What do you think?
Rate this book
A Treatise On the Science of Defence for the Sword, Bayonet, and Pike, in Close Action [Plates]
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. To ensure a quality reading experience, this work has been proofread and republished using a format that seamlessly blends the original graphical elements with text in an easy-to-read typeface. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
116 pages, Print on Demand
First published July 27, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 2, 2017
Written in the cumbersome prose of the early 19th century, this book appears to be one of the first of its kind to offer a systemized method of bayonet instruction for the British Army. It also offers methods for fighting with the sword. In spite of the title, nothing is offered for the pike.
A true child of The Enlightenment, Gordon struggles mightily to mathematically prove the superiority of his system. He isn't shy about bragging and making claims for it. He says it was that which was originally practiced by the Romans, though there isn't any evidence for that. He states that it "invigorates each man with an addition of power as twenty times his natural force" and that it will double the fighting effectiveness of a unit. I'm not sure whether such claims were ever born out, as I can't say with any certainty whether his manual was universally adopted by the British Army.
He doesn't spare words in making a case for his methods, using ten words where a simple one would suffice. It's a difficult book to read given that. Some of the plates in the scanned work I read
were missing, which was unfortunate.
The techniques for the bayonet require the soldier to shift to a right foot lead for close quarters combat and to grab the but of the weapon rather than the small of the stock when thrusting. This doesn't seem a particularly stable grip. Subsequent works by Angelo and Hutton have the soldier grab the small of the stock and thrust, achieving virtually the same reach as that Gordon advocates.
Because it is so opaque and affected in its presentation, I give it a one star. Granted, the work might be a product of its time, but last year I read a work on boxing that was dated to the 1780's, and it was much easier to understand.
A true child of The Enlightenment, Gordon struggles mightily to mathematically prove the superiority of his system. He isn't shy about bragging and making claims for it. He says it was that which was originally practiced by the Romans, though there isn't any evidence for that. He states that it "invigorates each man with an addition of power as twenty times his natural force" and that it will double the fighting effectiveness of a unit. I'm not sure whether such claims were ever born out, as I can't say with any certainty whether his manual was universally adopted by the British Army.
He doesn't spare words in making a case for his methods, using ten words where a simple one would suffice. It's a difficult book to read given that. Some of the plates in the scanned work I read
were missing, which was unfortunate.
The techniques for the bayonet require the soldier to shift to a right foot lead for close quarters combat and to grab the but of the weapon rather than the small of the stock when thrusting. This doesn't seem a particularly stable grip. Subsequent works by Angelo and Hutton have the soldier grab the small of the stock and thrust, achieving virtually the same reach as that Gordon advocates.
Because it is so opaque and affected in its presentation, I give it a one star. Granted, the work might be a product of its time, but last year I read a work on boxing that was dated to the 1780's, and it was much easier to understand.
Displaying 1 of 1 review