"Push of the Pike" Topic
89 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board Back to the English Civil War Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Workbench ArticleAdam loves Scorched Brown...
Featured Profile ArticleThe gates of Old Jerusalem offer a wide variety of scenario possibilities.
|
Pages: 1 2
Condottiere | 25 Jun 2007 1:29 p.m. PST |
No John. The reverse is fraught with complications not the least is trying to prove that experienced pikemen fought by pushing each other. Also, there is the problem of explaining how pikemen can fight over a wall by pushing each other. Not what I'm suggesting at all. I was talking about your comments about "definite" articles vs. no article whatsoever in the phrase "push of the pike" or push of pike." Both phrases can be used to mean the same thing. Although, pushing most certainly was a part of many melees, after everything else failed and two large masses of disorganized men started poking and jabbing each other. |
Rich Knapton | 25 Jun 2007 2:01 p.m. PST |
No heat on my part Rocky, just cold logic. ? Rocky: "Well, except for the observation from Greek and Macedonian and renaissance sources where one formation is describing driving another back, and just being driven back has the back ranks start fleeing, resulting in the loss." At Novara, it is reported that Robert of Bouillon took his gendarmes and drove back the Swiss so he could recover his sons. I don't think he did that by having his horses physically push the Swiss backward. Rocky: "The constant discussions of how depth affects the attack described as "weight", leads to Occum's being "weight of push" of the unit." So let me see, in WWII when we say "the weight of the Russian attack overwhelmed the Germans" means the Russian tanks pushed back the German tanks in some kind of a gigantic tractor push. Both you and John are brilliant. You guys just chose the loser side on the question. ? Rich |
Rich Knapton | 25 Jun 2007 2:08 p.m. PST |
The question marks represent smilies. Rich |
Rich Knapton | 25 Jun 2007 2:26 p.m. PST |
John: "Both phrases can be used to mean the same thing." The difference between the two phrases can indicate two different meanings. John: "Although, pushing most certainly was a part of many melees, after everything else failed and two large masses of disorganized men started poking and jabbing each other." Where is the documentation to show fighting between pike blocks were simply the action of two large masses of disorganized men? I know that prior to fighting the two pike blocks were formed into ranks and files. The rear ranks were to supply fresh men on a file by file basis. If you have information that these units actually broke down into disorganized masses I would certainly like to see it. Rich |
Condottiere | 25 Jun 2007 3:52 p.m. PST |
Where is the documentation to show fighting between pike blocks were simply the action of two large masses of disorganized men? Again, I did not suggest that fighting between pike blocks always devolved into a melee (which of course by definition is confused hand-to-hand fighting. Nor am I suggesting that you are wrong about "push of pike" or "push of the pike"
I am merely pointing out that the expressions can be interpreted either way: your way and the other way mentioned above. A single historical example does not a pattern make. Push can also be synonymous with attack, as in charge. When we are dealing with many languages, translations, changes in meaning over time, etc. (look at how many words were defined differently in Shakespeare's time to the present for instance), it becomes difficult to arrive at an absolute definition. You might very well be absolutely correct, but can we really say for sure? |
RockyRusso | 26 Jun 2007 9:57 a.m. PST |
Hi Rich, so you have never seen a new york cop on horse back push a mob around? You are right, we need some way of doing "grin" easier. How about "grin"? I think where we differ on the subject might be described this way. In my mind the weapon isn't the pike, but the unit. "Disorganized mob" with pikes are just a mob with long pointy things. One of the ways wargame rules and gamers irritate me is treating "pike" as some sort of magic tool. Endless arguments around the idea "is a 14 foot weapn a pike or a long spear", seems wrong. The important part is the drill that makes a UNIT versus fighing by individuals. Thus the swiss attack in column is to add to the weight during the "push of pike" just as millenia earlier, the spartans went to 12 ranks from 8, the thebans went to multitudes and decided the practical limit was 50. It is clear, for instance, that swiss column attacks are very different than tercio blocks. The difference isn't one has a longer point, it is the drill and tactics. Similarly, while the french have pike units, the actions they drill for are clearly different. Similarly, the ECW pike units don't act like the Germans OR the spanish. So, when a brit talks about "push of pike" when the drill doesn't seem to do much but close and stab, versus the swiss "column" and "road bump". What I am trying to avoid is some sort of "universal pike theory" that would produce a WRG, "pike versus blade" sort of thing. I don't think that while everyone says 'push of pike' some reporters mean weight of push, and some mean a more individual style of fighting. And I think the last becomes more common as pike units get thinner and thinner in reaction to shot, and become more focused on holding off the horse from the shot. Grin. Rocky |
Rich Knapton | 28 Jun 2007 10:29 p.m. PST |
John: "Again, I did not suggest that fighting between pike blocks always devolved into a melee between pike blocks always devolved into a melee." I understand that John. John: "Push can also be synonymous with attack, as in charge. When we are dealing with many languages, translations, changes in meaning over time, etc. (look at how many words were defined differently in Shakespeare's time to the present for instance), it becomes difficult to arrive at an absolute definition. You might very well be absolutely correct, but can we really say for sure?" This is not a case of finding an absolute definition but rather the likeliest interpretation. To be able to support a claim, even a hypothetical claim, one needs to have some kind of foundation for that claim. There is no foundation, in 17th-century document,s for supposing that the term might mean a literal push. Remember, we are not taking a Shakespearian term and determining it's 21st-century equivalent. We are taking a 17th-century term and determining what it meant in the 17th-century. Given the data we have today, the likeliest meaning of ‘push of pike' is ‘thrust of pike'. Here is another example from Hexham. A Scottish soldier is alone fighting on the top of a parapet with the enemy "In this fight was slayne with a conon bullet worthy Lieutenant Bruce, who carryed himself very vaillantly this day, and fought in his shirt, and oftentime came to push of pike with the ennemie upon the top of the worke, and puld their flayles, and clubbs from them with his hands." This was not ‘king of the hill' where your friends try to push you from the hill and take your place. The only reasonable interpretation is that he came to ‘thrust of pike' with his enemy. Rocky: Rich, so you have never seen a new york cop on horse back push a mob around? You are right, we need some way of doing "grin" easier. How about "grin"? No, but I have been a target of a cop on horseback in Amsterdam as he used his horse to drive back me and a crowd of anti-nuclear bomb protestors. Being a red-blooded Amercian, I was there ogling the girls. Holland has some mighty fine ladies. So fine I ended up marrying one. Being the farm boy that I was, I knew exactly how to bring that horse down, cop and all, with one swift twist of the horses halter. Common sense ruled the day. Rocky: What I am trying to avoid is some sort of "universal pike theory" that would produce a WRG, "pike versus blade" sort of thing. I don't think that while everyone says 'push of pike' some reporters mean weight of push, and some mean a more individual style of fighting. I agree with your wargame concern. However, I just want to know when pikes met how did they fight. To date there is no indication in the records that the term ‘push of pike' meant anything other than 'thrust' of pike' regardless of the possibility of it to mean something else. I agree pikes versus blades is ridiculous. It should be pikes versus swords. (smiley) Rich |
Condottiere | 29 Jun 2007 4:01 a.m. PST |
This was not ‘king of the hill' where your friends try to push you from the hill and take your place. The only reasonable interpretation is that he came to ‘thrust of pike' with his enemy. That may be so, but the last bit seems to indicate hand to hand combat (literally): and puld their flayles, and clubbs from them with his hands. If and to hand, then it has devolved into a melee, thus supporting the notion that "push of pike" *could* be akin to a rugby scrum. |
Condottiere | 29 Jun 2007 4:02 a.m. PST |
"hand to hand"
. too early. |
Rich Knapton | 29 Jun 2007 8:38 a.m. PST |
No John (sigh). Did I do something to you in another life (smilie) With regards to "hand-to-hand, you've got it wrong again. It was hand-to-flail or hand-to-club with no pushing involved. And Hexham said at times it was hand to flail and at other times it was 'push of pike', no melee, no rugby scrum, no king-of-the-hill. Rich |
Rich Knapton | 29 Jun 2007 9:22 a.m. PST |
Oh yah, I almost forgot. There was also Scotsman-to-cannon ball. I think there was some pushing involved with there. Rich |
RockyRusso | 29 Jun 2007 9:31 a.m. PST |
Hi When I played american football, the illegtimate, formalized, structured version of Rugby, we had a couple things going on. In the line, in the "pit" as we called it, the "push" referred to the group surge against the enemy line. However, there was a drill called "bull in the ring" which was the same sorts of drill, but done in a "king of the hill" format. The idea was that the drill for the team need to include a drill for the events that happen when the scrum breaks up and you do open field tackles and blocks and so on. I see your citation like that. I also point out that you have many descriptions where one force drives back the other, and as the losers stumble and lose, the rear ranks start fleeing. What I would offer is that you can see instances of spanish tercios, which move slowly driving through and driving back as a block while moving at a walk, say when Gaston gets killed. Prior to that, the same block moved drove back the pike in front and moved on. I vaguely remember a similar situation with french pike. Or instances where the germans drive back opposing pike. One might see this as the sum total of individtual fencing, but I don't think that is true. I have mentioned elsewhere that some 20 years ago, I talked some SCAtypes into letting me teach them the german pike drill that used to be illustrated in a german museum with mannikns(don't know if it is still there). The pikes, though padded, weren't the issue, the drill produced the team shoving back the sca types and when they stumbled backwards, fled. The point with the sca types is that they were the smaller guys in the "barony" but wanted a drill that would let them participate successfully in the regional "grand melee". So, I think were we are right now Rich, is seeing "occams" applying differently. You see "push" as a term for individuals "fencing" with pike and I see "push" as what it would mean now, the team pushing the other side back. Casualties happening mostly when you stab the enemy when they turn to run. Rocky |
Condottiere | 29 Jun 2007 11:08 a.m. PST |
And Hexham said at times it was hand to flail and at other times it was 'push of pike', no melee, no rugby scrum, no king-of-the-hill. Sorry Rich, I think it can be interpreted either way
Hand to flail
.seems painful. |
Rich Knapton | 29 Jun 2007 11:01 p.m. PST |
You think a man fighting with a pike and then ripping flais and clubs out of his enemy's hand could be engaged in a rugby scrum. I can't beat logic like that. :)) Rich |
Rich Knapton | 29 Jun 2007 11:10 p.m. PST |
Rocky, the logic that says men fighting with pikes with a wall intervening or a single man on a rampart fighting off the enemy with a pike and sometimes with his bare hands is comparable to playing an American football game or rugby is logic I can't argue with. :)) Rich |
Condottiere | 30 Jun 2007 7:26 a.m. PST |
You think a man fighting with a pike and then ripping flais and clubs out of his enemy's hand could be engaged in a rugby scrum. I can't beat logic like that. :)) Yes. Without the pike of course, since as you've said in your efforts to define the difference between a spear and pike, a pike is a weapon used with both hands, so using your definition, the man would be without a pike while ripping the club and flail from the hands of his opponent. Therefore, he must be engaged in a melee, not unlike a rugby scrum. Here's a picture of a women's Rugby team engaged in a scrum--for your viewing pleasure: picture |
Rich Knapton | 30 Jun 2007 9:56 a.m. PST |
Let me see if I have this right. We have "push of pike" meaning melee but without the pike. In your picture, if we take all the ladies in purple away except one, we will have the same picture as that of a guy pulling flails and clubs from the enemy's hands while standing on the top of a rampart which protects part of the trench works at a seige? You do realize John that Hexham is saying our doomed Scotsman is at times at 'push of pike' and at other times yanking things from people's hands? Hexham does not cover both these actions under 'push of pike'. You realize that don't you John? I just want to make sure before I suggest you need professional help. And my fees are pretty steep. :))))) Rich |
Condottiere | 30 Jun 2007 10:43 a.m. PST |
I was using your definitions, Rich! Push of pike=thrust of pike. Must use two hands for pike, so cannot cannot effectuate push/thrust of pike while simultaneously yanking clubs and flails out of enemy's hand. Not possible under the "Knapton Pike-Doctrine." THEREFORE: at some point in HEXHAM's account, in the middle of all that thrusting and jabbing, he engaged in a melee. Point/game/match. |
Condottiere | 30 Jun 2007 10:44 a.m. PST |
and a MELEE is akin to a scrum. |
Condottiere | 30 Jun 2007 10:45 a.m. PST |
and what does a Scot know anyway? |
Rich Knapton | 30 Jun 2007 12:37 p.m. PST |
OK you! Very good. We've made some progress. "Push of pike' equals fighting with a pike (the thrusting thing). It does not mean a melee. So 'push of pike' and melee are too different things. I'm proud of you. "melee is akin to a scrum" We just have a bit more work. If what our valiant Scot was engaged in can be called a melee, then a melee is not a scrum. You cannot have a scrum between one man and an army. Even if it is a Scotsman. I say that with the blood of Scotland flowing through my veins. Rich |
Condottiere | 30 Jun 2007 2:30 p.m. PST |
But a thrust of the pike or "push of pike" can be in a melee, since the definition of a melee is a confused hand-to-hand fight, right? With or without weapons, right? And, a melee can involve pushing and shoving, with or without a weapon in your hand(s), right? OK, maybe you are making progress! There is hope for you yet, despite your Scottish blood. |
Rich Knapton | 30 Jun 2007 7:36 p.m. PST |
|
RockyRusso | 01 Jul 2007 9:49 a.m. PST |
Hi You misunderstand my point. American football is a three line surge, As individuals, the lineman will be doing individual combat, but initially, The TEAM in three lines during a "power play" will have the lineman being pushed by the second line, the line backers, who are being pushed by the backfield. When the surge breaks up, the open field work becomes individual actions. What I am proposing to you is that everyone is right. When you have 500 pikes, the team surges. It isn't just men pushing, but men pushing the first few rows who have the pikes down. As one side wins, and the other side breaks up, individuals end up "fencing" with pike. But as an ex lineman, I know that no matter what I am doing, the linebackers push reduces my fighting options to straight ahead and mass only. Similarly, when I convinced the SCA guys to let me to swiss pike, it was the same issue. their individual weapons only became important as fencing weapons after the momentum failed, or the other side failed. Another "tevia" style point, "you are right too". R |
camelspider | 16 Aug 2007 12:34 p.m. PST |
Haven't checked into this forum in a while
Wrong Larry. Montluc specifically says do not hold the pike by the "hinder" end like the Germans do. Actually, no, he does not say the Germans hold the pike by the hinder end. He says: and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at this kind of fight than we are. "This kind of fight" is, of course, pike fighting, not "a pike fight holding the pike at the hinder end." You left something out of Montluc's quote, which puts this in context. Montluc says this in the text before you start your quote: History records that up to now, every time the French fought the Germans hand to hand, the Germans got the victory. Then he goes on to say that the Germans are more dextrous at this kind of fight (fighting with the pike) than the French are, so don't hold your pikes by the rear end. This is probably because the Germans attack with their pikes, whereas the French had been grounding their pikes and holding them at the back, as one does when on defence. By the way, what is pike fighting in general? Monluc only describes two ways to fight with pikes. Pike fighting in general means, of course, fighting with pikes. That's what Montluc was referring to, rather than holding the pike at the end, particularly because Delbruck says the Germans did not actually do that. What proponents are these. What tracts are you talking about? You need to be a bit more specific or you are not saying anything. Anybody can say anything and then try to assert that this can be found in some German tracts. They are not tracts I'm talking about, they are tracts Delbruck is talking about, as I said -- one of the great military historians of the late 19th and early 20th century, so I doubt he was lying when he said so. These German historians were very thorough and careful in their use of primary sources. So telling me that I'm "saying nothing" by quoting Delbruck is hardly a refutation. Otherwise there is nothing in the account that indicates that the antagonists literally push against each other. Hold on, go back and reread the thread -- I offered Vere's account to respond to an assertion that push of pike did not last very long. As for the Swiss, you got that wrong. The Swiss didn't want to push their enemy as in a rugby scrum. They would wait while the landsknechts advanced anticipating the files would begin to open up as the landsknechts advanced. They would then insert themselves into the opening files and the enemy pike unit and break it apart (Delbruck and Montluc). Oh dear, you are mistakenly applying a stratagem used at Ceresole as the sole tactical method of the Swiss! What you need to understand is that, at virtually every battle the Swiss fought against enemy pikemen (particularly during the period of their ascendancy, before 1522), they were the ones attacking the enemy pikes, not "waiting for them to advance and their files to open up." If they did what you are averring they did, the battles of Dornach, Novara, Marignano, and Bicocca would never have occurred! Oh ya, Delbruck says ‘various sources' but what are the sources and what did they say. Actually, here's exactly what Delbruck says: If two such units with long spears clashed with one another, there resulted a powerful pressure. The sources speak again and again of "pressure" or of "pressure from the rear," with which the deep units sought to surge over the enemy and press him down. At Bicocca, where the Swiss were defeated, it was pointed out that the "pressure from the rear was not for the best" (since the men were held up by the ditch).
Delbruck refers again, later in his book, to that same line from Bicocca, it apparently being in a letter sent from the Appenzellers back to the canton. Do you honestly think Delbruck is lying? I mean, really -- how far are you willing to go to stand behind the little Monluc quip as the foundation of all European pike fighting in the 16th C? The great German historians of the late 19th and early 20th centuries had access to vast archives of primary sources from the Swiss and Germans. Again, you think he
made this up? And yes, Montluc trumps Delbruck because Montluc was there and described what he saw. Don't be so easily swayed by primary sources; it's necessary to interpret them. For instance, the King of Bosnia went around saying, after the Battle of Kossovo in 1389, that he had singlehandedly won the battle for the Serbs, when in fact the Serbs hadn't even won the battle! Do you believe that he won the battle for the Serbs
simply because he said so? Does he trump modern historians who see the battle as a loss for the Serbs, or at least a draw, and assign to the Bosnians a lesser role, based on the totality of the evidence? As for Hale, I believe he was only referring to the French cavalry attack on the imperial pikes which because of the way the battlefield was laid out would have been difficult for Montluc to see what was going on. But then Montluc didn't have to see. He certainly had access to others there that could tell him what was going on after the battle. If you look at page 173 of his book War and Society in Renaissance Europe you will see that Hale is referring to precisely the quote we are talking about in this discussion. He says that Monluc in his memoirs "represented himself" as giving the speech, and then asks "But did he actually speak it?" He doesn't flatly come down saying no, but he does raise interesting points as to whether these sorts of speechy harangues actually happened on the battlefield. Frankly, I don't care whether Monluc said it or not. Even if he did, it doesn't say what you think it does, and, as there's plenty of evidence that the big pike blocks pushed each other back and forth using the sheer mass and weight of their heavy ranks, rather than standing around sparring with each, which renders the hugely-deep formations of the period as completely absurd. So it would seem that neither Swiss pikemen nor landsknecht pikemen would push against one another as in a rugby scrum. If you don't have any primary sources to defend your argument then I suggest we move on. It would seem, of course, that they did – even the troops who relied less on the pike to succeed, like the Spanish. The 17th C. Irish confederates, who as I have already indicated used precisely the kind of push of pike that you claim did not exist, learned tactics of continental warfare from the Spanish, for whom they served in large numbers in the Low Countries. I think you need to reappraise your determination that all pikemen fought, over a one century period, in a certain way based only on a little bit of Gascon gossip. By the way, the word "push" generally means "push." |
camelspider | 16 Aug 2007 12:47 p.m. PST |
Ok, I ended on a cheeky note. Here's what the OED says Push means. 1. a. trans. To exert force upon or against (a body) so as to move it away; to move by such exertion of force; to shove, thrust, drive (the opposite of to draw or pull). In early use comprehending the force of impact as well as of pressure, but now spec. applied to the communication of force by pressure in contact. Totality of the definition makes it quite clear that push in push of pike means that the pikemen were exerting force on the enemy so as to move them back, or, as Delbruck puts it, to "surge over the enemy and push him down." That liar! |
Rich Knapton | 16 Aug 2007 5:04 p.m. PST |
|
Condottiere | 16 Aug 2007 5:37 p.m. PST |
Rich, That was rather dismissive. I think Larry's posts were interesting and informative--certainly worth more than a "push" off. |
Rich Knapton | 17 Aug 2007 11:34 a.m. PST |
Well, I thought so too. So I came back to to say I am working on a post to address some of those points. And John, that was a terrible pun. Rich |
Rich Knapton | 17 Aug 2007 11:37 a.m. PST |
Question, how do you change fonts to bold on this site. Rich |
Condottiere | 17 Aug 2007 12:36 p.m. PST |
Question, how do you change fonts to bold on this site. Formatting info is here: TMP link Scroll down the page about 2/3rds of the way. |
Condottiere | 17 Aug 2007 12:37 p.m. PST |
Glad you are going to respond. It is an interesting discussion. |
Rich Knapton | 17 Aug 2007 5:12 p.m. PST |
I first want to apologize to Larry for the curtness of my earlier response. Totally uncalled for, regardless of the fight I had with my wife. And now to his post. Here is the full quote of Monluc: "'Now sir,' said I to Monsieur de Taix, 'it is time to rise,' which he suddenly did, and I began to cry out aloud: 'Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at this kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes by the middle as the Swiss do and run headlong to forces and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be.' Monsieur de Taix then cried out to me to go along the battle and make them all handle their pikes after this manner, which I accordingly did, and now we were all ready for the encounter." Larry is entirely mistaken in his interpretation. If you will notice the semicolon between the clauses discussing holding the pike at the hinder end and defeat and the clause discussing how the Germans are more dexterous in this kind of fight. The semicolon is there to show there is a relationship between the manner of holding the pike and the defeat that will bring and the dexterity of the Germans. This is not a question of interpretation but a question of semantic structure. After telling his compatriots not hold the pike as the Germans do, at the hinder end because that will lead to defeat, he tells them to hold them as the Swiss do in the middle. Not only does he tell them to hold the pike like the Swiss but to "run headlong to forces and penetrate into the midst of them." The idea is not to push against the enemy block of pikes but to penetrate into the midst of them. The clear implication is that Germans held back and ‘fenced' with their opponents using the hinder end of the pike while the Swiss charged headlong into and penetrate the enemy formation. At Cerresole, the Swiss allowed the landsknechts to advaince on them which had the tendency to open the Landsknecht ranks before charging into the Landsknechts with the purpose of penetrating their formation. As you can see below, this is Delbruck's interpretation also. Let's look at Hans Delbruck's quote, "If two such units with long spears clashed with one another, there resulted a powerful pressure. The sources speak again and again of "pressure" or of "pressure from the rear," with which the deep units sought to surge over the enemy and press him down. At Bicocca, where the Swiss were defeated, it was pointed out that the "pressure from the rear was not for the best" (since the men were held up by the ditch). At Ceresole the captain of the Swiss held his unit back so that the opposing lansquenets unit would spread apart in its approach and would strike the Swiss with a formation not tightly closed. And it occurred in that way. Monluc recounts that in the same battle the Gascons struck the lansqunets with such a mighty shock that the first rank on each side fell to the ground. This should not be taken entirely literally, but when it goes on to say that the second and third ranks decided the victory. since they were pushed forward by the following ranks, that is compatible with everything that is reported elsewhere. [p 54-55]" He says "sources speak" but fails to quote what sources he's talking about. In other words his statement is unsupported. Is he lying? No. Is he mistaken, without supportive evidence we can say yes. Now look at the only evidence he uses to support his assertion, the surge at Bicocca. The surge has nothing to do with fighting the Landsknechts. The surge occurred as a result of trying to break into the defenses. The fighting with the Landsknechts didn't occur until after the Swiss had broken in. Delbruck is using this example incorrectly. Also notice that one page later he quotes a text which he purports to be from Frundesburg saying that the rear should not push but give the front ranks room enough to fight. "We have a document, True Advice and Reflections of an Old Well-tested and Experienced Warrior (
), which was probably written toward the end of 1522 and perhaps was the work of no less a person than Georg Frundsberg. This document rejects the opinion that "the formation should be tight" and should give the decision as a result of pressure from the rear, "for the foremost men, who are supposed to do the work, do not wish to be too closely pressed; they must be left room for freely jabbing," otherwise they would be pushed in "as one pushes people into a ditch. [p 55-56]" Delbruck is inconsistent on this question and his assumptions about the Swiss at Bicocca are in error. In the above quote from Delbruck we find yet another error. He quotes Monluc saying that the two sides hit together so hard that the front ranks fell to the ground. This is wrong. What Monluc actually said was that arquebusiers behind the front ranks, on both sides, fired and this caused those ranks to fall. "I thought I had been the cunningest snap in all the whole army having contrived to place a row of arquebusiers betwixt the first and second rank to kill all captains first, and had said to Monsieur de Taix three or four days before that before any of ours should fall I would kill all their captains in the first rank; but I would not tell him the secret till he had given me the command of the arquebusiers, and then he called to him de la Burthe the sergeant major, bidding him presently make choice of the arquebusiers and to place them after that manner, Upon my faith I have never seen nor heard of the like before and thought myself to be the first inventor of it; but we found that they were as crafty as we, for they had also done the same thing, who never shot no more than ours till they came within a pike's length, and there was a very great slaughter, not a shot being fired but it wrought its effect." As you see, the front ranks fell from gun fire and not because they ran into each other. So here, I'm going to stay with Monluc's account and not that of the error prone Delbruck. I do this even though the King of Bosnia was an idiot. So what have we learned. Yes Virginia there were two ways of fighting with the pike and Monluc told his men to fight using the Swiss method not the German one. Neither descriptions require pike units to stand there and scrimmage with each other. Fighting with the pike using the hinder end became the most common method. It shows up in writings, pictures and military manuals. By the way Larry, your use of the OED, while interesting, doesn't help much. It tells you how the word ‘push' is used in 2005 but not in the 17th-century. Sorry. Also, I'm still waiting for some kind of primary source indicating that experienced pike units in the 16th and 17th centuries scrummed with each other. Without that we can lonely conclude that it didn't happen. Again Larry, I apologize for early being curt. I also want to thank the considerate and lovely John for his link to TMP's codes. I'm sure he will live to regret that one. Rich |
RockyRusso | 18 Aug 2007 10:23 a.m. PST |
Hi Now we are sounding like napoleonic gamers! Arguing based on the placement of a semi-colon? What's next, a new heretical translation of the Bible? Rocky |
Rich Knapton | 19 Aug 2007 9:38 a.m. PST |
If one wants to present a new and imaginative interpretation it should agree with grammatically with the original text. We do have some standards. I think we do. Don't we? As for that crack about Napoleonic gamers, Rocky, bite your tongue. Rich |
RockyRusso | 19 Aug 2007 10:30 a.m. PST |
Hi Rich, in that period, there was no agreement on spelling and punctuation! Grinning. Rocky |
Rich Knapton | 20 Aug 2007 1:20 p.m. PST |
Hmmm. You are correct with regards to spelling. I've seen a word spelled differently in the same sentence. About punctuation? I've never seen a period used for a comma, or a colon used for question mark. I think their punctuation was pretty standard. There was even books on punctuation at this time. John will be happy to know that the term comma comes from the Greek meaning to break up a sentence. Nice try Rocky. :))) Rich |
Condottiere | 20 Aug 2007 1:38 p.m. PST |
John will be happy to know that the term comma comes from the Greek meaning to break up a sentence. Is that a two-handed or one-handed comma? |
RockyRusso | 21 Aug 2007 9:31 a.m. PST |
Hi actually, I have read a couple of those tracts. Did so as part of a class on early american literature. The discussion revolved around the idea of complex sentence structure and the lack of agreement on the use of either periods, commas and semi-colon. Commonly, even today, people use the comma when they should either end the sentence, or go on with a semi colon linking two disparate ideas in the same sentence. Both comma and semi-colon can be acceptable, but not preferred. Grinn. You will see many examples in your "King James". R |
Pages: 1 2
|