether someone was on the fiddle (which wasn't unknown)
6.   Done
7.   It might be interesting to look at some wood cuts ... they tend to be a little more accurate since they represent the closest 17th/18th century newspapers have to a photograph.
8.   I don't think the Dutch is in doubt given Nimwegen's evidence published in Armamentaria ... practice references would be good but they are very rare ... people dont tend to describe what is usual, rather what is unusual ... which has led to a lot of confusion at times.

This is going to take a while (I mean a couple of years of additional research). Your right about Chandler, he continued to revise his views as new evidence was discovered – his later works are proof of this. The one big dark cloud over this Period is Winston Churchill ... much of which has been treated as holy writ. The fact is that the French were the military leaders during this period and tended to set the trends ... others followed. I also think we have both been the subjects of some criticism ourselves for daring to question our 'betters'.

Kind regards

Iain

[WFGamer]

Iain,


I think generally we have taken this as far as we can. As you say I am afraid we need a lot more research on this. I will try to get the stuff I have organised into an article for the Arquebusier. Hopefully that will provide further information for the debate but I doubt it will close it.

As always it has been a pleasure talking with you. I am sure I am not the only one who can't wait for further material from you and the team.


All the best

[iain1704]

Cheers WFGamer

looking forward to reading your article

kind regards

Iain

[Hwiccee]

A new article on this is in the current Arquebusier magazine.