There is an interesting article in the new Arquebusier (P&SS Journal) by Iain Stanford giving 1706 as a date, post Blenheim. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
About right, although only 10% of troops had them by then.
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 13 July 2014, 03:30:52 PM
About right, although only 10% of troops had them by then.
IanS
Hi Ian,
Interesting point Ian, do you have a source for that? Summarising briefly the article Sandinista is referring to, Iain Stanford, using good first hand sources, posits something akin to the following:
1689 1:2 Pikes to muskets;
1692.1:3 Pikes to muskets;
1695 1:3 Pikes to muskets (ordnance re-issued);
1702 1:3 Pikes to muskets (except Fusileer Regis which had none);
1703-04 Regiments for Portugal hand in their pikes, to be taken up by those in Flanders;
1705-06 Trophies from Blenheim and Ramillies carried by pikemen of the guards;
1705 Marlborough complains the English infantry unsuitable for siege work because of the number of pikemen they contain;
1707 guards, complain about not enough powder issued when they increased company size by ten men, and handed in their pikes (another 12 men per company). In other words, before the augmentation and handing in of pikes the guards had a proportion of 1:4 pikes to muskets.
Conclusion pike completely removed 1706-07, also supported by spike in military expenditure with no increase in size of forces under arms.
Hope this helps those without access to the mag.
Mollinary
The continued use of pikes has been common knowledge for some time amongst students of the period - there was another take on this in an issue of Arquebusier a few months ago. The basic problem is we have some information but not enough to be 100% certain. Stanford's view is reasonable but with some errors and probably only partly true. There are also other possible counter arguments.
So first some comments on Stanford's views.
Quote1689 1:2 Pikes to muskets;
1692.1:3 Pikes to muskets;
1695 1:3 Pikes to muskets (ordnance re-issued);
1702 1:3 Pikes to muskets (except Fusileer Regis which had none);
The exact ratio is difficult to say because it depends which you compare and also sometime on the nature of the evidence. So for example do you count officers/NCO's/musicians as pikes? or muskets? or not at all? What about Grenadiers? While sometimes we know a battalion has say 130 to 200 pikes (typical numbers) but we don't know the size of the unit - is is full strength of 900 or so, or maybe 500 to 600 which is a more common field strength.
Quote1703-04 Regiments for Portugal hand in their pikes, to be taken up by those in Flanders;
Stanford has messed the details of this up but as is clear it is broadly correct. The real incident he means and others clearly show that units in Flanders had pikes in early 1704 - these units had 190 pikes each.
Quote1705-06 Trophies from Blenheim and Ramillies carried by pikemen of the guards;
The guards had at least 128 pikes, probably more, at the victory parade for Blenheim and Ramillies. But they were based in London at the time, not in Flanders.
Quote1705 Marlborough complains the English infantry unsuitable for siege work because of the number of pikemen they contain;
The source for this is doubtful.
Quote1707 guards, complain about not enough powder issued when they increased company size by ten men, and handed in their pikes (another 12 men per company). In other words, before the augmentation and handing in of pikes the guards had a proportion of 1:4 pikes to muskets.
Again we have number problems here. The unit had a large detachment in Spain and may or may not be at full strength. So it is difficult to decide the ratio but probably we are talking similar ratios to earlier.
In short there is no hard evidence that the ratio changed at all from 1689 to 1707 from the information we have. We don't have enough information to be absolutely sure but it is clearly a sizeable part of the unit.
QuoteConclusion pike completely removed 1706-07, also supported by spike in military expenditure with no increase in size of forces under arms.
Stanford is probably wrong on the expenditure spike. Muskets were fairly cheap and the cost of replacing pikes with them would not be great. The spike is more to do with paying for more allies/mercenaries/etc.
The first part of this certainly seems to be true as it is the last mention of them, but remember this is a unit in London & not in the field. It is important to realise that none of the units sent to Spain/Portugal took their pikes at any point during the war. So Stanford's argument that if the guards in London had them then everyone did is flawed.
From my point of view based on additional information that the use of pikes in the field finished before this time. It is difficult to be sure when but they had them in early 1704 and probably stopped by early 1705. All the references after early 1704, other than the 1705 siege thing, relate to troops in the UK. If the 1705 siege thing is proved to be correct then maybe they lingered in 1705 but they probably went then and early in the year, in the field that is.
As Stanford mentions in his article pictorial evidence is difficult to rely on but there is some fairly good visual evidence of British pikes at Blenheim. Whether this is reliable enough is debatable but it could mean they were still used at that time. Interestingly the same source does not show them at Ramillies.
There are of course many other arguments you could make but on balance I think that British pikes were finally abolished in 1707. They were not used in Spain/Portugal at all. In the field in Marlborough's army they probably finished in 1704, but whether this was before or after Blenheim is more difficult to say. Ignoring officers/nco's/musicians there were about 1 pike for every 2 ordinary musketeers but in addition the units had grenadiers. So effectively the ratio was some thing like 1 pike to 3 musket/grenadiers.
Finally something that has not been mentioned is that the Dutch also seem to have kept pikes a lot longer than was thought - they stopped using them in 1708, again at least in theory.
So, should we remodel our Marlburian regiments with 1/3 pikes?
Don't forget that the Russkies still had them well into the horse-and-musket era too. Always look amusing on a modern battlefield.
Charles Grant - Pike to Shot, but from memory. I'm assuming that the Pikemen were used to replace casualties in the musketeers.
IanS
The other factor to take into consideration is, if the regiments possessed pikes up to 1707, did they actually carry them? They wouldn't be the first items of military issue to be left in the baggage wagons on campaign as not worth the effort. The fact that the guards were the last units to hand them back might indicate that they were used on purely ceremonial occasions. :-\
Pikes were seen as 'old fashioned' by later historians and in particular by the most well known ones in recent times. But they were not necessarily consider that way at the time and they were widely used into the war and at the time. The Swedes were winning stunning victories with pikes during the period for example.
The French and Austrians used them up to the end of 1703, the Spanish and Portuguese until probably 1707, the Dutch until 1708 and the Swedes and Russians until the 1720's. Plus of course the English/British until probably somewhere between 1704 & 1707.
One of the problems with this is illustrated by the 'probably' I have used. For some armies, for example the French, we have evidence of the end of pike - the French king issued an order to stop using them in late 1703. But for some armies, the 'probably' ones above, we don't have a similar 'stop using pikes now' order so we can only take a guess from the clues we have about when they actually stopped.
But most soldiers that fought at the big 4 battles would have been in pike armed units at some point, even if they didn't actually have them at the time of the battles. Malplaquet was only a maximum of 5-6 years after we are sure pikes were present. While at Blenheim we have good evidence that the British units had pikes earlier in the year at the very least. The French army still had pike armed units (they were not at the battle though) at the time of the battle & once again all units had them earlier that year or the year before.
So in short pikes were certainly around well into the war but this leaves the question of whether they were actually used. The simple answer to this is we don't really know as again we just don't have concrete evidence. It might be as has been suggested that pikemen replaced musketeer casualties, that the pikes were left in the baggage or that they were just for ceremonies or something. Although in the case of the Guards ceremonies the pikemen we know about left their pikes in the stores and carried captured enemy flags in the victory parade. That is why we don't know how many pikemen there were, just that 120 or so swapped pikes for captured flags.
The idea that they minimised pike use by replacing them with musketeer where possible or that they just left in the baggage rests on the idea that pikes were 'old fashioned', etc. Equally it is just as likely that musketeers replaced pikeman casualties if you accept that the pikes are not 'old fashioned'. Some at least of the unit commanders are likely to have thought the opposite and so would have maximised pikes if this kind of thing was allowed. Plus there is evidence that the different parts of the unit stayed in proportion - i.e. the number of musicians or grenadiers in a unit was a % of the size of a unit and not just say XX per unit whatever the size of the unit. We have records of veteran units handing in or handing over pikes and receiving an equal number of muskets in return so it seems likely they actual had the pikes.
While the idea of leaving the pikes in the baggage is also possible and we do have evidence of this in other armies. The Danes kept their pikes they received in 1713 in the baggage but this was mainly because the pikes were for use in battles & they didn't fight any after this. The Russians also put their pikes in the baggage or indeed back in the stores at times. They basically used pikes when they were expecting to fight a battle against the main Swedish armies but left them in the baggages/stores when they were fighting the Ottomans or when they were conducting sieges. In both the above cases we have evidence that they ha sufficient spare muskets to do this but we don't for the British. Indeed as mentioned above the evidence we have is that they literally swapped weapons rather than just handing in spare pikes. So when pikes being left in baggage is done we have evidence of 'spare' muskets being issued, but we have no evidence of this for the British. While once again if they could do this they could equally leave all the muskets in the baggage and fight with sword and pike!
There are lots of other things to consider which I don't have time to go in to. The problem is we have no evidence either way but if they did things like this then that just brings extra problems and questions from a historical point of view. It is clear that the old view of this, the one we all commonly have read about in the standard works on the war, are wrong but it is less clear what is 'right'. It is clear that the units had pikes more commonly than we thought. Without evidence that they didn't use them I think you have to assume they did.
Cheers Hwiccee, that was very interesting.
Ian
The pike was around in Russian hands way after 1720, though it may not have seen a battlefield.
The Russian opolchenie were still partly pike armed in 1812, though I suspect by then it was merely better than nothing.
The Irish carried pikes at Vinegar Hill, 1798 I think.
Hi Hwiccee
Well it was the purpose of the article to provoke debate and I am glad that you have given my work some serious thought ... in response to some of your comments
1. The ratio is based upon the number of Private soldiers per company ... this is on the Blathwayte provision that Officers/NCOs & Musicians are constant (only 2 corporals per company being armed with a snaphance) and the numbers of Private soldiers can be variable - it should be noted that only the number of Pike is specified in the 1692 order and not the number of muskets. Grenadiers (as you correctly point out) did not carry pikes ... although according the Charles Bill, 1/3rd of the Grenadier coy screened the Pike division while the other 2/3rd protected the right and left flanks respectively. If you want to go all inclusive 586 musket armed vs 233 Pike and Pole weapons (excluding musicians/servants and widows men) full establishment of 819 or about 28.5% non musket armed.
The field strength in flanders averaged between 650-750 for line units and the Royals and Guards are recorded in 1704 at almost full strength. Further the Fusilier regiments 7th, 21st & from 1702 the 23rd never carried pikes.
2. This is a misquote - I believe the article quotes Drake directly - but I don't think this is an issue
3. The Guards in Flanders consisted of 11 companies of the 1st Foot Guards (1 Grenadier and 10 line companies) - this would give a full establish Pike strength of 140
It is recorded that of the 1st Guards - 28 Companies (Incl 4 Grenadier Coys) and 2nd Guards - 14 Coys (incl 2 Grenadier coys) - 11 where in Flanders (all 1st) , 10 in Spain (4 - 1st & 6 2nd) and 21 in England (13 - 1st & 8 - 2nd) - so it is probably true that the Pikemen of the Guards stationed in London carried the trophies.
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 ...
5. 1707 St John Order dated May 1707 - I think you missed the point on that order - its not about ratio - it is about recognition that 12 pikes per coy (a previous order dated 16th March 1707 states 2 pikes per coy are to be exchanged for muskets) - total of 14 per coy prior to 1707 (as per 1692 order) - have been handed in and the troops need powder for their new muskets - in addition the Guard companies have augmented their establishments by a further 10 men (Not unusual for the guards during time of war) - the order specifically excludes the troops in Spain - not those in Flanders.
6. The Expenditure comes from Treasury records and is specific to the army in Flanders - subsidy payments are listed separately - Snaphances were expensive for a colonel to purchase especially when he is getting his pikes from the Tower Armouries for free
7. The pictorial comment was based on a previous debate elsewhere - I think the plate you are looking at is the Dumont/Rousset image of Blenheim published in 1732
8. On the Dutch - the sources were provided by Olaf van Nimwegen and are published in Robert Halls and my work on the Dutch with his permission.
One final observation - Steve Ede-Borrett published a similar article on Arquebusier XXXIII/VI on the proportion of Pikes in the British army 1702-6 citing Tower records - this article should be read in conjunction with mine.
Nice to catch up with you again - looking forward to reading your new work on Marlborough's Spanish Ulcer - hopefully you will also kick some articles over to be published in Arquebusier
kindest regards
Iain Stanford
Welcome to the forum, Iain.
Cheers - Phil
I likes him. He knows things. Proper things.
Wow Iain, welcome and great first post!
Thanks Guys
Welcome aboard Iain, good to have more P&SS onboard
Welcome Iain! I hope my "summary" didn't do too much damage to the arguments contained in your excellent article.
Mollinary
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
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
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
Quote from: Sandinista on 28 August 2014, 08:58:21 AM
Welcome aboard Iain, good to have more P&SS onboard
Agreed - welcome, Iain :)
Quote from: iain1704 on 27 August 2014, 10:57:35 PM
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
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
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
Weren't pikes reissued to the Home Guard in 1939?
Quote from: Luddite on 29 August 2014, 12:14:37 PM
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!" :D
Just spent ages looking for an image of Pike, with a pike, all I get are fishing photos!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 29 August 2014, 01:24:26 PM
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 ;)
Pike with a pike.
OK very hastily done but still ...
;D
Luvvit :D
They're not all going to get over the bar together....
It's ok Hertsblue, beer was rationed anyway so they'd have to queue!
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.
QuoteSteve'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.
QuoteThe 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
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
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
Cheers WFGamer
looking forward to reading your article
kind regards
Iain
A new article on this is in the current Arquebusier magazine.