Spears

[Jake Norwood]

Note: I understand the pike duelling argument to still be a battlefield one; i.e. that the two sides ditch momentum until theres a long line of "pike duels".  Either way, whe di grassi refers to "single combat", IMO this is very unlikely to be one individual against one other in isolation.  In a mass, its hard to flank the pike wielder.

I don't reckon that 1-on-1 pikes were common on the battlefield, and yet it must have been going on somewhere for diGrassi to cover it. Formal duels? Maybe. The leftovers of battle? Also probable.

But we should be careful to tell our ancestors that they don't know what they're doing when they lived and died doing it.

Jake

[contracycle]

Hmm, I'm not sure that its a safe assumption that a fencing master only writes about duelling; most pupils would have serious prospects of appearing on the battle field, I would think.  Indeed the section on the two handed sword speaks directly of multiple opponents.  I don't think I've ever heard of duels with the partisan either, come to think of it.

[Valamir]

I know this has been hashed out before, but I'll repeat a comment I made before.  It is very dangerous to rely on the use of terms written at different times to mean the same thing as they mean to us.

There was a period in time where a long piece of wood with a point on the end was called a spear.  There were short spears, there were long spears, there were various specialized spears that were commonly off the cuff called spears by people of the day.

Then came the age of musket and pike.  At this period a long piece of wood with a point on the end was called a pike.  Why didn't they simply call it a spear?  Don't really know...they called it a pike.  There were short pikes, there were long pikes, there vere various specialized pikes that were commonly off the cuff called pikes by people of the day (see also "boarding pike" which was typically only 6-8' long yet still called a pike).

Then came 18th-19th century.  The 18th-19th century is the age of taxonomy.  Everything has to be classified.  The classifications have to have specific definitions so that a trained person can take an unclassified thing, refer its features to the definitions and put a tag on it for the museum.  Animals were classified, Plants were classified, People were classified, and Weapons were classified.  Weapons that hadn't been in common use for centuries were being classified by acadamians who invented their own definitions based on features that seemed important to them.  During this period the term Pike took a single solitary meaning referring only to those very long weapons typically used in massed formations that we know and love today.  Since Greek Hoplites used similiar long pointy weapons, the hoplites were obviously armed with Pikes.  I bet if you'd asked a warrior from an earlier age what weapon the men on the vase were armed with he'd have said "a really long spear".

Point.  There are references in numerous dueling manuals to using pikes.  I believe Silver also refers to them.  To our modern post-taxonomy ears we assume  they must be referring to 14' long pointy things.  In reality...I don't know that anyone knows for sure WHAT weapon they were referring to by the term pike.  I've seen a few pictures (from Silver I believe) showing the hand position on what is obviously a pole weapon of some kind.  But the weapon extends off frame and there is no indication of how long it is. (i.e. how far off frame it goes).

Therefor, references to "there are pikes referred to in duelling books by the masters" is of dubious utility since they could be referring to just about anything, and not necessarily to what we think of by the word.

[Anthony I]

Either way, whe di grassi refers to "single combat", IMO this is very unlikely to be one individual against one other in isolation.  In a mass, its hard to flank the pike wielder.

Di Grassi is talking about using a pike to fight a one-on-one duel, he is not describing how to use it on the battlefield.

[Jake Norwood]

For the record, Anthony is working on interperetation and translation of DiGrassi for the ARMA right now.

Jake

ps Anthony- Correct me if I'm off.

[Anthony I]

For the record, Anthony is working on interperetation and translation of DiGrassi for the ARMA right now.

Jake

ps Anthony- Correct me if I'm off.

I've finished the 1590 English version (transcribed with modern English spellings and definitions for the really archaic words) and I am currently working on the 1570 Italian version (a new translation to compare and contrast with the 1590 version).

[contracycle]

Di Grassi is talking about using a pike to fight a one-on-one duel, he is not describing how to use it on the battlefield.

On what basis?

[Anthony I]

Di Grassi is talking about using a pike to fight a one-on-one duel, he is not describing how to use it on the battlefield.

On what basis?

On the basis that the entire manual is written in terms of one man fighting another, whether it is a formal duel or a chance encounter in the streets.  

In one of the posts above you make mention of the section on the two-hand sword, wherein he makes specific reference to using the weapon against many (when you use cuts so that you offend the many) or against a singular opponent (where you use the thrust).  Even the title of the section is "Of the manner how to handle the Two hand Sword, in single combat."

Di Grassi held the pike in great esteem-moreso than any of the other staff weapons- declaring it "As among all other weapons, which are worn by the side, the single sword is the most honorable, as being such a one which is least capable of deceit of any other: So among the weapons of the Staff, the Pike is the most plain, most honorable, and most noble weapon of all the rest."

And  he makes mention that it was favored amongst nobles and knights (which may be due to his target audience)

In the section "The manner how to handle the Pike" Di Grassi specificlly states that he is describing how it is to be used in single combat as opposed to how it was used on the battlefield  "Many in single combat have diversely handled this renowned weapon: (for the manner of using it in the wars, makes not at this present for my purpose.) Therefore it shall not be amiss, if (speaking of the manner of his use in these our days) I declare also mine opinion concerning the same."  

He also declares that using the pike takes lots of skill because it doesn't have any hooks or spikes to use in blocking or binding.

[contracycle]

Thanks for the explanantion, I appreciate the time.  But unfortunately those extracts give me my core argument; DiGrassi acknowledged that he is not describing its use in war, which would seem to imply to me that the manner of its use in war is not governed by the same dynamic as the duelling context.

What I expect will happen, if the present rules are just iterated X thousand times for massed battle, is that you will end up with too high a casualty rate to be plausible, over too short a time.

[Anthony I]

Thanks for the explanantion, I appreciate the time.  But unfortunately those extracts give me my core argument; DiGrassi acknowledged that he is not describing its use in war, which would seem to imply to me that the manner of its use in war is not governed by the same dynamic as the duelling context.

What I expect will happen, if the present rules are just iterated X thousand times for massed battle, is that you will end up with too high a casualty rate to be plausible, over too short a time.

I agree with you on both aspects.  

There is ample historical evidence that the most important thing to troops fighting in formation is not each individuals skill level with the weapon, but their ability to stay in formation and follow orders-discipline not weapon skill.  European heavy infantry was basicly unbeatable when it did not break formation.

Game wise, perhaps something similar to what is going on in the Social Combat thread could be used to handle mass combat (A separate rule and skill set that follows the overall TROS rule set-dice pools, contested rolls, etc).

[Drew Stevens]

Ironically, it was a discussion on how to do just that (Tactical and Strategic combat on a different scale but with a similiar resolution mechanic) that got me thinking about Social combat... :)