By a slightly round about route, I came across Mike Prendergast AND Iingris Sperber's translation of THE COLLECTION OF RENAISSANCE MILITARY ARTS AND EXERCISES OF PIETRO MONTE (http://mikeprendergast.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/THE-COLLECTION-OF-RENAISSANCE-MILITARY-ARTS-AND-EXERCISES-1.4.pdf). This is one of two recent translations and is probably less accomplished than the Forgeng translation published by Boydell and Brewer but it's free.
The book is a nice collection of martial arts practice, with rather more emphasis on real situations (like how to kill your opponents horse in a cavalry fight" if the rules allow", or how to cope with being ridden down (keep your nerve and a hold on your weapon, go under the horse where the rider can't get you and disembowel it - probably easier said than done). Although he was acknowledged as a master of arms, Pietro was also a condottiere - he would be killed at Agnadello in May 1509, two months before his book was published. In fact, the earliest draft of the book is from the 1490s, so we have a manual that reflects practice at the end of the Society's period, rather than a little later.
The bit I thought I'd share is from the third section of the book, which we know reflects the author's thinking in the early Italian Wars. Monte was an infantry officer and he had been thinking of a way to tackle the "German" tactics with some derived from Italian practice (unlike his contemporary Macchiavelli though, these are the ideas of a field officer not a classicist). Here then is an extract from Book III, chapter XIV.
ON THE ORDER TO COUNTER THE ORDER WHICH THE GERMANS USUALLY KEEP.
Therefore it is appropriate to devise another formation which is easier and more common, where one must pay special attention in every way to an order which is stronger than the German custom. This can be done, having considered the Germans' strength, and it is to be done in such a way at first: the units are to be ordered in accordance with the German custom, with lances and halberds, and along the sides one should attach handguns or springalds, and crossbows, and all these things of the side are machines for striking or killing at a long distance. But beyond the German order, a unit of heavily armoured cavalry is to be placed behind, and on the face or the front part, very strong and excellently armoured men, and all first men, for seven or eight ranks, should have very big shields, and at least in the middle some very strong lames of steel, and at the back and in the middle of those who carry the shields, one should insert other men, strong and armed, with longer lances than those the Germans bear. And here the Germans will be forced to choose one of two: either throwing with their lances in a loose or unrestricted way against the shield-bearers, or putting their lances in a cross, to keep the enemies from concentrating in their middle. Against the first choice, as long as the Germans strike loose blows with their lances, the shieldbearers can enter in the middle of the Germans, and there, when all are armed with swords and other short weapons, they can quickly and easily devastate the Germans' entire formation, and beyond this order, the Germans are less strong; and if they put their lances like the cross of St Andrew, those who have longer lances coming between the shieldbearers, without difficulty, give enormous trouble against the Germans, and in this way they can easily enter in their middle, and when they are divided or rolled back, the heavily armoured cavalry should run against the enemies with maximum force, and men who are fast and sufficiently strong in similar things are sought.
Now this is a bit hard to get the head around, because Monte decided to write it in Latin, which he wasn't very good at.
One or two bits of translation of the translation. Monte usually uses the word lance to mean pike (as well as lance). When the Germans throw their lances, he uses this construction for combat in the way we'd say "throw a punch", so what he is describing is the Germans engaging in pike foyning. The cross of St Andrew is the defensive tactic of the front rank bracing their pikes on the ground and the subsequent ranks holding them level and crossing with them. Note Monte assumes that the defensive formation will be tighter. The trick with the shield bearers supported by pikes is interesting. The shield bearers appear to be standard shield and polearm Italian infantry, not sword and buckler types (Monte has quite a bit to say on using different shield types - if he meant these men carried the pelta or darga, he'd have said so).
Whether the tactic was ever tried is unclear as is whether it would have worked or not. Those interested in Romans v. Hellenistic phalanxes might note a slightly different approach to how shielded infantry might overcome pikes than the rodelero.
Apparently the idea was developed further by the French in the early 1500s; Francis I considered a new 'legion' based on pikes, swordsmen and supporting missilemen, but this died a premature death through lack of funding after he had to ransom himself following Pavia in 1525.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 25, 2019, 04:09:44 PM
One or two bits of translation of the translation. Monte usually uses the word lance to mean pike (as well as lance). When the Germans throw their lances, he uses this construction for combat in the way we'd say "throw a punch", so what he is describing is the Germans engaging in pike foyning. The cross of St Andrew is the defensive tactic of the front rank bracing their pikes on the ground and the subsequent ranks holding them level and crossing with them. Note Monte assumes that the defensive formation will be tighter. The trick with the shield bearers supported by pikes is interesting. The shield bearers appear to be standard shield and polearm Italian infantry, not sword and buckler types (Monte has quite a bit to say on using different shield types - if he meant these men carried the pelta or darga, he'd have said so).
Whether the tactic was ever tried is unclear as is whether it would have worked or not. Those interested in Romans v. Hellenistic phalanxes might note a slightly different approach to how shielded infantry might overcome pikes than the rodelero.
I have been struck by the fact that each Macedonian phalangite was both a pikeman and a rodelero all in one. This is not my period, but I have been searching for any obvious reference of front rank men dropping sarissa and going to the sword, analogous to what a hoplite would do to fight shield on shield. Something to keep an eye out for.
Thanks Anthony that is interesting - though you have to wonder as with all these schemes how practically useful they were and how much they were just there to sell a book. There seems to be a contrast between all these early modern 'simple, infallible' ways to defeat pikes with sword and shield, and the Roman experience (which was that they defeated pikes, but not just by wading in with sword and shield).
Concerning front ranks dropping pikes and taking to swords - nope I know of nothing (aside from the Polyaenus anecdote you (Paul) already know about) - swords appear to be a weapon of last resort after the pikes have been overcome (by Romans), rather than something used in pike v. pike, but the actual details of Hellenistic pike v. pike are effectively zero. AFAIK.
Quote from: RichT on April 26, 2019, 09:10:58 AM
Thanks Anthony that is interesting - though you have to wonder as with all these schemes how practically useful they were and how much they were just there to sell a book. There seems to be a contrast between all these early modern 'simple, infallible' ways to defeat pikes with sword and shield, and the Roman experience (which was that they defeated pikes, but not just by wading in with sword and shield).
I agree I have serious doubt it would work. I'm not sure it was all promotional guff though. The appearance of "German" tactics in Italy at the beginning of the Italian Wars caused all sorts of experimentation. The Spanish deployed their rodeleros, an idea that continued to be messed around with for some time. Macchiavelli had a similar idea - the Romans had beaten pikes with swords and shields so it was the way to go. Pietro Monte, as an infantry commander, is speculating about how best to use what he has got in the Italian infantry tradition. He has got his native pikemen and his infantry with large shields, so he is trying a combination which he thinks will defeat the Germans. His shield infantry can close with foyning pikes and, being better equipped for close combat, cut them up. If the Germans go defensive, he relies on his pikes projecting beyond the shields to deal with them (this bit seems very dubious).
As to whether any of it helps with Hellenistic pike questions, I'm not sure. We can see with late medieval/16th century pike tactics that pikes got entangled and there came a time for the front ranks to ditch them and take to their swords. They carried fairly simple short weapons - there was no room for long swords. No-one yet has answered whether Hellenistic pike fights became enmeshed and the front rank men came within sword distance or whether they stood off at prodding distance.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2019, 10:29:59 AM
As to whether any of it helps with Hellenistic pike questions, I'm not sure. We can see with late medieval/16th century pike tactics that pikes got entangled and there came a time for the front ranks to ditch them and take to their swords. They carried fairly simple short weapons - there was no room for long swords. No-one yet has answered whether Hellenistic pike fights became enmeshed and the front rank men came within sword distance or whether they stood off at prodding distance.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if hellenistic pikemen did not foyne with their pikes but used them in an othismos contest with pikeheads jammed in enemy shields, that would account for no mention of swordfighting between pike phalanxes or pikes getting entangled, and would explain the references (cf. dead horse) to pikes driving their opponents back helped by the bodily pressure of the rear ranks. It would also explain why hellenistic pikemen bothered to carry shields.
As a BTW I find using a telamon-and-ochanon shield very problematic for a one-on-one sword fight as one cannot use the shield flexibly or offensively.
(and now back to Renaissance infantry tactics ::) )
Quote from: RichT on April 26, 2019, 09:10:58 AM
Thanks Anthony that is interesting - though you have to wonder as with all these schemes how practically useful they were and how much they were just there to sell a book. There seems to be a contrast between all these early modern 'simple, infallible' ways to defeat pikes with sword and shield, and the Roman experience (which was that they defeated pikes, but not just by wading in with sword and shield).
Had any of those anti-pike schemes actually worked on a reliable basis, surely pikes would've been abandoned in the 16C rather than the 18C.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 26, 2019, 11:16:14 AM
Quote from: RichT on April 26, 2019, 09:10:58 AM
Thanks Anthony that is interesting - though you have to wonder as with all these schemes how practically useful they were and how much they were just there to sell a book. There seems to be a contrast between all these early modern 'simple, infallible' ways to defeat pikes with sword and shield, and the Roman experience (which was that they defeated pikes, but not just by wading in with sword and shield).
Had any of those anti-pike schemes actually worked on a reliable basis, surely pikes would've been abandoned in the 16C rather than the 18C.
I agree. But this is a good example where we, as good historians, seek to stand where the protagonists were, looking forward not where we are, looking back. It is obvious to us now that the pike block was a dominant and defining tactic. But at the turn of the 16th century, this wasn't obvious and people were trying to think of ways round it.
We might note other pike and pavise tactics at the time - the Bohemians at Wenzenbach 1504 and the Scots at Flodden in 1513 come to mind.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 26, 2019, 11:10:43 AM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if hellenistic pikemen did not foyne with their pikes but used them in an othismos contest with pikeheads jammed in enemy shields, that would account for no mention of swordfighting between pike phalanxes or pikes getting entangled, and would explain the references (cf. dead horse) to pikes driving their opponents back helped by the bodily pressure of the rear ranks. It would also explain why hellenistic pikemen bothered to carry shields.
My conceptual issues with this are a) pike phalanxes didn't evolve to fight pike phalanxes. b) Providing men with a shield just to give a target (nice convergence of meanings here) for other pikemen to push against seems a bit odd c) this seems to be burdened with an idea of an ancestral form of Greek infantry warfare as a glorified pushing contest, whereas, as you will know from the evidence presented during our many explorations of the "O-word", hoplites actually intended each other harm. Why wouldn't our phalangites attempt to stab their opponents? Perhaps the shields were to stop them being stabbed?
The Med/Ren/early modern stuff is the only way to go for understanding Hellenistic pikes, as there is so little Hellenistic evidence.
Incidentally do we have three types of pike fighting here then? We've already got:
1 - Foyning
2 - Pressing on en masse (Smythe)
But Monte seems to assume the alternative to foyning is:
3 - Defensive, static barrier
What we know of Romans with swords and shields is that when they tried to close with pikes and cut them up at close quarters they were unable to do so provided the pikes retained a solid front - Romans didn't even get started on any of these "don't like it up 'em" schemes unless something else (terrain, elephants, grand tactical manoeuvres) caused the pikes to lose cohesion first. Whereas all these schemes either worked or seemed likely to work to their proponents. Were Med/Ren/EM pikemen therefore less effective in some way than Hellenistic pikemen? Or did these schemes offer some measure of success in the same way Romans had success (due to other circumstances) and this was enough to justify continuing to experiment with them? As you say, the pike did outlast the sword and shield.
Quote
No-one yet has answered whether Hellenistic pike fights became enmeshed and the front rank men came within sword distance or whether they stood off at prodding distance.
No one knows, nor will ever know, barring the discovery of some previously unimagined text or painting somewhere.
As we've been over a few times already, my own belief is that they didn't become enmeshed and didn't take to swords except as a last resort - I imagine they used Smythe-style pressing on against non-pike or less steady opponents, but if two equally determined phalanxes encountered, they might have foyned or individually pushed. I see these options for pike v. pike if both are equally determined:
1 - enmesh, drop pikes and take to swords as range closes
2 - fence and foyn
3 - defensive barrier (with individual pushing of front ranks, sarissas in shields or whatever they can contact, holding enemy at bay)
4 - 'sarissmos'
Because I see no evidence for 1, and don't believe 4 is a real thing, that leaves 2 and 3, which I imagine were what happened in varying degrees depending on circumstances.
Back on topic, Monte seems to offer evidence that might favour 1, in that he has a mixed pike/sword+shield formation that uses sword+shield v. foyning, and foyning (or pressing on?) with longer pikes v. defensive (if I'm reading it right), and Hellenistic phalangites might be taken as Paul says to be their own sword+shield men. But even so I'd hope some trace of this practice would have appeared in the ancient literature and it hasn't.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 26, 2019, 11:52:47 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 26, 2019, 11:10:43 AM
At the risk of beating a dead horse, if hellenistic pikemen did not foyne with their pikes but used them in an othismos contest with pikeheads jammed in enemy shields, that would account for no mention of swordfighting between pike phalanxes or pikes getting entangled, and would explain the references (cf. dead horse) to pikes driving their opponents back helped by the bodily pressure of the rear ranks. It would also explain why hellenistic pikemen bothered to carry shields.
My conceptual issues with this are a) pike phalanxes didn't evolve to fight pike phalanxes. b) Providing men with a shield just to give a target (nice convergence of meanings here) for other pikemen to push against seems a bit odd c) this seems to be burdened with an idea of an ancestral form of Greek infantry warfare as a glorified pushing contest, whereas, as you will know from the evidence presented during our many explorations of the "O-word", hoplites actually intended each other harm. Why wouldn't our phalangites attempt to stab their opponents? Perhaps the shields were to stop them being stabbed?
a) No, they evolved to fight hoplite phalanxes in which the 3-foot wide aspis covered the hoplite and was the only viable target for the sarissa (a hoplite could easily raise his shield to block a strike at his head or project the lower edge of the shield forward to block a strike at his legs). So going for the shield was the procedure from day one.
b) Shields weren't provided to give a convenient target. They were provided to protect the hoplite/phalangite and in consequence became the natural (i.e. only) target of the sarissa.
c) Sure they did, but a hoplite phalanx was defeated by being either pushed back off the battlefield or by being outflanked. The hoplites spent at least some time trying to stab each other with their spears before othismos - presuming there was othismos. If there wasn't othismos then they spend all their time trying to stab each other. But there were remarkably few casualties from that before one side routed. I would imagine it is harder for a phalangite to swivel a 7-metre long sarissa to nail an opponent's head if the opponent ducks to the side. The weapon is clumsy and not designed for quick sparring. Much simpler to aim it at something that can't get out the way, like the shield.
As a BTW I suspect the Mediaeval/Renaissance method of pike combat was fundamentally different from the hellenistic one.
How did this become another o-word thread?
Justin:
Quote
As a BTW I suspect the Mediaeval/Renaissance method of pike combat was fundamentally different from the hellenistic one.
Yup, evidently, and this is a fundamental difference between the two camps; the 'uniqueists' for whom othismos and sarissmos are unique things, fundamentally different from combat at any other time and place, invented once (each) then abandoned, never to be repeated. Versus the 'commonalitiesists' (I won't expect any prizes for these terms) for whom close quarters infantry combat pre-gunpowder is fundamentally similar, or at least has much in common, and similar practices were adopted at varied times and places.
As we've proven multiple times that there is no comon ground between these camps, no chance of either persuading anyone to desert to their side, and no further evidence or argument that can be presented to clinch the case, perhaps we can just leave it at that?
I'm very keen to hear more about Med/Ren/EM pike usage though - a rich field.
QuoteAs a BTW I suspect the Mediaeval/Renaissance method of pike combat was fundamentally different from the hellenistic one.
This may indeed be the case, though we seriously lack the Hellenistic evidence to show that. What the Medieval/Early Renaissance stuff offers is a similar challenge - defeating the enemy while in deep formations with long pointed sticks. So, it may help us to see some issues. For me, of course, it is just as interesting to apply it to late Medieval warfare, where the connection is clearer. :)
QuoteIncidentally do we have three types of pike fighting here then? We've already got:
1 - Foyning
2 - Pressing on en masse (Smythe)
But Monte seems to assume the alternative to foyning is:
3 - Defensive, static barrier
We may have, with 1 & 2 the mobile formations. Foyning (to reference Monluc) needed skill and wasn't for the untrained. Landsknechts, with their well-armed, experienced front ranks of
dopplelsolner were masters of this. What it didn't have was mass. Smythe's sarcastic comment that foyning pike fights involved the first couple of ranks, with the rest watching and "crying aim" has a base of truth. They seem designed for indecision but that cannot be the case - they must have formed the basis of a strong offensive manoeuver, as well as a holding formation. I just haven't worked out how it worked yet :( . I can see why Monte may have thought his shielded men could get in amongst foyners, partly because they were in looser order but also closing aggressively would allow them across the pike zone and into close combat.
Attack en masse is, I think, easy to understand, partly because both Monluc and Smythe are clear it is all about a determined attack in close order. A solid formation crashes into the enemy with momentum, rear ranks giving weight, front ranks aiming to stab the opponent or flatten him. It lacked subtlety but the idea was to shatter the enemy. If the enemy didn't shatter, it was a bit of a car crash. It tangled up, there was nasty short-sword work but it often needed to be broken up by flank attacks by the halberdiers or similar.
I suspect both these two moves have their origins in medieval close combat.
The defensive formation is also essentially medieval. However, I'd normally associate it with anti-cavalry tactics whereas Monte thinks he's going to encounter it in an infantry fight.
Finally, in relation to the three styles, I thought it was worth bringing out Patten's description of the Scots pikes at Pinkie in 1547
In their array towards the joining with the enemy, they cling and thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder to shoulder together with their pikes in both hands straight afore them; and their followers in that order so hard at their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers shoulders that they do assail undissevered, no force can withstand them'.
'Standing at the defence, they thrust their shoulders likewise so nigh together; the fore rank so well nigh to kneeling, stoop low before their fellows behind holding their pikes in both hands and therewith on their left arms their bucklers, the one end of the pike against their right foot, the other against the enemy breast high, their followers crossing their pike points with them forward; and thus each with the other so nigh as place and space will suffer, through the whole Ward so thick that easily should a bare finger pierce through the skin of an angry hedgehog, as any encounter the front of their pikes.'
So, attacking with No.2, defending with No.3. Note the crossed pikes, as per Monte.
How exactly does foyning work? Is there a description of it anywhere?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 26, 2019, 03:15:38 PM
How exactly does foyning work? Is there a description of it anywhere?
Here is Sir Johne Smythe's rather jaundiced description
By which kinde of fighting of squadrons at the push of the pique, I say, that none of the rankes can fight but only the first ranke, because that if they obserue their proportionate distances according to order and discipline, the piques in the second rank are too short to reach with their points the first rank of their enemies squadron like standing still foining at all the length of their Armes and piques, as they vainelie imagine: Yea although to the trouble and disorder of the first ranke before them they do thrust and foine ouer their shoulders; During which time of the pushing and foyning of the two first ranke; of the two squadrons of enemies, all the rest of the rankes of both the squadrons must by such an vnskilfull kind of fighting stand still and looke on and cry aime, vntill the first ranke of each squadron hath fought their bellies full, vntill they can fight no longer: which is a very scorne and mockerie mylitarie to be either spoken or thought of by any men of warre that doo pretend to haue seene any action effectuallie performed betwixt any great numbers of piquers reduced into form of squadrons in the field. For in troth according to all reason and true experience, such a squadron as should think it their advantage to fight in that sort, must (contrarie to discipline) inlarge themselues in their ranks and distances both in frunt and by flankes, to the intent that they may haue elbow roome enough without any impediment by the nearnesse of the ranks behind them, to pull backe their armes, and to thrust at their enemies approaching them at all the length they can of their and piques, and againe with dexeritie to pull back, & retire them giue new thrusts:Sir John Smythe, Instructions, Obseruations, and Orders Mylitarie (1595),pp 24-7.
We do have a few descriptions of Hellenistic pike fights, essentially Sellasia and Raphia. Both suggest mobility, i.e. 'sarissmos' or something like it rather than fence-and-foyne or any sort of defensive barrier.
That said, at Atrax the Macedonian garrison stood in place, much to the frustration of the Romans, who could do nothing to them.
Sorry no references; in a bit of a hurry tonight.
Atrax:
"For the Macedonians who formed the garrison, numerous and picked men, thinking that it would be a most noble exploit to defend the city with arms and valour rather than with walls, in close array, strengthening their formation by increasing the number of ranks within it, when they saw the Romans scaling the ruins, thrust them out over ground that was rough and admitted no easy retreat. The consul [Flamininus] was enraged ... and sent out cohorts, one after the other, under their standards, to pierce, if possible, with their attack the formation of the Macedonians - they themselves call it the phalanx. But in addition to the limits of space, only a little of the wall having been destroyed, the enemy had the advantage in character of weapons and in tactics. When the Macedonians in close order held before them spears of great length, and when the Romans, hurling their javelins to no purpose, had drawn their swords against this sort of testudo, closely-fashioned with shields, they could neither approach near enough to engage hand to hand nor cut off the ends of the spears, and if they did cut off or break any of them, the spear shaft, the broken part being itself sharp, helped, along with the points of the undamaged pikes, to make a sort of wall [vallum]. Moreover, the parts of the rampart that still stood protected the two flanks, nor was it possible either to retire or to charge from a distance, a manoeuvre which usually throws the ranks into disorder." Livy 32.17
Sellasia:
"Putting the mercenaries in front, he [Antigonus] drew up the Macedonians behind them in two phalanxes with no interval between [diphalangia epallelon], the narrowness of the space rendering this necessary ... Each side now recalled by bugle their light-armed troops from the space between them, and shouting their war-cry and lowering their sarissas, the two phalanxes met. A stubborn struggle followed. At one time the Macedonians gradually [epi poda] fell back [anachoresin] facing the enemy, giving way for a long distance [epi polu] before the courage of the Lacedaemonians, at another the latter were pushed [exothoumenon] from their ground by the weight [tou barous] of the Macedonian phalanx, until, on Antigonus ordering the Macedonians to close up in the peculiar formation of the double phalanx [epallelou phalangos] with its serried line of pikes [sumphraxantes tas sarisas], they delivered a charge which finally forced [exeosan] the Lacedaemonians from their stronghold." Polybius, 2.66; 2.69
Raphia:
"Meanwhile the phalanxes stripped of both their wings remained intact in the middle of the plain, swayed alternately by hope and fear. Antiochus was still occupied in pursuing his advantage on the right wing, but Ptolemy having retired under shelter of the phalanx suddenly came forward and showing himself to his troops caused consternation among the enemy and inspired his own men with increased alacrity and spirit. Lowering their pikes, therefore, the phalanx under Andromachus and Sosibius advanced to the charge. For a short time the picked Syrian troops resisted, but those under Nicarchus quickly turned and fled." Polybius 5.85
Nothing whatever can be gleaned from the account of Raphia. Atrax is a very clear account of Romans v. (static) phalanx. Sellasia we've picked over a bazillion times already this year and I doubt there's anything new to say about it. The vocabulary (aside from 'diphalangia epallelon' and 'sumphraxantas tas sarissas') is very similar to a dozen Classical hoplite battles, particularly exotheo, see previous discussions.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 26, 2019, 03:15:38 PM
How exactly does foyning work? Is there a description of it anywhere?
On further reflection, here is (indirectly) a rather more positive view of the "foyning" style. It is taken from the Renfroe translation of Delbruck's fourth volume
We have a document, True Advice and Reflections of an Old Well tested and Experienced Warrior (Trewer Rath und Bedencken eines Alten wol versuchten und Erfahrenen Kriegsmans), which was probably written toward the end of 1522 and perhaps was the work of no less a person than Georg Frundsberg. This document rejects the opinion that ''the formation should be tight', and should give the decision as a result of pressure from the rear, ''for the foremost men, who are supposed to do the work, do not wish to be too closely pressed; they must be left room for freely jabbing" , otherwise they would be pushed in ''as one pushes people into a ditch.''The German of this is online and I think there is a slight mistranslation - the formation should literally be "thick" and the sense, from other quotes of the document, it is referring to excess depth. The reason, of course, is that the weight of the formation is not being used.
The emphasis in what we are calling the foyning style is on aggressive weapon handling - foyning means thrusting. As I've mentioned before, I'm not fully happy I understand its effectiveness. We know that the foremost ranks of a Landsknecht formation were made of experienced and well armed men, so presumably the formation gained ascendancy over the opposition through aggression and casualty causation and forced them back. But it must always have been vulnerable to the massed assault advocated by Monluc and Smith. As described, especially by Monluc, the skilled pike fencers would just be rolled over and the unit would need to rely on its own depth to absorb the attack.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 27, 2019, 06:09:23 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 27, 2019, 05:55:56 PM
The German of this is online
Link?
Try this (http://www.zeno.org/Geschichte/M/Delbr%C3%BCck,+Hans/Geschichte+der+Kriegskunst/4.+Teil.+Die+Neuzeit/1.+Buch.+Das+Kriegswesen+der+Renaissance/3.+Kapitel.+Die+Taktik+der+Spie%C3%9Ferhaufen) - about three quarters of the way down.
I did have a better laid out version but have mislaid it for the moment.
Add : Google Books e-book here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pqg6lLhp_aoC&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=delbruck+band+4+frundsberg+trewer+rath&source=bl&ots=BNVdZOF1dd&sig=ACfU3U2LNr1NzS-BCyTT6bcSjKexRQ77yQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYw7mI5vDhAhVdTBUIHRcXCkUQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=delbruck%20band%204%20frundsberg%20trewer%20rath&f=false). I find this much easier to read.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 27, 2019, 06:24:52 PM
Add : Google Books e-book here (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pqg6lLhp_aoC&pg=PT63&lpg=PT63&dq=delbruck+band+4+frundsberg+trewer+rath&source=bl&ots=BNVdZOF1dd&sig=ACfU3U2LNr1NzS-BCyTT6bcSjKexRQ77yQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiYw7mI5vDhAhVdTBUIHRcXCkUQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=delbruck%20band%204%20frundsberg%20trewer%20rath&f=false). I find this much easier to read.
Thanks. :)
And you're quite right, Frundsberg (or whoever the author was) is arguing against excessive depth, not excessive density.
He also says that's it's the frontmost five or six ranks that win or lose the battle. Somewhat oddly, then, rather than a formation of six or so ranks, what he does recommend is one with trice the files as ranks. Delbruck suggests that deep formations remained in use because they were easier to manoeuvre than wide ones. I guess this suggests that 16C pikemen were worse drilled and/or more agressively used than Hellenistic ones, who evidently managed with relatively shallow depths.
Very interesting.
Concerning files/ranks, Hellenistic phalanxes used the same number of files as ranks, as the manoeuvre unit was the square (8x8 or 16x16) syntagma or speira, so in that sense they were deeper, relatively, than these 16th C ones.
Delbruck says (via Google translate):
"The forms of the new infantry were quite different from those of the ancient ones. The ancients had had the phalanx, the broad lineup, whether with the spit [pike], or with the pilum and the sword; the newer ones had several, usually three deep, square heaps with the long spears; they had the most similarity with the later Macedonian phalanx, with the sarisse, but the difference between the uniform broad lineup and the three piles is still fundamental. We will come back to this later"
Which comes down then to whether you envisage the Hellenistic phalanx being a monolithic very wide formation of relatively shallow depth, or just wide as made up of adjacent squares. The difference being that 16th C ones use multiple lines and gaps, like Romans (if I understand all this correctly). Though 45 ranks deep is still much deeper than Hellenistic (but 45 men deep and 135 wide is a much wider formation than a Hellenistic syntagma, proportionally, if the 45 x 135 block really was the manoeuvre unit).
Quote
As described, especially by Monluc, the skilled pike fencers would just be rolled over and the unit would need to rely on its own depth to absorb the attack.
I guess as described by the advocates of each method, each method would always win :) . Maybe the hard part was getting the deep unit to close aggressively in the face of the skilled fencing, and this is where the rear ranks come in, keeping it moving forwards (as Monluc says). If the attacking column loses its nerve and comes to a halt, it will be defeated. So as with all these sorts of things, actual execution, getting people to advance aggressively right into contact, is the hard part.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 27, 2019, 07:12:11 PM
He also says that's it's the frontmost five or six ranks that win or lose the battle. Somewhat oddly, then, rather than a formation of six or so ranks, what he does recommend is one with trice the files as ranks.
Twice as many files would give an approximately square formation (the rule of thumb for manoeuver formation in the 16th century was each man occupied 3ft x 7 ft - a 3ft frontage and six feet between ranks).
Interestingly, according to Daniel Stalberg, the Trewer Rath contains this breakdown of the close combat part of a Landsknecht unit
(Each rank is 13 files wide)
1-4th rank: "Doppelsöldner"
5th rank: halberdiers
6-7th rank: "Mittelsöldner"
8-10th rank: "gemeinen söldner"
11-13th rank: "Führern, Furirern, Waybeln und Schlachtschwerter" together with the two ensigns
14-18th rank: "gemeiner söldner"
19th rank: "knebelspeiss"
20-21st rank: Doppelsöldner This formation is a lot deeper than it is wide. Overall, the structure is like a sandwich of good troops with a filling of ordinary troops. One might wonder whether this was how Hellenistic phalanxes also operated - men gaining experience in the middle then being promoted nearer the action or securing the rear as they serve their time.
I suspect the reason for the depth is it has solidity. Just five or six ranks hit by an "en masse" attack of the Monluc variety, especially if it hasn't closed in on itself but stays at manoeuver spacing, might not be enough to prevent a breakthrough.
Quote from: RichT on April 27, 2019, 07:34:57 PM
Very interesting.
Concerning files/ranks, Hellenistic phalanxes used the same number of files as ranks, as the manoeuvre unit was the square (8x8 or 16x16) syntagma or speira, so in that sense they were deeper, relatively, than these 16th C ones.
I think the relevant sense here, though, is absolute depth; Delbruck and Frundsberg are discussing the (lack of) utility of great depth in the context of only the frontmost several ranks actually being able to fight.
The thee blocks of the "Swiss" system don't really constitute separate lines - they're commonly deployed side by side, or in echelon.
Forgive me as I introduce another 16th century description of pike fighting, this time French written in 1548 (in 16th century English translation)
And who so would consider of the force of this order, shall finde that euerye sort of armes shall doo his office throughlye; for the Pikes are profitable against the Horssemen: and when the footmen doe meete Batailon against Batailon, the ferue to a good vse before that the rankes are throng together, but after that they are once at the close, the Pikes can doe no more seruice. Wherefore the Switzers, to auoide this inconueuience, after euerye three rankes of Pikes do place one ranke of Halbardes, which they doo to the intent giue their Pikemen space and place to fight in a prease; but yet this is not ynough, but as for vs, we will haue our Pikemen both before the Ensigne and behinde to carrye Targets: and there shall be Halbards in the middest, by meanes of this order, to resist bothe Horssemen and footmen, to breake into the enemie: for you know that Pikes may serue no turne after that the rankes are preassed together, because that the Souldiers are then as it were one in anothers necke: and therefore if the Pikemen had nothing but their Pikes and Swordes the Pike being abandoned they should be naked: for which cause I have giuen them Targets to couer themselues from blowes, and to fight in all places, what unease soeuer there were. Moreouer the Halbardiers maye also fight better in a prease then the Pikemen, which Halbardiers are expressely appointted for this purpose, and likewise they may followe the sayde Targets at the heeles, who are heauily laden, to reskue them with their Halbards. And as for the Target men, I would haue them but onely to thrust at the face and legges, or at any other parte that were vnarmed.
Raimond de Beccarie de Pavie, baron de Fourquevaux, Instructions for the Warres (1548; 1589 English translation),
By this time we should see a lot of familiar elements. Of interest that Fourquevaux's Swiss seem to use Landsknecht tactics. They don't immediately press together, they have three ranks of pikes then halberds so that the pikes have room to fight. The halberds also have a role in the press - they can be used at close quarters when pikes can't. Justin will be pleased that he is not the first one to see the idea of providing small shields to pikemen so that can fight better after losing their pikes :)
For those continuing to wonder what this has to do with our period, I'm trying through studying what descriptions we have of combat through the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance to understand how infantry fights actually worked at that time. I think I'm getting closer. But I hope of interest of those of a more classical bent, the practical reflections on pike fighting may help to see some questions that might be asked of earlier practice. For example, our pikes seem to have three modes we have identified - foyning (standing off and engaging at pike length, using individual weapon skills in relatively loose formations), a fight involving tight mass (either from the off or developing from a foyning fight) and a close order defensive. Foyning fights seem to have the potential to become a press and renaissance pike formations have tactics to break the deadlock in these (sword and buckler men, halberdiers, big swords). If we take Hellenistic pikes, there don't seem to be any of these deadlock breakers integral to phalanxes. Did their push of pike not descend into a press (or whatever the Greek word is - begins with O I think :) )? If it did, did the resolve things differently? Or didn't they care and leave it there until the battle was resolved around the two locked phalanxes?
Hellenistic armies appear to have lacked any built-in 'deadlock breakers', indicating that they relied on the phalangites themselves to reach a decision. At Sellasia and Raphia, despite the success of one (or each) side's cavalry, the homogenous sarissa-armed phalanx seems to have been the agency which broke the opposing phalanx, or at least forced it to yield ground whether or not this resulted in a final decision of the battle.
No need to apologise for out of period examples Anthony, I'm certain this is the way forward, given the paucity of in period evidence. I would be extremely interested to hear more about your research.
Some more bits and bobs (even more out of period) from A treatise of the art of war dedicated to the King's Most Excellent Majesty Roger Boyle, Earl of Orrery (1621-1679).
Ancient and Modern:
"It is very worthy of Observation, though the present way of Fighting, and of Arming our Soldiery, be very different from what was practis'd by the Greeks, and Romans, who were in their Times, the Great Masters of the Military Art; yet the Famousest Captains of the Latter, and the Present Age, take the Ancients, but especially Iulius Caesar, for their Example, in all the Noblest and Best Principles of War, whose Commentaries are not enough to be extoll'd, both for the Modesty, and Policy of them. And 'tis to the Experience of those Famous Nations, that we owe most of that Discipline, which now, on our own Tryals, we have judged worthiest to be observed and imitated. For though the use of all Fire-Arms, and of Cannon, were Intirely unknown to them, which has much alter'd the manner of making War: And though they Fought with their Files exceeding deep, which we with much Reason have Alter'd; yet as to the Main, we owe to them most of our Knowledge: And the Difference seems Little more, than between Old-fashion'd Plate, hammer'd into New; where though the Form is chang'd, yet the Substance remains."
Targets:
"Maurice Prince of Orange (a Famous Captain) was exceedingly desirous to introduce the Target among the Infantry; and having, for his own satisfaction, made many tryals of the great usefulness of it, experimentally found, that Targets, though very flippent ones, have not only resisted the Push of the Pikes, but also, that half the number of Targetteers, have entred into the Ranks of double their number of Pikes, without Targets, and have Routed them."
Width v. Depth:
"I shall crave leave to offer some Considerations on what we generally observe, and seldom or never alter whatever the occasion requires. And that is, the drawing up our Shot, and Pike, six deep; and our Horse, three deep. And this I should not presume to do, had not I been emboldened to it by some Experiments of my own, which God did bless with success: For when I found my self over-winged by the Enemy, they drawing up their Foot six deep, and their Horse three deep; I judged it best for me to Fight my Foot four deep, and my Horse two deep; whereby I added one third of more hands to the Front, and Breadth, of my Battalions, and Squadrons. For I was fully satisfied, that it was likelier I should be worsted by the Enemy, if he fell into my Flanks and Rear, holding me also to equal Play in the Front, than if four Ranks of my Foot should be broken, or two Ranks of my Horse, that the third Rank of the Horse, and the fifth and sixth Ranks of my Foot, should recover all again; for I had often seen Battalions and Squadrons defeated, by being overwinged: But I never saw the last Rank of the Horse, and the two last Ranks of the Foot, restore the Field, when the four first Ranks of the Foot, and the two first Ranks of the Horse were Routed. For commonly if the two first Ranks of the Horse are Routed, they themselves (for they still are broken inward) Rout the third Rank; and though the like cannot truly be said of the Foot in all points, yet in a great measure it usually follows. But I must confess, that he who makes such an alteration in Military Discipline, (unless he be a Sovereign Prince, or have sufficient Orders to do it) ought to resolve, his success only must Apologize for it; that is, to be victorious, or be kill'd... For my own part, I will ingeniously acknowledge, that after having as throughly weighed all the Arguments for and against it, as my weak judgment could suggest to me, I would, without hesitation, (if it were left to my own Election) fight my Foot and Horse no deeper than four, and two, in any case where the ground would admit me to extend my Battalions and Squadrons to the full. For if I fight against equal Numbers, and equally good Soldiers to my own, 'tis more likely falling into their Flanks, and as much into their Rear also, as I overwing them the depth of a File in each Flank, that I shall Rout them; then it is, that before I perform that, they shall have pierced through my four Ranks, since Rank to Rank of equally good Soldiers, and equal in Number, will more probably hold longer play one with the other, than Soldiers equally good, can defend themselves at once, if briskly charged in Front, Flanks, and Rear; and since the Flanks and Rear of Foot them selves, fight with great disadvantage against those who Charge them there all at once; but when Horse are Charged in the Flanks, and in the Rear, 'tis next of kin to a miracle, if they 'scape being broken: For the Troopers in the Ranks when they go to Charge, are as close as the Riders knees can endure it; and therefore 'tis impossible for the Flanks to do any thing, or the last Rank to face about, and consequently they must have their backs expos'd to the Shot, and Swords of their Enemy. The Foot indeed will easily face about; but then if the depth of Files be the advantage, I have it who Charge every where four deep, and they every way defend, but three deep at the most."
I think all this just goes to show that opinions varied, and there was no certain right or wrong answer (to questions of depth etc), and also that times changed for all the similarities (45 deep or 4 deep). As Orrery says, it would be hard to experiment, since a failed experiment would probably be a final experiment.
The six deep infantry that Orrery takes as standard is, of course, a far cry from Swiss squares or Frundsberg's 3:1 formation. There's a slow but definite trend towards shallower and shallower infantry formations from the 16C to the 19C.
(At least in Europe. I have very little idea what was going on elsewhere.)
Now, in at least part that's surely due to gradual improvements in gunpowder technology, which militates against deep formations in at least two aways: offering deep targets to cannon becomes more costly and the gain from increasing the number of men able to shoot increases. Relatedly, the emphasis shifts from CC to shooting (shot gradually replaces pike). But I've got a suspicion that the deepest formations c. 1500 were never really worthwhile, being used in imitation of the impressively successful Swiss but not actually the cause of those Swiss victories.
(Now, assuming this to be true, how would we reflect it in wargames rules? If we make the latter ranks of a pike square more-or-less pointless, players won't use them unless forced to. If they don't use them, battles won't look like their historical prototypes; if they're forced to, variants like Frundsberg's aren't possible. Mandate per army list? Make further ranks purely decorative and costing zero army points?)
Speaking of technological change, one would expect that Hellenistic tactics were more likely to be optimal, given the options available, than Renaissance ones, simply because the pace of change was slower: commanders had more time to figure out what worked or not before the rules changed.
Indeed; the Macedonian sarissa phalanx was a very different creature in a very different time and system.
The Swiss seem to have owed many of their victories to speed and impetus, and their deep keil enabled them to operate on a limited frontage and hence ease the burden of command and control which became an increasing problem in the 17th centiury AD as shallower lines led to wider deployments and greater distances between army commanders and subordinates. The deep Swiss formations (and for that matter the deep Hapsburg tercios) also provided considerable defensive stability and endurance; it could take hours to beat down a Swiss pike formation with crossbows and knights, as at Arbedo in AD 1422. The Spanish tercios similarly held out for a considerable time at Rocroi in AD 1643. We might validly conclude that the main effect of rear ranks in a Renaissance pike formation was to add stolidity and support (or in wargame terms increase the number of reverses the formation can accept before being weakened or destroyed) rather than contributing directly to the offensive power of the formation.
This would also explain the fashion for 'deadlock breakers', which are conspicuously absent from the much more integrated and homogenous Hellenistic phalanx. Renaissance pikes, with few ranks actively contributing but many providing inertia, would tend to end up deadlocked. Hellenistic phalanxes, in which the fully integrated rear ranks added their 'weight' to make the formation 'very forcible', would not.
All of this is pointing in a particular direction, namely that Renaissance and Hellenistic phalanxes are not going to tell us much about the other system, and are more likely to be productive of misconception than understanding if cross-applied. Each is a separate system which deserves and requires separate study.
Quote from: RichT on April 28, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Maurice Prince of Orange (a Famous Captain) was exceedingly desirous to introduce the Target among the Infantry; and having, for his own satisfaction, made many tryals of the great usefulness of it, experimentally found, that Targets, though very flippent ones, have not only resisted the Push of the Pikes...
Now that is interesting.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 28, 2019, 08:50:49 PM
Renaissance pikes, with few ranks actively contributing but many providing inertia, would tend to end up deadlocked. Hellenistic phalanxes, in which the fully integrated rear ranks added their 'weight' to make the formation 'very forcible', would not.
All of this is pointing in a particular direction, namely that Renaissance and Hellenistic phalanxes are not going to tell us much about the other system, and are more likely to be productive of misconception than understanding if cross-applied. Each is a separate system which deserves and requires separate study.
The trouble with this statement is it lacks any evidence to back it up. It may be true. Certainly, there are aspects of the renaissance use of pikes which was different, partly because they are evolving from a different place. It is reasonably clear that the European long spear systems were never "pure" - they included a proportion of men with other weapons; axes, godendags etc. Swiss formations, who probably account for the popularity of the pike block, were mainly halberds until the mid-15th century. So the "deadlock breakers" were available to experiment with. The hellenistic phalanx is more homegenous, so in this way they are going to operate differently. However, suggesting that Hellenistic phalanxes applied weight differently seems entirely speculative. We know both systems applied the mass of supporting ranks but we seem to lack detailed descriptions of how Hellenics did it. We also lack detail of how the Hellenistic phalanx actually used its pikes. Did they just plod relentlessly forward and only stop when they met sufficient resistance? If so, what happened then - both sides shoved on their pikes until one side gave way (or more likely died of boredom)? Or were they more aggressive?
As I've said numerous times, I'm actually interested in the evolution of medieval infantry tactics and gaining what I can from later descriptions that help me understand things. Greeks and Hellenics are a side interest. But I don't think rejecting the evidence of people trying to solve the problems of fighting in similar formations and replacing it with non-evidence based statements helps those working with those periods to really understand what is going on. I have no doubt that the two systems were different. But different in what ways and how significant were those ways seem elusive.
Quote
Speaking of technological change, one would expect that Hellenistic tactics were more likely to be optimal, given the options available, than Renaissance ones, simply because the pace of change was slower: commanders had more time to figure out what worked or not before the rules changed.
Maybe; but maybe the lack of change lead to a certain amount of fossilisation. This is the usual view of the Hellenistic phalanx, that it was an extreme and ossified version of the phalanx that had become too inflexible to be useful, and I think that view is wrong, and that the phalanx was optimised more than fossilised. But even so there doesn't seem to be a great deal of experimentation, and phalanx v. phalanx battles being so few and far between, not much opportunity for it. The tacticians at least are much concerned with appeal to authority (Homer, Alexander) and if this reflects Hellenistic thinking, it doesn't speak of much innovation (as Asclepiodotus says more or less "these are the rules of tactics and they mean safety for those who follow them and disaster for those who don't").
From what I know of it (not much), Medieval and Early Modern pikes have a higher degree of innovation at first, though the 'pike and shot' pikes seem pretty stable for a hundred years or so. They were seeking advantages outside the box; but one reason for this may be that Med/EM Europe was host to a wide range of military systems based on a wide (ish) range of economic and social systems, while the Hellenistic world consisted entirely of Macedonian-derived armies under absolute monarchies.
(Edit to add): Incidentally talking of deadlock breakers, the Cleonymus anecdote referred to earlier is a perfect example:
"At the siege of Edessa, when a breach was made in the walls, the spear-men, whose spears were sixteen cubits long, sallied out against the assailants. Cleonymus deepened his phalanx, and ordered the front line not to use their weapons, but with both hands to seize the enemy's spears, and hold them fast; while the next rank immediately advanced, and closed upon them. When their spears were seized in this way, the men retreated; but the second rank, pressing upon them, either took them prisoner, or killed them. By this manoeuvre of Cleonymus, the long and formidable sarissa was rendered useless, and became rather an encumbrance, than a dangerous weapon." Polyaenus 2.29.2
For what it's worth, which personally I think isn't much. But it is at any rate a similar sort of thing to later attempts to do more than just fight pikes with pikes. It was not (to my knowledge) ever repeated.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 28, 2019, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: RichT on April 28, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Maurice Prince of Orange (a Famous Captain) was exceedingly desirous to introduce the Target among the Infantry; and having, for his own satisfaction, made many tryals of the great usefulness of it, experimentally found, that Targets, though very flippent ones, have not only resisted the Push of the Pikes...
Now that is interesting.
And yet (as de Groot's Osprey (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=99iIDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=maurice+of+nassau+pike+shield&source=bl&ots=3dRmHXOthp&sig=ACfU3U2eWfIsMowCGRg30522gcty57RrOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikovX47PThAhWSKVAKHe7YAac4ChDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=maurice%20of%20nassau%20pike%20shield&f=false) points out) the pike-and-buckler combination never saw service - so how effective was it really, even in Maurice's trials?
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 28, 2019, 08:50:49 PM
Indeed; the Macedonian sarissa phalanx was a very different creature in a very different time and system.
Is this supposed to be expressing agreement with something I said? I'm not sure what the "indeed" refers to.
Quote from: Duncan Head on April 29, 2019, 09:13:50 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 28, 2019, 09:35:40 PM
Quote from: RichT on April 28, 2019, 11:24:48 AM
Maurice Prince of Orange (a Famous Captain) was exceedingly desirous to introduce the Target among the Infantry; and having, for his own satisfaction, made many tryals of the great usefulness of it, experimentally found, that Targets, though very flippent ones, have not only resisted the Push of the Pikes...
Now that is interesting.
And yet (as de Groot's Osprey (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=99iIDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=maurice+of+nassau+pike+shield&source=bl&ots=3dRmHXOthp&sig=ACfU3U2eWfIsMowCGRg30522gcty57RrOw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikovX47PThAhWSKVAKHe7YAac4ChDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=maurice%20of%20nassau%20pike%20shield&f=false) points out) the pike-and-buckler combination never saw service - so how effective was it really, even in Maurice's trials?
I imagine that if Maurice said you couldn't shove a pikehead through a shield one can believe him. Shields were probably useless in a Renaissance pike phalanx for other reasons - perhaps because the Renaissance didn't undertake anything resembling a hoplite-like othismos and so the pikemen didn't require that kind of protection.
QuoteI imagine that if Maurice said you couldn't shove a pikehead through a shield one can believe him. Shields were probably useless in a Renaissance pike phalanx for other reasons - perhaps because the Renaissance didn't undertake anything resembling a hoplite-like othismos and so the pikemen didn't require that kind of protection.
This is a bit of a sideshow because there is no evidence that Maurice's experiment ever led to a viable troop type (any more that Fouquevaux's suggestion did). In order to be pike resistant, he is probably talking about iron shields, if not "shields of proof". The latter were carried by officers and also available perhaps by the few score for siege work, storming breaches etc. Equipping a whole pike unit with them would be very expensive and the advantage would have to be dramatic to make it worth it.
The idea that pikemen didn't require protection isn't supported by the evidence. Through the 16th century, armoured pikemen made up the front ranks. This is because they were facing other men actually intent on killing them. I strongly suspect that life was similar for Hellenistic pikemen and they needed those shields because they didn't have the quality of armour a 16th century landsknecht doppelsoldner had.
To connect this to Maurice, he was up-armouring at a time when the relative importance of the pike was waning. The best pikemen's armour may have offered some protection against calivers at normal battlefield ranges but increasingly muskets were the shot of choice, and in ever increasing numbers. So Maurice was adding armour when everyone else was thinking about lightening it.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 29, 2019, 11:54:36 AM
QuoteI imagine that if Maurice said you couldn't shove a pikehead through a shield one can believe him. Shields were probably useless in a Renaissance pike phalanx for other reasons - perhaps because the Renaissance didn't undertake anything resembling a hoplite-like othismos and so the pikemen didn't require that kind of protection.
This is a bit of a sideshow because there is no evidence that Maurice's experiment ever led to a viable troop type (any more that Fouquevaux's suggestion did). In order to be pike resistant, he is probably talking about iron shields, if not "shields of proof". The latter were carried by officers and also available perhaps by the few score for siege work, storming breaches etc. Equipping a whole pike unit with them would be very expensive and the advantage would have to be dramatic to make it worth it.
The idea that pikemen didn't require protection isn't supported by the evidence. Through the 16th century, armoured pikemen made up the front ranks. This is because they were facing other men actually intent on killing them. I strongly suspect that life was similar for Hellenistic pikemen and they needed those shields because they didn't have the quality of armour a 16th century landsknecht doppelsoldner had.
To connect this to Maurice, he was up-armouring at a time when the relative importance of the pike was waning. The best pikemen's armour may have offered some protection against calivers at normal battlefield ranges but increasingly muskets were the shot of choice, and in ever increasing numbers. So Maurice was adding armour when everyone else was thinking about lightening it.
Sure. Renaissance pikemen clearly needed protection of some kind, hence the cuirasses. By "that kind of protection" I was thinking of shields that enabled an othismos contest without the pikemen getting asphyxiated and which were generally proof against pike thrusts. Renaissance pikefighting seems to have consisted of either staying just out of range of the pikes or charging in past their guard. And the cuirasses seems to have been effective enough against pikes - the examples given of pike vs pike combat seem to indicate that men could be knocked down by a pike charge but with few getting killed.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 29, 2019, 12:09:30 PM
Sure. Renaissance pikemen clearly needed protection of some kind, hence the cuirasses. By "that kind of protection" I was thinking of shields that enabled an othismos contest without the pikemen getting asphyxiated and which were generally proof against pike thrusts. Renaissance pikefighting seems to have consisted of either staying just out of range of the pikes or charging in past their guard. And the cuirasses seems to have been effective enough against pikes - the examples given of Renaissance pikefighting indicate that men could be knocked down by a pike charge but with few getting killed.
At the battle of Novara 1513, Florange reckoned that of 300-400 men in the front rank of his Landsknechts against the Swiss, only 6 survived. One of the six suffered 46 wounds (this was Florange himself). Now one can doubt the accuracy of the figures (if you don't know how many men were in the front rank, how do you know they were all killed? The five other survivors were all known to Florange, which would be something of a coincidence), this suggests a lot worse than being knocked over.
As to the idea that Hellenistic pikemen fought in the same way as hoplites and were all about shoving with shields, I leave to others and other topics, many of which already contain doubts on this matter from this more knowledgeable than I.
Quote
Renaissance pikefighting seems to have consisted of either staying just out of range of the pikes or charging in past their guard.
So far we've identified: foyning (pike thrusting); static barrier; mass advance. Assuming 'mass advance' covers 'charging in past their guard' (I don't think it does, as they seem different things to me, but close enough); do we now need to add 'staying just out of range', and if so is there some evidence out there for this new category?
Quote
I was thinking of shields that enabled an othismos contest without the pikemen getting asphyxiated and which were generally proof against pike thrusts.
I'm pretty sure this isn't an othismos thread. But if it were, I don't think you could have it both ways - either there's a 'scrum othismos' where shields are needed to prevent asphyxiation, or there's a 'sarrismos' where shields need to withstand pikes (not pike 'thrusts', note, since you can't thrust in sarrismos). One or the other.
Quotedo we now need to add 'staying just out of range', and if so is there some evidence out there for this new category?
This would be very dangerous on a late medieval/early renaissance battlefield. Pike blocks were supported by shot. Even firearm sceptics like John Smythe thought gunpowder shot were really effective at two pike lengths Hover there and a gungho commander will subject you to a point blank volley and be on you before the smoke cleared. Hellenistic pikes might have got away with it, because of a lack of integral fire support, but I don't know enough about psiloi tactics to know what the dangers would have been.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 29, 2019, 09:50:46 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 28, 2019, 08:50:49 PM
Indeed; the Macedonian sarissa phalanx was a very different creature in a very different time and system.
Is this supposed to be expressing agreement with something I said? I'm not sure what the "indeed" refers to.
It was, although it seems to have been agreement with a thought imagined rather than expressed.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 29, 2019, 08:52:16 AM
As I've said numerous times, I'm actually interested in the evolution of medieval infantry tactics and gaining what I can from later descriptions that help me understand things. Greeks and Hellenics are a side interest. But I don't think rejecting the evidence of people trying to solve the problems of fighting in similar formations and replacing it with non-evidence based statements helps those working with those periods to really understand what is going on. I have no doubt that the two systems were different. But different in what ways and how significant were those ways seem elusive.
I was not aware of rejecting evidence, only speculation. That said, it might be good if we could find a few descriptions of mediaeval/Renaissance pike fights which indicate the trend of the action: does one formation end up pushing the other, or is the norm that both get 'stuck' and rely on sheer endurance or other arms of service to resolve the situation? Or how is the action actually decided?
I seem to remember that whenever Swiss met Lansknechts the Swiss won (and if currently less pressed would do some looking up); might there be some accounts of such actions which shed any light on what actually happened when
bauer met
knecht?
[Edit: corrected typo 'Swidd' to 'Swiss']
Quote from: Erpingham on April 29, 2019, 12:44:35 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 29, 2019, 12:09:30 PM
Sure. Renaissance pikemen clearly needed protection of some kind, hence the cuirasses. By "that kind of protection" I was thinking of shields that enabled an othismos contest without the pikemen getting asphyxiated and which were generally proof against pike thrusts. Renaissance pikefighting seems to have consisted of either staying just out of range of the pikes or charging in past their guard. And the cuirasses seems to have been effective enough against pikes - the examples given of Renaissance pikefighting indicate that men could be knocked down by a pike charge but with few getting killed.
At the battle of Novara 1513, Florange reckoned that of 300-400 men in the front rank of his Landsknechts against the Swiss, only 6 survived. One of the six suffered 46 wounds (this was Florange himself). Now one can doubt the accuracy of the figures (if you don't know how many men were in the front rank, how do you know they were all killed? The five other survivors were all known to Florange, which would be something of a coincidence), this suggests a lot worse than being knocked over.
Novara seems to have been an especially bloody battle, not because the Swiss charged, but because the landsknechts did not give way when they did, resulting in a confused toe-to-toe melee.
I doubt those 46 wounds all came from charging pikes.
(https://i.imgur.com/CoTyMBj.jpg)
My idea of low casualties from the pike charge itself comes from your quote from Monluc:
Quoteall on a suddain rush'd in among them, a good many of us at least, for as well on their side as ours all the first Ranks, either with push of Pikes or the Shock at the encounter, were overturn'd; neither is it possible amongst Foot to see a greater fury: the second Rank and the third were the cause of our victory; for the last so pushed them on that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours press'd in, the Enemy was still driven back:
Monluc, who is leading from the front, pike in hand, is knocked down three times.
He is knocked down three times but is not killed. Which suggest his armour was effective protection against pikes.
Quote from: RichT on April 29, 2019, 01:03:48 PM
Quote
Renaissance pikefighting seems to have consisted of either staying just out of range of the pikes or charging in past their guard.
So far we've identified: foyning (pike thrusting); static barrier; mass advance. Assuming 'mass advance' covers 'charging in past their guard' (I don't think it does, as they seem different things to me, but close enough); do we now need to add 'staying just out of range', and if so is there some evidence out there for this new category?
My classifications are for pike vs. pike contests.
Foyning: done from just out of reach of enemy pikes, since it seems clear that the pikeman who foynes lunges forwards with his pike to strike the enemy pikeman then pulls back again. If you start out
already within the pike reach of the enemy then you aren't foyning - you're dead.
Charging: the Swiss tactic, advocated by Monluc.
Static barrier: This is a defensive stance, so there is pikefighting only if it is subjected to either foyning or a charge.
Quote from: RichT on April 29, 2019, 01:03:48 PMQuote
I was thinking of shields that enabled an othismos contest without the pikemen getting asphyxiated and which were generally proof against pike thrusts.
I'm pretty sure this isn't an othismos thread. But if it were, I don't think you could have it both ways - either there's a 'scrum othismos' where shields are needed to prevent asphyxiation, or there's a 'sarrismos' where shields need to withstand pikes (not pike 'thrusts', note, since you can't thrust in sarrismos). One or the other.
This is not really meant to be an othismos thread - I'm interested here in understanding how Renaissance pikemen actually fought - but by 'othismos' I mean 'sarissmos' in which the pikemen will need their shields to prevent asphyxiation since the men in the file are pressing shield against back, the pressure being tranmitted partly through the pikes and partly to the men in front (the front man, who gets the residue of the pressure from the back, transmits all of it through his pike). And of course the front rank shields, in which the enemy pikes are embedded, must be strong enough to resist puncturing by the pikes. I assumed that a pike thrust was comparable in force to a pike shoved forwards by sarrismos, but of course that has to be proved.
QuoteWhich suggest his armour was effective protection against pikes.
Florange's must have been pretty good too, though tested to destruction :) I don't think Monluc tells us about his unit's casualties - I may have to check.
Time to bring on the pictures then? Here's a wider view of Holbein's picture, giving the left side. With the caveat that Holbein probably never saw a pike fight, the stage he is showing is the "deadlock breaking" phase. Pikes are still being used but there are lots of swords already drawn and polearms and two-handed swords are being rushed forward.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Battle_Scene%2C_after_Hans_Holbein_the_Younger.jpg)
Here is a slightly earlier one
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Georg_Lemberger%2C_Battle_of_Guinegate_%281513%29%2C_Triumphzug_Kaiser_Maximilians.jpg)
Again the caveat that we have no idea whether the artist saw a pikefight but this shows an earlier stage. Unfortunately, this is scanned from a book and the page breaks just where we are interested in ::) but this does show the two pike fronts in action. It is a little impressionistic but we can see maybe 10 ranks before the standards with perhaps the first three fighting with pikes and the rest at porte. Note the sleeves of shot - handguns for the Hapsburgs, crossbows for the French.
Mmmm...link is broken for the second picture. Can you fix it?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 30, 2019, 09:08:12 AM
Mmmm...link is broken for the second picture. Can you fix it?
Apologies. Not sure what happened there - I just repasted the same link and it worked second time.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 29, 2019, 07:44:11 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 29, 2019, 09:50:46 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on April 28, 2019, 08:50:49 PM
Indeed; the Macedonian sarissa phalanx was a very different creature in a very different time and system.
Is this supposed to be expressing agreement with something I said? I'm not sure what the "indeed" refers to.
It was, although it seems to have been agreement with a thought imagined rather than expressed.
OK :) - you had me somewhat confused.
It's notable that Renaissance theorists evidently thought Hellenistic phalanges usefully similar to their own formations, as witnessed by the popularity of the Hellenistic manuals. Not that they were necessarily very picky - Vegetius remained popular through-out the Middle Ages.
QuoteFoyning: done from just out of reach of enemy pikes, since it seems clear that the pikeman who foynes lunges forwards with his pike to strike the enemy pikeman then pulls back again. If you start out already within the pike reach of the enemy then you aren't foyning - you're dead.
I can see where you are coming from now but, if both sides can reach each other by lunging, are they really out of reach of one another? But that's a bit nitpicky. The real issue I think is this assumes foyning is static and a bit tentative. This impression does follow from Smythe but less from Monluc. Monluc rejects it for his attack not because it was ineffective but that his men were not highly trained enough to succeed with it. Unless we see foyning as just a holding tactic before launching a decisive massed attack, it must have been more aggressive with the stabbing men seeking to work forward and force the enemy back.
Incidentally, to add to our picture gallery, this picture by Hans Leonhard Schaufelein, appears to show foyning
(https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00144/AN00144816_001_l.jpg)
Quote from: Erpingham on April 30, 2019, 10:19:28 AM
QuoteFoyning: done from just out of reach of enemy pikes, since it seems clear that the pikeman who foynes lunges forwards with his pike to strike the enemy pikeman then pulls back again. If you start out already within the pike reach of the enemy then you aren't foyning - you're dead.
I can see where you are coming from now but, if both sides can reach each other by lunging, are they really out of reach of one another? But that's a bit knitpicky. The real issue I think is this assumes foyning is static and a bit tentative. This impression does follow from Smythe but less from Monluc. Monluc rejects it for his attack not because it was ineffective but that his men were not highly trained enough to succeed with it. Unless we see foyning as just a holding tactic before launching a decisive massed attack, it must have been more aggressive with the stabbing men seeking to work forward and force the enemy back.
Incidentally, to add to our picture gallery, this picture by Hans Leonhard Schaufelein, appears to show foyning
(https://www.britishmuseum.org/collectionimages/AN00144/AN00144816_001_l.jpg)
It does look like foyning. Notice how the front rankers are just out of reach of their non-foyning opponents and that neither phalanx is advancing against the other. The rear rankers look like they're having tea and crumpets. The two gents on the right seem to be engaged in conversation: "Spot of fine weather we're having.""Just the thing for a battle."
I imagine though that aggressive foyning would have had for effect to panic the opposing front rank, causing it to fall back and presumably panic the rest of the phalanx in consequence.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 30, 2019, 10:30:41 AM
I imagine though that aggressive foyning would have had for effect to panic the opposing front rank, causing it to fall back and presumably panic the rest of the phalanx in consequence.
This might depend upon the depth of the formation; if there are a dzen or more ranks engaged in serious tea and crumpets, they are probably going to stay put and let the front ranks get foyned. Or the halberdiers are going to chip in, perhaps prompted by the unit officers who can see how things are going at the business end of the formation.
Anthony's nice picture gallery does show us the 'sleeves' of missilemen which came as standard with a late mediaeval-early Renaissance pike block, looking as if it is en route to becoming a tercio. This leads one to wonder just how much of a gap existed between one pike formation and the next. If mediaeval pike practice emulated that of the Swiss, then distinct blocks manoeuvring in mutual support (at least in theory) would be the norm. (This is of course what we see in woodcuts of Thirty Years' War battles.) Such practice would be distinct from the continuous lines of Hellenistic pikemen - and leads me to wonder whether mediaeval pike formation users simply found it too challenging to manage continuous pike lines.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on April 30, 2019, 10:16:12 AM
It's notable that Renaissance theorists evidently thought Hellenistic phalanges usefully similar to their own formations, as witnessed by the popularity of the Hellenistic manuals. Not that they were necessarily very picky - Vegetius remained popular through-out the Middle Ages.
My impression - such as it is - is that they picked up the numbers and the general formation shapes, but missed out on the command, control and coordination side of things, a bit like (apologies for the out-of-period analogy) Soviet armoured forces trying to
blitzkrieg German-style in the early part of World War 2, not succeeding, and eventually developing their own different, simpler, but nevertheless relatively effective approach geared to their own capabilities and limitations.