![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
This article needs sources, references, citations. Right now it's just words out there with no support.
I would also question the opening paragraph. If you consider that the Macedonian spears were "pikes" then they were not necessarily evolved from spears strictly to deal with cavalry, but to bring more weapons to bear.
Erraunt 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
"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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
This article needs sources, references, citations. Right now it's just words out there with no support.
I would also question the opening paragraph. If you consider that the Macedonian spears were "pikes" then they were not necessarily evolved from spears strictly to deal with cavalry, but to bring more weapons to bear.
Erraunt 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
"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 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)
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)
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)
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:
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 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)
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. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)