the end of the pike in British army

[iain1704]

Not at all Mollinary both yourself and Hwiccee did a very good and constuctive critique in my view ... this is the sort of thing we need to help us progress our knowledge of the period ... so when myself and Robert eventually get around to doing the British army (bearing in mind research on the Dutch took 7 years) we will have solid material to present.

As I said, also have a look at Steve EBs article which does enhance the arguement

Thanks again and thank you Sandinista for you kind welcome

Iain

[mollinary]

Thanks Iain,

Managed to root out Steve's article (no mean feat. Having moved twice in the last year heaps of stuff has gone missing!). Interesting he effectively puts the end of the pike in 1706, which makes it a moot point for Ramillies, which is my favourite!   

Mollinary

[Hwiccee]

Hi Iain,


As others have said nice to have you here and for you to reply to my comments. I was planning on doing an article for Arquebusier (the Pike and hot society magazine and a gold mine of information if you don't know it) on all this. As always it is finding the time and I need to research some of the points.  For this I was intending to drop you a line to seek clarification of some points - more on this later.

OK so first of all some comments.

1: As I mentioned I think it is very difficult to put an exact figure on this - impossible for actual units in the field. In the early stages of the war they are frequently using units with non standard organisation. I think the key fact is that we are talking about a considerable number - 25 to 30% and not the 0 to 10% that is often thought.

As an aside where did you get the battalion size info in the article - the material on page 35 of the magazine?

2: Yes I agree

3: Yes I think we are talking about the London based guards in the parades. Also note that we have parts of the guard in 3 areas - 1 we know they have pike (London), 1 we know they didn't (Spain) and 1 we are trying to find out about (Flanders).

4: I think this is one of the key pieces of potential evidence but I haven't seen it in any primary source. I have had a brief look around in the past without any luck. If you can track down an exact reference for this then that would be great?

5: I wasn't saying anything about the ratio in these units, the numbers were just to reinforce the idea that we are talking 100's and not 10's or less.

I did later on comment on the use of this order. This is clearly the last reference to pikes in use and so gives us a 'last possible' date for total abandonment. As mentioned in the original message and above it does not mean that pikes were actually used in Flanders. This order can not have been for the guards detachments in Spain as we know they didn't have pikes and must be relevant for the ones in London as we know some of these had pikes at around the same time. It seems very likely to me that they are talking about the London based units as the detachments they talk about in Spain came from them and not Flanders. But we still have no idea if they apply to the parts of these units in Flanders or other units.

On this whole evidence it is a shame that it is the guards that are involved because they are all over the place and also potentially an exception to the rule.

6: Again I have had a little look at this but not in depth. The treasury records are a mess generally and again it would be a help if you could give a reference to where exactly the 'expenditure spike' is?

I would guess that the records do not say XXX pounds for replacing pikes. If this is so then the question becomes what else could this have been spent on & why that doesn't seem likely and other things - a key one would be how much we are talking about?

This is another key potential piece of evidence to decide this issue but details are needed to be sure.

7: No we are not talking about the Dumont/Rousset image - indeed I think it was myself that pointed out this is not reliable.

I have another image but I am not sure how reliable that is - I also seem to have mislaid it at the moment It is by a guy who is a potential eyewitness to Blenheim and did a painting of it. Once again I am afraid I haven't gone into it in depth but the guy was often in Eugene's entourage and at some of his battles. But I don't know if he was at Blenheim and neither do I know if he painted at around the time of the battle or sometime later when his memory might be faulty.

Also, as I think I argued in the previous discussion on this, any period painting/illustration is difficult to rely on for evidence. These things are art and not photos/historic documents. So they might give a hint about the use of pikes but they can't really be 'proof'.

8: On the Dutch yes you have details in your fine and highly recommended work. The information there and what the Dutch do is clearly a good indication of what the 'British' are doing. Again here we are talking about the Dutch having pikes in theory, do you know if there is any accounts of them actually using them in the period we are talking about? Perhaps details of units handing in pikes like we have for the British?

Without actual evidence of their use in the field it is possible that like the Danes or Russians I mentioned they were not actually used.

So as I mentioned I think we can be 100% (or at least 99%) sure that the 'British' units had pikes until early 1704. We can also be reasonably sure that by late 1706/early 1707 the pikes had all gone. For the period between these 2 dates we still need good evidence which at least as far as I have seen we don't have. Potentially the Marlborough quote or the treasury records could provide this but the evidence needs to be tested.

As mentioned I will try to put together something for Arquebusier on this and if you can give me references for the Marlborough quote/treasury papers that would help. Your article and this reply has prompted me to try to do something about this when I have time. Meanwhile I am sure I speak for many others when I say we really appreciate the work on this period you have already done and we look forward with relish to something on the British.

All the best,


Nick

[nikharwood]

Welcome aboard Iain, good to have more P&SS onboard

Agreed - welcome, Iain 

[mollinary]

4. Marlborough complaint - I do remember seeing the letter - can't remember the source - I think it comes from either Murray or Snyder - I was hoping someone else remembered it too so I could find it.

Iain,

A quick look on the PSS Yahoo group reveals a file you contributed regarding the British assault on Blenheim village. In it you seem to attribute this comment to "Hawley's Memoirs".  Is this any help? Cannot say myself, as I do not possess a copy of the aforesaid memoirs!

Cheers,

Mollinary

[Chad]

May I add my welcome Iain.

You were very helpful on a yahoo group a few years ago with information on the Prussian formation and other things at Blenheim and Hochstadt. Just recently purchased your updated work on Blenheim. The original was a great help in building my WSS armies.

Kind regards

Chad

[iain1704]

Hi Nick

Its great to be able to have these discussions with you again, it has been far too long. I look forward to reading your article and fully understand the time needed for research. I need to find some time myself to go to the British Library for Robert – he is currently researching the Guelph Duchies (Hanover, Celle & Brunswick) and Munster for his next work. 

On to the comments
1.   Agreed – in fact the Guards did not field a 'standard' organisation at all during the WSS
Flanders – 1 Battalion of 11 coys (all 1st Guards) added to in 1708 by a 2nd Battalion of 11 coys (this time 5 coys from the 1st Guards and 6 coys from the 2nd) – the second battalion also included 3 grenadier companies while the 1st battalion only had one.
Spain – as you know 1 battalion of 10coys (4 coys from the 1st Guards and 6 Coys from the 2nd)
In addition to this, peacetime organisation meant most Regiments consisted of 11 coys and these were made up of 40 privates (20 pike and 20 muskets) raising the additional troops and and drawing the correct proportion of muskets would have taken time. William started this process before he died. However Marlborough was still having problems in 1703/4 hence Cadogans horse only fielding one squadron (attached to Woods) and no horses for half the 2nd Dragoons.
On to the aside: Figures come from a combination of sources – Walton, Mackinnon, Scouller and Dalton being the main ones – I have a goodly number of Cannon's histories that I reference too.
I would add that in one reference Walton gives 3 corporals per company and not two.

2.   Concluded

3.   I think probably the best way to confirm this is to re-examine the Treasury, Ordnance and Blenheim papers. Especially the latter, since while all the juicy gossip has been cherry picked to death, the logistics information has been very largely ignored. Yearly comparisons of regimental powder and ball expenditure should hopefully be the final piece in the jigsaw puzzle. An upward spike in the supply during the winter of 1706-7 should prove this conclusively.

4.   See a 3 above – If I can track it down I will publish it. One observation on Marlborough was that I have noted when he needed to conduct an assault it was usually the Fusilier regiments that led the way (the scots and the Welsh at Blenheim) and the Scots at Autre-Eglise (Ramillies) – I also note that they paid the penalty on both occasions.

5.   I think the point I made was that while Spain is specifically excluded, Flanders in not mentioned (my reading of that is that the order applies to all companies with the exception of those in Spain which we know did not have pikes; however, that would include the 10 [11 if you count grenadiers] companies in Flanders). In terms of the guards, yes your right – they don't follow the same rules as everyone else – however, when it comes to new kit or changes being made they are invariably the first and not the last regiments where the changes occur. 

One other point and I picked this up from Olaf van Nimwegen and this was that British merchants were fiercely protective of their markets – while the rest of the allied army was fed Polish Rye, the British army had English Rye – I have no doubt that those responsible for making gunpowder were equally protective – the London Guilds where, and are still extremely powerful organisations.

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.

6.   No problem – I still need to find this paper – I have an original and a photocopy ... can't find either at the moment ... they are somewhere in the depths of my library ... probably tucked between the pages of a book for safe keeping ... question is which one. I will let you know as and when these are rediscovered.

You are right though ... the records do not specify replacement of pikes just general expenditure - will give you the figures too. I remember spikes at the end of 1704-5 and 1706-7 – although general expenditure is always curving upwards as you would expect.

7.   Images – agreed – they are not reliable. I will say though that on researching camp rosters some where very ornately coloured and these colours matched uniform patterns for the various regiments ... so someone somewhere had gone to a lot of trouble to record this data on the order of and for the amusement of some prince or other.

8.   I did not include this in the article – We are talking about the Dutch using pikes in the field, not in theory – this is from mine and Roberts recent work.

"In the Dutch army there were still doubts about doing away with the pike in favour of a new weapon. In 1702 the regiment Lislemarais wanted to be armed with pikes despite their capitulaton dictating the contrary.   
At the start of 1706 there were still many Dutch generals of the opinion that nine or ten pikes per company were necessary to protect a battalion against cavalry but also because the pikes served primarily as a solid centre in the battalion around the flags and a recognisable point to which the wings could rally in times disorder. According to these generals a unit armed with pikes was to be preferred in a firefight to a battalion armed only with flintlocks. The resolution of 2nd March 1706 the Raad van State ordered that every ordinary company with over 50 men in rank and file was to have 10 pikemen as before and every company of 50 or less was to have 9 pikes except those regiments that do not carry pikes.    The use of the pike was still described in the Recueil of 1706.
Two years later in 1708 the idea of keeping or dropping the pike came back on the table. The duke of Marlborough gave his opinion that it should disappear as quickly as possible for which he gave two reasons. Firstly the arms of his own men should match those of the enemy and secondly, that in any case the pike could not be seen any longer as anything but a defensive weapon. [The English army had only laid aside pikes in 1707.] The Prince of Orange was also of the opinion that the pike should be done away with, for in an action a small number was of little use and too large for the loss of firepower they meant. On the 18th of October, two or three hours before his death Ouwerkerk, on the insistance of Marlborough, signed an order that pikes were to be laid aside in the entire Dutch infantry for the duration of a month. Their final demise followed on 31 January 1709. The pikemen were rearmed with flintlocks, bayonets and cartridge pouches to be able to better serve their land and to put them on the same footing as the infantry of all other nations in action in the Netherlands. The pikes were to be held in storage by the regiments pending further orders, which never came."   

So I will try and hunt down those references for you

In addition this comes from 'Recueil des ordonnances militaires de sa majesté Britannique' Published in Brussels in 1706 (so after Ramillies)

Further orders for the Regiments of English and Scots serving in the Staat (Netherlands)
Article 10: That the Captains are to pay the muskets and pikes from their own money, on condition that their successors in their rank are obliged to reimbourse the price following the estimate.

I agree with your conclusion that the British definitely had pikes in early 1704 and that they disappeared from service in the Guards/Line Regiments during the winter/spring 1706-7. We also agree that substantial evidence exists to support their usage thru 1704-6 but that the evidence offered so far is not overwhelming. An actual account of them being used in action would be extremely useful (like Drakes account in 1703) but unfortunately none appear to exist post Drake.

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??

Mollinary – the Memoirs I used in the debate on the assault on Blenheim village where Hare's not Hawley's – my copy is 1712 – I will double check this .. thanks for the tip. If it is Hare he was Marlborough's Chaplin and this makes it as watertight as it can get (a direct eyewitness account).

Kindest regards to you both

Iain

[Luddite]

Weren't pikes reissued to the Home Guard in 1939?

[Orcs]

Weren't pikes reissued to the Home Guard in 1939?

Certainly there were Broom handles with carving Knives tapped to the end - which is definitely a primitive pike.

and of course there was "Dont tell them your name Pike!"

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

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

[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