OMG some people on here have nothing better to do than pick up of people's spelling mistakes what a sad life!!!

Misteaks! Where?

Your steaks? My steaks!

English Spelling All a foul plot by a chap called Johnson, for the amusement of sadistic school teachers, of which he was one & who my mate Ahriman is now teaching the error of his ways and will be for the next myriad millennia apparently

Ginger

Hi Ray and Ginger

I was waiting for Stephen to reply but as he doesn’t seem to be doing that I will answer. Apologies Stephen if I have stepped on your toes on this.



The information Stephen is talking about comes from the official records of the period. AFAIK it is not online, you have to go to Kew to look at it.



The 30th through to the 39th Foot were raised in the period Stephen is talking about, along with 20 plus regiments which were disbanded at the end of the war. From the date Stephen gives (1704) the units will be some of those raised in Britain/Ireland who were later disbanded.



However you spell ridiculous it is difficult to be certain with ratios. The sources don’t give ratios but only lists of weapons/equipment and normally without officers stuff. They might say, taking a real example, have 517 muskets, 132 pike, 62 grenade, 24 drums, 25 halberds. The ratio of this unit could be many different numbers.

It would depend on whether the people with the halberds also had a musket for example. Where the drummers/halberdiers stood within the unit – i.e. with the muskets or with the pikes. How many officers were with the unit. Whether you count grenadiers in the ratio – I always think 1:2 at this time means 1:2 not counting the grenadiers, i.e. 1:2 of the ordinary guys. 62 of the unit above are clearly grenadiers.

So you could come up with many different ratios depending on how exactly you

It also sometimes depends on how big you think the unit is. So we might just know that the unit had 132 pikes, for example, but not know how big it was. You then have to take a guess at the ratio based on probable unit size.

I would also say that it is difficult to put an exact ratio on the units. Not counting grenadiers it is certainly something like 1:2, rather than 1:5 say. While there is plenty of reliable evidence for British pikes well into the WSS and beyond 1704, as opposed to say little/none for other aspects which are widely accepted. The numbers vary but generally we are talking about a range of about 150 to 250 per regiment.




Do you have any actual evidence for this?



The use of large numbers of pikes by the Swedes (and some early Russians) during this time is well documented. Swedish units continue to be 1:2 (not counting grenadiers) until the end of the GNW.

Pikes were also probably used by Portuguese/Spanish units well into the WSS.

Welcome to the Boards TNugent (when I saw your name for a second I thought Ted Nugent of Catch Scratch Fever fame had hung up his semi acoustic and settled down to wargaming as a hobby but I guess you are NOT that TNugent)

Great that you have chipped in some info here which I am certain will 'run'. The 'pike debate' caused no little heat a few weeks back in another thread. Although not involved I was a lurker on that one.

A lot of what gamers believe(and I include myself frequently in this category) is based on word of mouth, accepted myth, sources which are not always primary. We have had several 'students of the period' contribute here and their motivations are not always aligned with gamers motivations. The clash generates some heat but in my opinion this is mostly good natured. No group has the moral high ground.

Gaming is full of sweeping generalization and creative licence and this contrasts sharply with the forensic approach sometimes adopted by researchers. The wood gets missed for the trees. In a desire to prove a historical fact right and 'make a mark' as a serious researcher controversial or counter intuitive points of debate become the focus of the historian.

I would be quite happy to believe the home nation's(and other nationalities) were still carrying pike in quantity during the WSS. I think from a probability perspective it is likely to highly likely. Evidence is however required by others to justify such a point of view. I don't need to speak for anyone else on this board, they are well capable of that!

Be prepared for push back (or is that push of pike ) TNugent but please don't fail the morale check.. keeping pushing your point of pike!

I'm not getting involved in this again, I've said my tuppence worth before and have my own views.
Cheers
Dave

And here... we... go...

Hi TNugent,

Welcome to the forum, but you've wasted your time on your statement as we've all been here before on the "Pike" issue.
I'm hardly going to travel all the way down to Kew from the North East of the UK to see some record of pikes being used in the British army during the WSS.
Like David, some of us have our own views on this subject and I for one are not going to rise to this argument again.
I do hold my hands up to the so called new regiments as Stephen put it, but these were raised in 1702.
The Schellenberg would have been their first experience of military combat, but I hardly think they would have been just sitting around in their barracks for two years.
You have asked EvilGinger to produce evidence to his comment and yet you yourself can't produce anything other than your heresay that this report actually exist's and if it doe's then why can't we find other report's??? (Been here done this)

Ray.

Point of order Mr Churchill - "Hearsay" sic is third hand information for which the originator has no direct source; if I read Mr Nugent correctly he has himself looked at the primary sources at Kew.

I read Mr Nugent's request to Mr Ginger as a friendly request for information.

As for me, I remain to be convinced that pikes took any place in the field for the British Army in the WSS, but I have an open mind. (or an empty one, as you will)

Best
Ben

I am not in fact new to the forum but a returner who was on the forum in the past. I am not that TNugent or indeed any other TNugent, although I was a bit of a fan of Ted in the past



I have been lurking for some time and I saw this ‘debate’. I also did not join in as frankly most of what was said by both sides was not worth commenting on.

I am also not intending to debate now as there is little to debate on this matter and little point debating it on a forum like this.




I think that this is very true and this can be a problem. Much of what gamers believe is not in fact historically correct (in all periods) or only half true. Part of the reason for this is the ‘time lag’ between when our historical perspectives were formed (typically childhood/early adulthood) and now. Wargamers are notoriously ‘behind the times’ in historical knowledge.

I would certainly agree that ‘No group had the moral high ground’ in the last exchange, it was not a debate. But I am not sure that I understand the concept of ‘morale high ground’ if it had been a real debate. A debate of this kind is about what is true or can be argued to be true, not about moral high ground.

The other problem is to do with what answer historians want from information and what gamers want. Historians are looking for the reality of something or answer to something. Sometimes they have to accept that we just don’t know. Far too commonly they don’t though and are tempted into what my old tutor called ‘Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources’ (he often used ‘BS’ instead of ‘Baseless ). But for a gamer you have to have certainty because you need that in a set of rules/game for it to function. An obvious and uncontroversial example would be say the uniform of the ????? regiment at the battle of XXXX. For historical purposes it is fine to say ‘we just don’t know what the uniform was’. But as a gamer wanting to do the battle of XXXX then you have to have/choose some colour scheme to paint the unit despite the lack of info.





The problem here is that I am not trying to ‘prove a historical fact right’ and I don’t think Stephen is either, although of course I might be wrong about Stephen.

But yes very true, and of course not restricted to modern historians. All the classic histories we now read were, in their day, 'controversial or counter intuitive'. What you actually mean by 'controversial or counter intuitive' is really 'not what I believe in'. Chandler for example was roundly criticised in his early days for being 'controversial or counter intuitive'.

Also of course this equally true of gamers as it is with historians.



OK so here we have the main point and where I would like to make some points. I think that generally the posts on here about pikes have been rubbish. Often they have not been very clear and frankly some people have not understood them. Equally they and the replies have been full of ‘Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources’.

So I will start with what a summary of the facts – note here not opinions – on British/English pikes.


1: Unlike with other nations we do not have a document or source that gives an end date for the use of pikes in the British/English army. It would be great if we had something like the French order to stop using pikes issued in 1703 but we simply don’t have this for Britain and it is not likely we are going to get something.

2: We do have (as Stephen and others have noted) a collection of orders, official letters, muster documents, etc, from the official government and army archives concerning pikes in this period, WSS up to 1706.

These vary a lot and can be patchy in coverage but here are the general types (I have used modern style titles, etc, to try to make things clearer).

A: Orders from the Minster of defence or some high official in the defence department to some other official to issue the newly raised Colonel XXXXX with the listed weapons/equipment. The list in my previous post is one of these.

B: Requests by specific military commanders of regiments or small groups of regiments to swap the pikes the unit/units are currently using for other weapons because of a specific reason.

C: Similar to B above but an order to swap temporarily for a specific reason. This is common for a parade or similar.


These are NOT Stephen’s or mine or anyone’s opinions or points for debate or whatever. These are primary source material written by officials, officers & others at the time. They are I think more or less impossible to argue with. For those who wish to try then you are going to need evidence (otherwise what you say is just ‘Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources’) that the official records are forgeries or some kind of mega conspiracy or something similar.

As Stephen pointed out originally and I later clarified these all consistently point to a ratio of around 1 pikes to 2 muskets in the way I outlined previous. I will repeat again - These are NOT Stephen’s or mine or anyone’s opinions or points for debate or whatever. These are primary source material written by officials, officers & others at the time.

3: We of course know that pikes disappeared at sometime around the WSS period but the date this happened is very much up for debate. There is some evidence for various dates and also the number of references diminishes over time, but that could be for other reasons. I frankly can’t be bothered to debate it here and I think it would be pointless in any case. In my opinion most people who have studied this, as opposed to just relied on Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources, would put the date somewhere between 1704 and 1708, Certainly not 1697 or 1702 both of which are simply factually incorrect.





The above misses the point here. It is not a matter of finding ‘evidence’ to ‘justify a point of view’. Stephen, myself and others have been telling you what is in the official archives/primary sources. If you wish to ‘justify a point of view’ that is different to this then the poster has to come up with some evidence. Also this evidence needs not to be Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources.

To cover the various items in the government/army records would take at least a small book, as would any sensible discussion of other matters. I doubt any of the various posters have the time to do this or inclination to waste their time doing it here. The forum has been provided with plenty of summaries of the facts, not evidence, and information on where to get more. There are also at least 2 books which are on the way and which will talk about this. If forum members can’t wait for the books and can’t be bothered to check up on the information given then frankly I can’t be bothered to provide more details.

Finally I would also point out that much of the standard view of the tactics of this period is based on tiny fragments of completely unsuitable sources and accepted by most gamers & rules. We are unlucky in that not much good quality material has come down to us. So it is very stupid to dismiss what we do have out of hand because of views based on Baseless Opinion Lacking in Logical, Unbiased, Credible or Knowledgeable Sources.

first off this is a nice friendly forum & I am not going to get in to a fight with any one on it excepting one which involves pushing nicely painted figures about on a table & rolling dice.

Source for all may information is what Tolkien called the soup of creativity where in information one has acquired stews about and on occasion bubbles to the surface. The 1:3 ratio being seen as ideal in the 1640's comes form my having read several manuals of arms from that period some time ago. I can't remember which ones but they all seemed to stress this as an ideal ratio. Histories of the English civil wars read at the same time also mentioned this and noted that in practice it was rarely achieved.

The comment 18 pike to a company in the British army is if I remember right a direct quote from a primary source in a history I read some time back whose title I do not now recall.

TNugent I dont doubt your figures but have to ask several questions. first where they all used? second did they include the short spear like pole arms of various sorts effected by officers in the count of pikes?



Ginger

I really don't think any forum member should be addressing other members like they are naughty schoolboys. Once again this debate appears to be engendering a totally unnecessary belligerent tone. If someone does not agree with a particular point of view then I fail to see how that attitude is in any way helpful or likely to get others to start to agree with you.

Hi TNugent

Just to reply to your post in the spirit in which your own was written..

I wasn't going to comment on your post but I do have to say 'quite frankly' I found it's tone to be 'rubbish' and your condescending attitude to 'totally miss the point' of a friendly Internet forum. Obviously I am not going to 'bother to debate' your tone with you further as the primary source of your post shows my view on your tone to be a 'fact' and I don't think you can have a 'sensible discussion' about it anyhow. Further more I think it is 'very stupid' to believe your tone will encourage forum members to accept your word as statements of fact when 'you can't be bothered to provide more details'.

Kris

p.s. I am new to the period and am keen to learn more about it so obviously I find the contents of your posts very interesting and I hope will continue to post more but I do think your post crossed the line into being rude.

I see the point of a forum in relation to historical posts like this to be about debating historical interpretations and information sharing. Obviously it being the Internet some people won't believe you even if the information shared is actually factually correct but I'd hope you still find it worth sharing for people who do have open minds.