Hi
In my shiny DBA v3 lists the IV/68e list for the Spanish 1495-1503 there's 'fast pike' /3Pk, ie loose fast moving pikemen. In the following list (IV/68f 1504-1515) they're listed as 4Pk/ solid, slow n steady pikemen.
Is this a reflection of the DBMM lists, and is there any mention of the change in troop style, or is it a misprint(?) ??
Any help appreciated.
Martin
The MM list does change them. I don't think there is any comment as why, but I should think it is the experience in Italy which causes it.
I think it coincides with the evolution of the tercio as a battlefield formation in the wake of Gonzalo de Cordoba's reorganisation of the Spanish army in Italy (as Peter indicates). Slow, solid, steady Spanish pikes suggest 'tercio', and the time frame looks right.
So 'fast' pike in the early list?
Not being a DB-expert, I would not know exactly what 'fast pike' signifies, apart from being a difficult catch for a fisherman. ;)
Anyone else?
DBMM Fast Pike are defined as 'representing foot able to fight individually hand-to-hand and to skirmish but emphasizing mobility in difficult terrain rather than cohesion or aggression' and 'Foot partly or entirely lacking effective shields and relying on long spear or cut-and-thrust pole weapon' (these words are taken from the DBM definition of their equivalent but from memory the words aere very similar in DBMM. The Pike Ordinary would be more like landsknechts or part of a colunela.
The DBMM Revised list notes for the Pike Ordinary are 'Recently arrived Galician and Asturian javelinmen were important in the destruction of a Swiss force at Seminara in 1503 (AD)'. Don't see that as Pike.
Thanks, Tim.
Quote from: Tim on December 17, 2016, 12:13:24 PM
The DBMM Revised list notes for the Pike Ordinary are 'Recently arrived Galician and Asturian javelinmen were important in the destruction of a Swiss force at Seminara in 1503 (AD)'. Don't see that as Pike.
Indeed puzzling, unless the Swiss are the Pike in question. But would they be Ordinary?
Quote from: DBMM on December 17, 2016, 12:13:24 PMbut emphasizing mobility in difficult terrain rather than cohesion or aggression
Isn't this a little odd?
Most pike would have probably emphasized not going anywhere near difficult terrain.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 17, 2016, 11:03:50 AM
I think it coincides with the evolution of the tercio as a battlefield formation in the wake of Gonzalo de Cordoba's reorganisation of the Spanish army in Italy (as Peter indicates). Slow, solid, steady Spanish pikes suggest 'tercio', and the time frame looks right.
The tercio doesn't appear until the 1530's - 1534 or 1535 is the date usually given. Before that there was the (smaller) colunela which started about 1505. 1503 would be when the Spanish merged the sword & shield men with the pikemen rather than having them as separate bodies.
Quote from: Dangun on December 17, 2016, 01:48:03 PM
Quote from: DBMM on December 17, 2016, 12:13:24 PMbut emphasizing mobility in difficult terrain rather than cohesion or aggression
Isn't this a little odd?
Most pike would have probably emphasized not going anywhere near difficult terrain.
Maybe the author had early Swiss in mind, especially as these pikemen can be armed with "cut-and-thrust poleweapons"? 14th and 15th century Swiss strike me as the most all-terrain "pikemen" you can get and did have a reputation for rapid movement by medieval infantry standards. Don't know how that relates to early 16th century Spanish though.
Patrick
The Pike are Superior in DBMM terms but these are not the Pike I was referring to - those are the Colunela either Fast or Ordinary depending upon which of the 1503 AD options your believe Phil is referring to for the battle.
In DBM and DBMM you would not put them into anything other than an open field (and frankly probably would not in DBR to be honest).
(If FoGR is more your thing, they have a special category called Determined Foot, Superior or Elite, mainly for the Swiss. While they don't like fighting in the shrubbery they can do it and still be OK.)
Regards
Tim
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 17, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
The tercio doesn't appear until the 1530's - 1534 or 1535 is the date usually given.
Are you sure about that? I thought they were starring at Pavia in 1525.
Quote
Before that there was the (smaller) colunela which started about 1505. 1503 would be when the Spanish merged the sword & shield men with the pikemen rather than having them as separate bodies.
Maybe this is what the DBA list is aiming at. Thanks for the background, Nik.
Quote from: Tim on December 17, 2016, 04:12:28 PM
Patrick
The Pike are Superior in DBMM terms but these are not the Pike I was referring to - those are the Colunela either Fast or Ordinary depending upon which of the 1503 AD options you believe Phil is referring to for the battle.
Ah ... thanks, Tim. Sometimes it is a relief not to be a DBA player!
DBMM Pike Fast take lesser penalties than other pike for bad terrain, so not terrible there. They mostly have shorter weapons, indeed sometimes differ from troops classed as Spears solely in lacking shields.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 17, 2016, 07:28:04 PM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on December 17, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
The tercio doesn't appear until the 1530's - 1534 or 1535 is the date usually given.
Are you sure about that? I thought they were starring at Pavia in 1525.
Positive 8)
1534 the three oldest tercios - Lombardy, Sicily and Naples - were formed, although I think 1535 is when the first surviving use of the term tercio comes from.
Then I stand corrected, as does Wikipedia. :)
Quote from: Tim on December 17, 2016, 12:13:24 PMThe DBMM Revised list notes for the Pike Ordinary are 'Recently arrived Galician and Asturian javelinmen were important in the destruction of a Swiss force at Seminara in 1503 (AD)'. Don't see that as Pike.
No, that note has nothing to do with the Pk. If I recall correctly, Ps and/or Ax javelinmen are now (in the 2016 2nd ed. DBMM lists, from which that note comes) available throughout the period of the list (or at least until 1503), whereas they used to disappear in 1492 or so; the note explains why.
The change to Pk(O) is because there are suggestions that de Cordoba improved the quality of the pikemen, introducing modern close order drill and longer pikes copied from the Germans, as part of the reforms that led to the establishment of the
colunelas (the precursor organization to the
tercios). Earlier Spanish pikemen are thought to have had shorter pikes, so needed to be classed as either (I) or (F) in DBMM. (F) was chosen at least in part because it was the grade used for earlier 15th-century Italian pikes, based on figures like the running pikemen in the San Romano paintings.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 19, 2016, 11:20:13 AM
The change to Pk(O) is because there are suggestions that de Cordoba improved the quality of the pikemen, introducing modern close order drill and longer pikes copied from the Germans,
Whilst he may have improved quality I'm not sure it would have been through new equipment as the ordenanza of 1497 said that the pikemen were to be armed with pikes "in the German and Swiss manner".
The 1497 ordonnance doesn't actually prescribe a length for the pikes, though - "un tercio{*} con lanças, como los Alemanes las trayan, que llamaron picas". And it still suggests a change in armament between the First and Second Italian Wars, even if the dating may be a bit off.
The idea of an improvement of pikes in 1503 may derive from documents like the requisition for "sharp pikes and full armours in the style of the Swiss" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Mr_t979sNp4C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=gonsalvo+de+cordoba+piques+longues+allemands&source=bl&ots=52abOFyqdB&sig=C3kDbnpBhwmmjQvqDtv4xEBQ-3E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSzuf9sIDRAhUC1BoKHfXuAtYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=pique&f=false) in that year - though that is not much more specific than the earlier quote. Or it may be that it's the armour that's seen as (part of) the improvement in pikemen - I don't know. It certainly seems to be the case, whatever the details, that Spain had up-to-date, well-regarded pikemen by 1505, but hadn't in 1495.
{*} for Patrick - this is tercio merely in the sense of "one-third" :)
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 19, 2016, 01:50:01 PM
The 1497 ordonnance doesn't actually prescribe a length for the pikes, though - "un tercio{*} con lanças, como los Alemanes las trayan, que llamaron picas". And it still suggests a change in armament between the First and Second Italian Wars, even if the dating may be a bit off.
I think that without other evidence it would be a bit perverse to think that pikes as the Germans use as anything other than the same. Not sure what earlier regulations had to say on spear/pike length.
Quote
The idea of an improvement of pikes in 1503 may derive from documents like the requisition for "sharp pikes and full armours in the style of the Swiss" (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Mr_t979sNp4C&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=gonsalvo+de+cordoba+piques+longues+allemands&source=bl&ots=52abOFyqdB&sig=C3kDbnpBhwmmjQvqDtv4xEBQ-3E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiSzuf9sIDRAhUC1BoKHfXuAtYQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=pique&f=false) in that year - though that is not much more specific than the earlier quote. Or it may be that it's the armour that's seen as (part of) the improvement in pikemen - I don't know. It certainly seems to be the case, whatever the details, that Spain had up-to-date, well-regarded pikemen by 1505, but hadn't in 1495.
{*} for Patrick - this is tercio merely in the sense of "one-third" :)
Indeed. You could, of course, suggest that whilst German style pikes were introduced in 1497 it wasn't until later they became effectively used - which would probably be Pk(I) to Pk(O) in DB terms, but I struggle to see Pk(F) here at all.
[/quote]
Indeed. You could, of course, suggest that whilst German style pikes were introduced in 1497 it wasn't until later they became effectively used - which would probably be Pk(I) to Pk(O) in DB terms, but I struggle to see Pk(F) here at all.
[/quote]
I was wondering, too, Nik. Without the DBMM Lists to hand I was obliged to ask why the DBA v3 lists included 3Pk (=DBMM fast pike), and was thinking it may have been a misprint. Apparently not.
M
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 19, 2016, 01:50:01 PM
{*} for Patrick - this is tercio merely in the sense of "one-third" :)
Gracias, senor! :)
Genuinely interested in evidence for the use of the pike by the Italians as early as 1440.
At Arbedo (1422) there were no pikemen in the Milanese army; the dismounted Men at Arms used 'pikes' (though whether these really were pikes are moot AFAIK); I thought there was no move towards pike until later in the century.
Bruni, chancellor of Florence (died 1444) had written on the art of war and how to improve the Florentine army and never mentioned pikemen.
Guicciardini wrote that Vitellozzo was the first to train Italian soldiers with the pike in 1497.
The soldier in the San Romano painting (done 3 years after the battle and from reports, Uccello was not an eye witness) may be carrying a replacement lance for a Man at Arms or it could be a long spear, it is not necessarily a pike. There is no depiction of formed 'pikemen' as part of the main battle, they do seem to be incidental figures.
I think that this might be significant, except my Italian isn't up to it.
https://legaitalica1454.org/2016/05/16/studio-delle-specialita-di-fanteria-denominate-lanze-longhe-attraverso-documenti-e-immagini-ad-uso-dei-rievocatori-e-non/
I like it for the pictures :)
Seriously, the lanze longhe armed troops shown here are using what in many definitions would be a pike. They also demonstrate what our Uccello "running man" might be.
Certainly, my suspicion on Vitellozzo would be this is the first training what the English would call "the Almain fashion" i.e. the style used by the Swiss and Landsknechts.
Quote from: rodge on December 23, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
Genuinely interested in evidence for the use of the pike by the Italians as early as 1440.
There's the Altichiero painting in http://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-push-of-pikes-in-14th-century.html
QuoteAt Arbedo (1422) there were no pikemen in the Milanese army; the dismounted Men at Arms used 'pikes' (though whether these really were pikes are moot AFAIK); I thought there was no move towards pike until later in the century.
How do you know there were no pikes at Arbedo? I've never seen a decent OoB for the battle, so I don't think we can be sure what Carmagnola's infantry were equipped with.
The eighteen-foot pike was first recorded in Italy - Turin, I think? - in the 14th century, according to Ian Heath and to Bert Hall's
Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe, though I don't know the original source. Seems unlikely that they were made but never used.
QuoteBruni, chancellor of Florence (died 1444) had written on the art of war and how to improve the Florentine army and never mentioned pikemen.
Guicciardini wrote that Vitellozzo was the first to train Italian soldiers with the pike in 1497.
Does he? I can't see "first" in his text. Guicciardini, as I read it, writes that Vitellozzo trained his infantry in the style of the "oltramontani", and that their pikes were about an arm's length longer than the common infantry weapon, which seems to have been what gave them an advantage over the pikes if the Germans at Sorano. If the result of adding a metre or so to the existing weapon outreached the German pike, the existing Italian weapon can't have been much shorter than the German one.
QuoteThe soldier in the San Romano painting (done 3 years after the battle and from reports, Uccello was not an eye witness) may be carrying a replacement lance for a Man at Arms or it could be a long spear, it is not necessarily a pike.
It's clear that the foreground soldier in the San Romano painting can't be carrying a man-at-arms' lance, the shaft's more slender than the lances, doesn't taper, and is shown in a different shade. Ditto the other "pikemen" in the background. They could be "long spears", yes, but what's a pike but a long spear, used in both hands without a shield? (And given that this thread started with a reference to DBx classifications, DBMM Pk(I) and (F) can have "long spears" rather than full-length pikes. The San Romano pike-spears appear to me to be about twice man-height, which fits well with various descriptions of early Swiss pikes as being ten or twelve feet long.)
QuoteThere is no depiction of formed 'pikemen' as part of the main battle, they do seem to be incidental figures.
You could say the same of the crossbowmen shown, but that doesn't mean that crossbowmen weren't used or weren't significant in 15th-century warfare - merely that Uccello's emphasis was on depicting the men-at-arms.
As for formed bodies of pikemen, pikes needn't imply pike-phalanxes (ask any Sengoku-era ashigaru). I'm quite prepared to believe that there were no Italian infantry operating in deep-ranked solid bodies with 16-18 foot pikes before the 1490s, but I think it's clear that there were plenty of infantry using 12-15 foot weapons in two hands without shields, probably in more individual styles.
Quote from: rodge on December 23, 2016, 10:52:36 AM
At Arbedo (1422) there were no pikemen in the Milanese army ...
I believe the argument for no Italian pikes at Arbedo rests on Carmagnola dismounting his cavalry to use as a close-combat force, the thinking being that had he possessed pikemen he would have used them instead.
Quote from: Duncan Head on December 23, 2016, 11:57:55 AM
As for formed bodies of pikemen, pikes needn't imply pike-phalanxes (ask any Sengoku-era ashigaru). I'm quite prepared to believe that there were no Italian infantry operating in deep-ranked solid bodies with 16-18 foot pikes before the 1490s, but I think it's clear that there were plenty of infantry using 12-15 foot weapons in two hands without shields, probably in more individual styles.
Agree with that. I think Erpingham has given the best steer, the lanze longhe.
I too do not think that phalanx type formations existed that early, but that long spears played a prominent role. Translating it to the rule set I play (Armarti) it makes them Foot with Long Spear, as opposed to Phalanx with Pike. It is a difference that has implications under the rules.
Thanks for the Altichiero link.
Patrick has nailed the reason why I think there were no pike armed infantry; why get the men at arms off their horses to do it if you have pike infantry to hand?
San Romano looks a lot like a 12ft weapon, but the above covers the possibility of its use, if not it's presence in numbers at that battle.
I'll check my Guicciardini translation......and I think again Erpingham is correct, Vitellozzo does seem to be training the pike in "the Almain fashion" Gush says:
'The arrival of the Swiss in 1494 indicated the possibilities of massed shock infantry; the condottiere Vitellozzo Vitelli was the first to train Italian pikemen using Swiss tactics, and there were attempts to do the same in the early 16th Century. Venice, firstly, had armies particularly strong in infantry, and at Agnadello, 1509, where they had over 20,000 infantry to only 2,000 gendarmes and 3,000 Italian light horse and stradiots, they employed several thousand Romagnol mercenaries with the pike, dressed in red slashed with white, to support their militia who were probably mainly arquebusiers.'