{"word_count": 1846, "character_count": 12757}
Pike,the most noble staff weaponTheworks comprising the historical genre of pragmatic literature for disseminatingfighting technique are now generally known as fight books.[1] Similar content may befound in tournament books and more general works on military matters. Latemedieval and early modern fight book literature generally deals with singlecombat, whether playful (schimpf) or serious (ernst), and not theactivities of combatants on the battlefield. The weapons depicted, however, arenot exclusively sporting or duelling weapons, which is most apparent in thecase of the pike.Thepike, or the long infantry spear, was the main weapon of European armies fromthe late medieval period onwards. This was a period marked by changes takingplace in the battlefield, as the dominance of heavy cavalry was superceded byinfantry armed with staff weapons.[2] The earliest pikes wereslightly over three metres (ca. ten feet), later averaging at four tofour-and-a-half metres (13–15 feet). Pikes were used in co-ordination withfirearms until they were superceded by the bayonet in the early eighteenthcentury. Single combat with pikes was featured in fencing competitions andfighting at the barriers; generally, pikes would be found in early modernGerman households for military and guard duties.[3]Thisarticle discusses the contrasts in the use of the pike inthe military and non-military domains, drawing from fight book literature. Thedesignation "pike" will be used in the general sense to refer to"long" spears used on foot. This choice perhaps requires somejustification.Byany other nameIdentifyingweapons in historical sources has its share of challenges. Whereas illustrationsmay be satisfactory in depicting weapon types attested in material finds, thewords used in written sources may be more difficult to connect to their intendedreferents, since the words are not necessarily used in their modern antiquariansenses. For example, the Latin words pilum, gladius, and scutumare now usually used to refer to specific types of Roman javelins, oblong shields,and short swords, but in the late medieval Royal Armouries manuscript I.33 scutumis used of the buckler (a small round shield) and gladius of thearchetypical one-handed medieval sword.Similarconsiderations apply to the concept and designation of "pike". Oneof the earliest attestations of the English word, in the plural form picas,can be found in the eleventh-century Old English marginalia of BL, Add MS32246, where it is used to gloss the Latin word dolones, defined in thetext as gladii in baculis positi qui in manu geruntur ['swords put onshafts, which are used in hand'] .[4] According to Servius'commentary on Virgil's Aeneid (7.664), the Latin word pilum coversboth the Roman military javelin and the Macedonian sarissa, theequivalent of the pike in antiquity, but he also relates Varro's view of dolobeing an ingens contus cum ferro brevissimo ['a huge spear with a shorttip']. It is, however, difficult to say what exactly the English glossator hashad in mind.Asfor fight book sources, in his fifteenh-century manuscript book, Paulus Kal depictsthe use of a moderately sized lance on horseback and on foot, referring to itas both spere (5v) and spies (8v, 10v, 11v), ostensibly using thequalified expressions "half-spear" (halber spies) and "longspear" (langer spies) in the sense of two-handed or one-handed couchedgrip, respectively (7v–8r).[5]Curiously,Kal refers to (apparently) the same weapon on foot, held with two hands, as lanngerspieß (20r). Later this term is reserved for the distinctly longer type ofspear, the length being a decisive factor when considering its practicality fordifferent uses. The soldiers in a pike formation do not engage individual duelsin an open space, and the focus of training is in manoeuvring as a formation, accomplished through drill.Drilland techniqueTheunquestionable classic of military pike drill is the corpus of illustrations byJacob de Gheyn, first published in Dutch in The Hague in 1607. [6]This drill manual, however,only deals with movements up to and including 'charging' the pike againstinfantry or cavalry. The details of using it for offence and defence are notaddressed.Asexpected, the relevant entries in Thimm's bibliography (1896) start with Jacobde Gheyn, covering derivative and other similar works.[7] Francesco Alfieri (1641) alsodeals with drill, but the pike plays of Johann Georg Pascha (1657, 1673; fig. 1)and Antonio Vezzani (1688) are more akin to dancing than combat.[8]Fightbook authors not mentioned by Thimm in this context, who nevertheless discussthe pike in their printed books, are Pietro Monte (1509), Achille Marozzo(1536), Joachim Meyer (1570), and Giacomo di Grassi (1570).[9] George Silver delves intotechnique in detail only in his manuscript Brief instructions.[10] Paul Hector Mair, whose encyclopedicwork is preserved in three two-volume manuscript books, incorporates twelve Stendor 'stances' for the pike. These sources elucidate technique for singlecombat in the urban environment of a Fechtschule (fencing school) and, to some extent, for combat. Francesco Fernando Alfieri, La Picca (Padova: Sebastiano Sardi, 1641), Plate 9."Nel giuoco, e nella guerra"The most salient quality of the pike, whichis also brought up by military authors, is its length. Cesare d'Evoli notesfrom the outset that pikes should be at least fifteen feet long, the longer the better.[11] Monte, too, suggestslonger pikes against those of the Germans.[12] It has been said that a pikecould only be used for short forward thrusts, which is true to some extent ofthe longest kinds, if wielded from near the butt.[13]Excessive length, of course, will make the weapon less manoeuvrable, but thisis of little consequence in a dense pike formation.Di Grassi explicitly notes that he is notdiscussing using the pike for war, therefore treating its various urban martialuses. Accordingly, for ease of handling, he suggests gripping it at an arm'slength from the butt. BothMair and Meyer depict the rear hand gripping the butt of the pike, but thepikes in the illustrations seem to be no more than three meters (ten feet) long.Ashorter pike would certainly accommodate the technically and physicallydemanding one-handed grip first mentioned by Monte.[14] Meyer details the use of thetail of the pike for parrying, followed by swinging the tip up for a riposte,all done with the right hand alone. In addition, his very first technicalexample employs a one-handed thrust, shown in an illustration not referred toin the text, also mentioned by Monte. Meyer's one-handed recovery from losingcontrol of one's pike seems to be connected to this thrust.Incombat, the pike may be 'charged' against infantry or cavalry. Meyer refers tothe former position as a variation of the middle or straight guard: in this 'fieldguard' (feldhut) the butt of the pike is pulled further back than theflank, perhaps to accommodate the length of the military pike. Paulus Hector Mairseems to refer to a similar position as a 'free stance' (freystand):this appellation might stem from the rough military stance not being dictatedby the precepts of art. Di Grassi notes that two opposing straight guards will onlyresult in mutual impalement.[15]Despite the differences, the motoric basis of the moreludic pike play can be traced to the simple and straight-forward militarytechnique. The turns and grip-changes of Meyer's einlaufen ('runningin') are similar to charging the pike backwards from the shouldered position,and even exercising one's skill in one-handed play can be derived from pickingup the pike from the ground. Added pompa and leggiadria would onlyhave meaning if there was an audience to appreciate 'pomp' and 'elegance', beit fellow guildsmen or just curious townsfolk watching a competition. Giacomo di Grassi, Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'arme (Venice: Giordano Ziletti, 1570), p. 112.ConcludingnotesA distinctly military weapon like the pike finding its way to the relatively peaceful context of urban pike play is perhaps not unlike the development of the tournament into harmless pageantry of the nobility. At the same time when the significance of cavalry charging with couched lances diminished, the military significance and practice with the pike coexisted with the development of a more playful culture of its use.City-dwellers are known to have made betterinfantry men than their more rustic counterparts due to their communal cohesion,first noticeable in northern Italy in the twelfth century.[16]Interestingly, some traces of a distinctly urban identity may be seen in Italianfifteenth-century fight books of Fiore dei Liberi and Filippo Vadi, who wishthat their teachings should not fall in the hands of the rurales or hominirusticali.[17]Thefight book authors active in the era of the pike were well aware of the distinctionbetween war and play. The topic is addressed by Alfieri , and before him, Meyerspares a few words to discuss pike technique for the battlefield.[18] Here the repertoire isdistinctly less complex, employing only beating the opponents pike to the sideand going around it. Meyer notes that a pikeman must not only be strong, butalso besonnen and use his pike fürsichtlich .[19] This emphasis on'caution' echoes Di Grassi's giuditio, andmay be read as an advertisement of the military benefits of his instruction: towield a pike, one needs caution to complement strength and valour, cautionbeing something fencing masters have to offer through their art. Considering thetechnical repertoire of the bayonet systems employed by the military later on,including the one-handed Fangstoß ('throw point'), this attitude seemsto have gained some ground. [1] For a thorough introduction to the topic, see Frank Fürbeth, 'Fechtbücher.' In Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon: Das Mittelalter, vol. 6, ed. by Wolfgang Achnitz (Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2014), 648–653; Sergio Boffa, &#160;Les manuels de combat (Fechtbücher et Ringbücher). Typologie des sources de Moyen Âge occidental 87. (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), pp23-36; Daniel Jaquet, Combattre au Moyen Age: une histoire des arts martiaux en Occident, XIVe-XVIe. (Paris: Arkhê, 2017), pp. 55-100.[2] J. F. Verbruggen, The Art of Warfare in Western Europe duringthe Middle Ages. Second revised edition, translated by Sumner Willard &#38;R. W. Southern. (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1997), pp. 111-12, pp. 182-90.[3] Sydney Anglo, The MartialArts of Renaissance Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), p.169; Ann B. Tlusty, The Martial Ethic inEarly Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the RIght of Arms (New York: PalgraveMacmillan, 2011), p. 214, pp.135-8.[4] London, BL, Add MS 32246, fol. 12v.[5] Munich, BSB, cgm 1507.[6] Jacob de Gheyn, Wapenhandelinghevon Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen (The Hague: Robert de Baudouz, 1607).[7] Carl Thimm, A CompleteBibliography of Fencing and Duelling (London: Bodley Head, 1896).[8] Francesco Fernando Alfieri, La Picca (Padova: Sebastiano Sardi, 1641); Johann Georg Pascha, Kurze Unterrichtung belangend die Pique, die Fahne, den Jägerstock, das Voltesiren, das Ringen, das Fechten auf den Stoß und Hieb, und endlich das Trincieren verferrtigts. (Wittenberg: Melchior Oelschlegels, 1657, repr. 1659); Johann Georg Pascha, Deutliche Beschreibung Unterschiedener Fahnen-Lectionen In Acht Spiel eingetheilet, Nebst dem Piquen-Spiel, Pertuisan und halben Piquen/ oder Jägerstock (Hall in Sachsen: Melchior Oelschlegel, 1673); Antonio Vezzani, Esercizio accademico de picca. (Parma: Stamperia Ducale, 1688).[9] Pietro Monte, Exercitiorum,atque artis militaris collectanea (Milan: Giovani Angelo Scinzenzler, 1509);Achille Marozzo, Opera nova (Modena:D. Antonio Bergola, 1536); Joachim Meyer, GründtlicheBeschreibung der freyen Ritterlichen unnd Adelichen kunst des Fechtens(Strasbourg: Thiebolt Berger, 1570); Giacomo di Grassi, Ragione di adoprar sicuramente l'arme (Venice: Giordano Ziletti,1570).[10] George Silver, Paradoxes ofDefence (London: Edward Blount, 1599); Cyril G. R. Matthey ed., The Works of George Silver (London:George Bell, 1898), pp. 124-27.[11] Cesare d’Evoli, Delleordinanze et battaglie (Rome: Tito &#38; Paulo Diani, 1586), p. 1.[12] Monte, G8r.[13] John Waldman, Hafted Weapons in Medieval and Renaissance Europe:The Evolution of European Staff Weapons Between 1200 and 1650 (Boston: Brill,2005), p. 7.[14] Monte, D1v.[15] di Grassi,p. 116.[16] Verbruggen,pp. 144-63.[17] Francesco Novati,&#160;Il Fior di Battaglia di maestro Fioredei Liberi da Premariacco. (Bergamo: Istituto italiano d'arti grafiche,1902), p. 194; Carlo Bascetta, ed.by, 1978. Sport egiuochi: trattati e scritti dal XV al XVIII secolo (Milan: Edizioni il Polifilo,1978), p. 152.[18] Alfieri, pp.11-13.[19] Meyer, 3.66v.[cite]