"Size matters?" Topic
7 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 be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestRenaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe Acolyte Vampires return - based, now, and ready for the game table.
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
Featured Book Review
|
ochoin | 15 May 2015 4:38 a.m. PST |
Just curious about this: in the TYW or ECW, how was a man chosen to be either a pikeman or an arqubusier/musketeer? I would assume larger men might make better pikemen or was this not taken into account? |
Oh Bugger | 15 May 2015 4:56 a.m. PST |
Certainly that was the English practice sizewise it went pikeman, musketeer then arqubusier. Smaller lads lighter weapons. I imagine it was similar elsewhere. |
Griefbringer | 15 May 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
If I recall correctly, also in the Swedish army at the time the pikes were typically issued to the strongest men. Hopefully Daniel S. has more info on this. |
Daniel S | 15 May 2015 1:09 p.m. PST |
A very detailed pre-war instruction issued in the Habsburg lands does not at first glance mention size when selecting men for service but rather focuses on age. Age 16 to 24 was suitable for calivermen 20 to 25 for musketeers 25 to 32 for pikemen Those that were older up to about 45 years of age were to be armed with halberds. The list of physical atributes desireable in a soldier does not mention size/height as such but was clearly aimed at getting men in good physical condition, there was a list of which type of men not enlist as well and the chapter finishes up ends with a series of sample questions that officers were to ask the would be recruit. Pike service requires strenght and stamina and large size is not automaticly a sign of either. The constant shortage of pikemen is a clear sign that it was hard to find men who were willing and able wear the armour and carry the pike particulary if selected for experience and steadiness as well which the age requirement suggests. |
Don Sebastian | 15 May 2015 5:53 p.m. PST |
Daniel, your mention of the strenght and stamina necessary to be a pikeman got me wondering about how well distributed would a 16th/17th century pike's weight be. Diz they have some kind of counter-weight on the rear end, line the macedonian sarissas? |
Daniel S | 16 May 2015 4:38 a.m. PST |
No counterweight, it was all down to arm strenght. The tapered design did help with balancing the pike but unlike a sword it is not possible to create a "perfect" balance. And of course the early pikes were shorter than a sarissa and much easier to handle. (The 10 ft pikes used around 1500 are much handier than the later 16-18ft pikes. |
Elenderil | 17 May 2015 1:57 p.m. PST |
Even with badly balanced re-enactment pikes technique makes up for strength to a large degree. At the charge the butt of the pike is cupped in the palm of the right hand with the arm fully extended to the rear at shoulder height. The trick is to rotate the arm so the butt end of the pike is under the forearm. The left hand grips the pike level with the chin. The left acts as the fulcrum and the right guides the weapon. This helps balance the pike and makes it easier to fight with. |
|