Talk:Pike (weapon)/Archive 1

American civil war
I'm pretty sure pikes were made for the American Civil War. John Brown ordered some for his 1859 raid. Should there be more about the later impact of pikes, even if it was negligible?LtNOWIS 20:39, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pike length
Does anyone know how one would stop a 22 ft long wooden pike from drooping? That would be a silly sight... Therealhazel

"the longest pikes could exceed 22 feet (6 meters) in length. The extreme length of this weapon requires a strong wood such as ash for the pole, which is often reinforced with 2 strips of steel running down the sides"

The article answers that question :D. (86.139.100.114 21:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

Seasoned wood doesn't droop so much. Samples in the Royal Armory at Leeds, UK were fairly straight last I visited. Not all were reinforced as they're pretty heavy as is and steel strips would make them more front heavy than they are.

Speaking as an escaped re-enactor... there seems to be some confusion here. The steel strips (technical term escapes me at present) were not to prevent drooping but to make it difficult for the enemy to damage the pike point. They only extended back about 18" from the tip. Historical pikes and accurate modern ones didn't droop very much because they were carefully cut to a slightly tapered shape, bringing the centre of gravity back towards the wielder and towards the thicker more rigid part while controlling weight. Cheaper modern recreations often have parallel sides and are much more prone to bending under their own weight. I can't remember the Royal Armouries ones, but I'd be surprised if they weren't the more authentic sort. Even accurate pikes do droop a little, though; a small amount doesn't really diminish the weapon's effectiveness. Raygungothic 11:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Scots
The Scots at Bannockburn didn't use pikes, they used spears. Their usage however, is like that of the pike. AllStarZ 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

History
What this article _really_ needs is a bit more about the history, and why they fell into disuse. There's nothing in here about pikemen being vulnerable to ranged-weapons because of their inability to use shields, which doomed them around the late 1700s(-ish). In fact, it doesn't even explicitly say they are two handed weapons at _all_. I know some videogames have pikemen who use shields, and that's all most people have as a reference these days... I'll work on it. Therealhazel 10:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they're still used in some civil defense groups in africa even today. Of course, the users are massacred when they try to fight against the LRA... Therealhazel 10:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The pike's demise on land and its extended use as a naval weapon
I have added some thoughts on the pike's demise in the 18th century as a weapon of land warfare, presumably due to the effectiveness of shoulder-fired weapons, and its continued use (albeit in shortened form) on board warships as a naval weapon, primarily intended for close-quarter combat. It would add depth to WP's entry on pikes to mention their longer, traditional use as "naval pikes", a subject that presently remains little mentioned in WP coverage of this weapon. Anyone care to add a page or at least a paragraph on "Naval Pikes"? Jack Bethune 21:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

True, also while there is some mention of some hawaiian (?) pike use there is nothing about pikes in medieval Japan, where there were also quite dominant in later periods. (Adam)


 * Please sign your comments. You can sign them by putting four of these marks: ~ at the end of your comment.


 * Unlike the Hawaiian weapon, the Japanese yari has its own page on wikipedia, and it wasn't used in quite the same way as the European pike, as the Hawaiian weapon apparently was. Larry Dunn 21:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to this, the book Kawanakajima 1553-64: Samurai Power Struggle by Stephen Turnbull points out (on page 24) that the nagaeyari was not used like the European pike, but rather was used in a looser formation, and never for "push of pike." Larry Dunn 22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggested edits
Larry, you have done a superb job of describing the history and use of pikes in this article, and I have complete respect for your expertise concerning this topic. The few edits I suggested earlier were made in good faith to help improve the wording or intended sense of your text, but in some cases these were misunderstandings on my part, for which I apologize. Your reverts in those cases are completely justifiable. In the latest round of edits I just offered, I hope you will agree that they either improve the point your were making, or help your wording to read more easily and understandably. For example, I suggest using "subunits using firearms", or something similar, instead of the generic term "shooters" that was used earlier in your text to describe a wide range of troops, including bowmen. Elsewhere, I suggest improving the contrast you were making between the close-combat nature of pikemen vs. the long-range lethality of troops armed with firearms; an excellent point that might be lost if left as worded before. In another instance, I suggest that redundant terms like "date" be elimated by using a different term, such as "time," or by rewriting the sentence, which I have done for this purpose. Finally, I suggest that "warfare" is an improvement over "warfighting" as a descriptive term for the activity you describe. All in all, these are corrections to minor nits that I think will improve your outstanding Wipipedia contribution on this subject. Jack Bethune 20:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Many Names of the Pike
I wonder whether we need to have a translation of the word "pike" into every language on earth right in the introductory paragraph. It distracts more than a little from the beginning of the narative. I would suggest that they be limited to 1) those people who used the pike, and 2) those languages which have a very close cognate to the word pike. Thoughts? Larry Dunn 22:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No comments either way, so I will trim accordingly.Larry Dunn 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recent edits by L clausewitz made some good changes, but other edits broadened the scope of the article, which is about european pike usage, a bit more than is covered by the article -- the ancient weapon was the sarissa and was used differently, and had its own wiki page. There's no evidence that the Branbancon and other low countries mercenaries used their spears in a pike-like fashion at Bouvines, and the description of the use of the spear by the Scots runs counter to the basic thesis of the article (as well as current thought on the deployment of the schiltrons). Larry Dunn 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

grammar -- "landknechts"
one very minor remark: there's a translation of pikeman / pikemen in the article, saying in german it's "Landknechts". singular would be "Landknecht", plural would be "Landknechte". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.145.127.247 (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Ancient Greek
"Although very long spears had been used since the dawn of organized warfare, the earliest recorded use of a pike-like weapon in the tactical method described above involved the Macedonian sarissa.." I disagree > earlier the Greek Phalanx used a one handed long spear. The Maceodinans simply went further and used a two handed spear. Both were used in the same way. In any case I beleive that the Sumerians also used a spear block? David.j.james 12:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference is that a pike is a longer weapon 5-6 meters long, the Greeks used a smaller spear 2-3 meters long. Master z0b 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed intro
The intro of this article was odd, it said that the pike was used from the early middle ages until 1700, however just a bit down the page it correctly mentions the Sarissa used by the ancient Macedonians. I know the Sarissa has it's own article but that certainly doesn't mean that this article has to pretend it never existed. I think by using a link it makes it obvious to the reader that they are different names for very similar things from different periods. Master z0b 05:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The weapon used by the Macedonians and Hellenistic troops was not called a pike, and it was used a bit differently from the medieval European weapon. The article is about the european weapon, the pike, so there is no reason to refer to the Sarissa in the intro.  Your change suggests that the pike was called a Sarissa until 1700. It's probably best to leave the article as-is, referring to the sarissa in passing to let the reader know that other cultures used a similar weapon, without necessarily linking it too closely to the European weapon. Larry Dunn 16:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this article is not about only those spears called pikes, otherwise it would only be about English pikes. There are many different names for them but that's just semantics. The article mentions the Sarissa anyway so according to you that should also be removed, and the way the intro reads makes it seem like the pike wasn't invented until the medieval period. Also, a pike is not necessarily a two handed weapon, although it is often used that way. How exactly was the Sarissa used differently to the medieval pike as you suggest? Master z0b 01:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me extrapolate, pike in Italian is called lancia, luccio but that doesn't mean we wont mention it here correct? The early medieval pike used by the Flemish was called a Geldon, but that's the reference for pikes being used since the early medieval period. Military historians generally agree that both the weapon and the way it was used was basically the same, a very long spear (5-6 meters long) used in a formation 5-10 ranks deep. Also pikes can be used one handed by putting the end on the ground and bracing it with one's foot, leaving the other hand free to use a small shield, so I think the phrase "generally used two handed" is perfectly correct and removing that is simply being pedantic. Master z0b 01:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the introduction says "Although the soldiers using such spears may not have called them "pikes" per se, their tactical employment of these weapons ran along broadly similar lines."! Master z0b 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't be sorry, because yes, this article is indeed about the pike. Claiming that it's not because "pike" is only an english word is like claiming that the article about knights only covers English knights.  That fact, however, does not mean that Macedonian Companion cavalry should be included in an article about Knights.  The pike covered in this article is not the sarissa, but a superficially similar weapon.  The sarissa had a bronze butt spike, and broke down into two parts, with an iron collar holding the two halves together in battle.  It was also employed differently, the German/Swiss method being to fight in extremely deep formations while the macedonians and successors stressed order and resistance to attack.


 * The intro should deal specifically with the topic at hand, and introducing the sarissa to this part of the article is probably not appropriate. It's sort of like saying in an article on the evolution of insect flight that it is coincidental that mammals also evolved the ability to fly -- an interesting side note, but not really key to insect evolutionary trends.  That's why I have removed the references to the sarissa in the intro.  Of course, there is already a reference to the ancient weapon in its own section, so I think we're covered.


 * Incidentally, the pike was always used two handed. It was too long to be wielded one handed, except while grounded, and even then it was not used "one handed," because the foot was involved.  Larry Dunn 19:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Look Larry I really don't want to get into an edit war or anything but you seem very reticent to any changes to this article. I think you miss-understand my intentions, my main problem is the sentence that says "...the pike was used from the middle ages..."  whilst you seem 100% convinced that the Sarissa and the Pike are two clearly different weapons, it's hardly a fact. If you feel this is the case then I invite you to provide a reference or source.

I would hate to see someone read this article and think that nobody invented or used a very long spear until the middle ages and that is what I think this introduction implies. I will do some research and provide some sources to show you that many military historians refer to the Sarissa as a "pike" and the way it is used as almost identical.Master z0b 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem here is a semantic one, does "pike" specifically describe the medieval weapon or does it describe a class of weapon like "sword". Whilst the Sarissa is mentioned later in the article I think it's better to clear any confusion in the introduction and then go onto specifics rather than assuming that the reader will understand.
 * Also your saying that using a pike with one hand and one foot isn't "one handed" then what is it? Master z0b 02:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added the same small sentence in again this time in brackets. I think it's entirely necessary and there is no justification for another revert. I will however leave in the two handed bit. Master z0b 02:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cited the source; a recent book on military history that uses both the word Sarissa and Pike, to show the use of a "similar weapon" earlier and also to prove that they are similar enough to warrant an inclusion in the introduction. Also in regards to the two-handed thing please look at the image of the battle of the golden spurs on this page, it clearly shows the men using spears/pikes one handed. Master z0b 03:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try to consolidate your comments. It would make them much easier to read.


 * A rationale has already been given for why the reference to a different weapon should not be in the intro for this weapon, so it's hardly on the mark for you to assert in your edit notes that the changes have been made "for no good reason."


 * Rather than starting to ask for cites in retaliation for edits you don't like in this article that does not yet contain running footnotes (as many wiki articles don't), why don't you add some references as footnotes yourself, a more positive approach? Surely it won't be hard for you to find a cite to verify that the pike was used from the middle ages until around 1700. Better that than going tit for tat.


 * By the way, it's interesting that someone with an anonymous Australian IP recently starting vandalizing this article. Larry Dunn 16:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting the article.
Larry, the edit you removed did have a source. It's not very interesting that someone from an Aussie IP vandalised this page unless your insinuating that I would be so petty and childish to do so, which of course I'm sure you didn't mean as neither of us would be so petty or childish. Quite honestly your reverts are becoming disruptive, the sentence in question isn't controversial or untrue, you simply don't like it being there and it seems to me at least that you're being a bit defensive of any changes. My intention when I edited this was simply to clarify a section and Be Bold. Your constant reverts (not rewrites but simple reverts) are contrary to the following Wikipedia policies:
 * Assume good faith
 * Work toward agreement.
 * Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * Ownership of articles

I suggest you reinstate my one sentence or at least seek to discuss the problem otherwise I will request a Third Opinion and list this article as an Active disagreement. Master z0b 08:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know you are new to wikipedia (unless of course you are posting as a sock puppet), but you should be aware that people edit pages when changes have been made that seem inappropriate. I am reverting the page because you are insisting on an inappropriate edit.  If something does not belong in the article, it does not need to be "rewritten" in order to be edited by another editor.  I've tried repeatedly to explain why but maybe it would help if I pointed you to a section on wiki that describes the purpose of the intro to an article.  Here's the main article on the subject.  Lead_section.  Note the suggestion to avoid overwhelming the reader, to summarize the most important points in the article, and to avoid overspecific descriptions.


 * A description of other weapons used by other people at other times does not belong in the lead to an article about a certain weapon. It's not necessary to put that in the lede when there is already a section about the sarissa in the article.


 * And I never accused you of using an Australian IP to vandalize the article. I just pointed out that it's interesting that someone with an Australian IP did so in the midst of an edit war involving, on one part, someone who posts on Australian topics.  Larry Dunn 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are so sure that the Sarissa is a completely different weapon to the Pike I suggest you provide a source, I provided a source for my argument which you then reverted. Also simply saying "it's interesting" isn't going to fool anybody, you clearly insinuating that I may have something to do with the vandalization without reason or proof. Also I have been an editor on Wikipedia for about a year so saying "you are new to wikipedia" is wrong. Master z0b 01:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that we will find anyway to solve this through discussion so I've asked for a third opinion as I believe that is the best way to resolve this. Master z0b 01:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion
First, I don't think the sarissa needs to be mentioned in the introductory paragraph. It's mentioned in the Ancient use section, so I see no reason why it should be included all over the place. The sarissa article describes it as a much older type of pike - therefore, it seems that all sarissas are pikes, yet not all pikes are sarissas. The pike article mentions the sarissa under an appropriate section, so I'm okay with the way the article currently is - without the sarissa being mentioned in the introduction. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is the sentence "Pikes were used by European troops from the early Middle Ages until around 1700", this is very debatable and I have asked for citation needed only to have that tag deleted. There is no consensus amongst historians that this is a fact and it needs to be removed if it cannot be verified. I can provide a large list of books that use the word pike when describing the Sarissa and other weapons that existed well before 1700. In fact look at this quick search of google books;http://books.google.com.au/books?q=macedonian+pike&ots=ZG11ejdF1G&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=legacy which will show that military historians do not think that the Pike was used from the 16th century, and that many use the term to refer to a weapon used in Europe from around 300 bc. I don't think that needs to be in the article either, however I do think that the half sentence in question is a debatable fact and therefore should either be clarified or removed from the introduction. Master z0b 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. Seems like the "End of the pike era" section matches up with the introduction. The entire section is unreferenced, so you're right, it does need to be cited. Until you can bring both the introduction and the last section in line with each other, though, I'd either leave both parts, or remove both of them. On the other hand, don't add your own argument about how pikes stopped being used, as that ventures into WP:OR - unless you can accurately cite it. If you were to remove both, what would you put in their places? &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should clarify that, I don't think the problem is that the Pike stopped being used in 1700, but that it wasn't invented in the "early middle ages". There are a lot of people who would call the Sarissa a Pike and it was used in 300 bc, a difference of about 1000 years. My original edit had the following after "Pikes were used by European troops from the early Middle Ages until around 1700" ;(although a very similar weapon the Sarissa was used much earlier). That's all I wanted to put in to clarify, otherwise the sentence shouldn't mention when it began to be used at all. Master z0b 23:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that European authors use the term pike for the sarissa is unsurprising, just as they will use terms like "divisions" or "regiments" when discussiing ancient battle formations, but it does not change the fact that in the period it was used, the sarissa was called a sarissa, it was constructed differently and even used differently. This article is about the pike, a single wooden staff with a spearhead only in the front, which was used by European troops from the early middle ages to around 1700.  The sarissa, a superficially similar predecessor weapon, was never used by European troops.  It is mentioned briefly in the article, but should not be in the lede, because it is not central to the topic of the article.


 * As to your call for a cite, if you can provide a cite that mentions that those troops who first widely used the pike in Europe, the Scots and the Lowlanders, based this on the Sarissa, that would change things considerably. But it seems unlikely that such a cite exists, as that did not happen -- the Sarissa is in fact not the forefather of the pike that is the subject of this article.  This is why that weapon can get a casual mention in the article, for contrast more than anything else, but a reference to it would be very confusing in the lede. Larry Dunn 18:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous, I never said that the Scots or anyone based their weapon on the Sarissa I simply said that your assertion that the Pike was invented in the early middle ages is debatable. Not untrue, but debatable enough to require a clarification or an edit. If what your saying is as true as you say it shouldn't be difficult to find a citation. Master z0b 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, guys, let's hold off for a second. The answer to this is in the citations. Find sources that reflect the argument being made, and then we can discuss them. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 00:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked for a citation, that was ignored and the tag deleted. I have provided a list of links to sources that refer to the Sarissa as a Pike and therefore go against the assertion that the Pike was developed in the early middle ages. However I'm happy to compromise and have tried on numerous occasions, however all Larry does is revert. I suggest the entire sentence in question should be deleted or rewritten. Master z0b 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that solution. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. Citation now added, so this article now has one footnote, to end this edit war. Larry Dunn 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, can I ask if that footnote gives a date or an area or simply states "early middle ages". I presume it refers to the Flemish Geldon. Does it actually say that the pike was used from then or just that it was used then? A footnote should have more details by the way... Master z0b 05:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If you could quote directly from the source and add it in, that'd be helpful. I'd also encourage you to use one of the citation templates. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 05:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)