Heavy infantry fighting density

[Nick Harbud]

Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   

[Imperial Dave]

Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   

completely agree and really rate the book personally

[Erpingham]

Others have also looked at this issue.  Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into.   

Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

[RichT]

Others have also looked at this issue. Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into. 

Pages 133-156 specifically.

Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

Not really. His argument is (and I hope I do it justice) that the tacticians specify the three intervals, but that the closest interval is impossible for a phalangite (two handed sarissa and shield bearer) to occupy, becsause the minimum space occupied by man, shield and spear is 76cm, and that with five rows of projecting spears, in order to provide room between the shields and not tangle the spears they must be separated laterally, so the minimum possible spacing is 96cm - which is three feet, and so agrees with Polybius, but not the tacticians. He concludes that the tacticans closest order, and any other references to such closest order elsewhere, must refer to hoplites not phalangites, since with their overarm grip for the spear they are not constrained by the shields. This would be music to Justin's ears, but he also rules out the overarm hold for the sarissa on practical and evidential grounds.

I've expressed my views on this theory elsewhere. And the Peter Connolly reconstruction as you all can see found, for what it's worth, that close order was possible.

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

[Imperial Dave]

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

hear hear 

[Justin Swanton]

Others have also looked at this issue. Christopher Matthew in "An Invincible Beast" provides plenty of material (or at least plenty of pages) for people to get their teeth into. 

Pages 133-156 specifically.

Has he anything to say which is not Polybios or the "Ancient tacticians"?  We covered this (in ever decreasing circles) in the other thread.

Not really. His argument is (and I hope I do it justice) that the tacticians specify the three intervals, but that the closest interval is impossible for a phalangite (two handed sarissa and shield bearer) to occupy, becsause the minimum space occupied by man, shield and spear is 76cm, and that with five rows of projecting spears, in order to provide room between the shields and not tangle the spears they must be separated laterally, so the minimum possible spacing is 96cm - which is three feet, and so agrees with Polybius, but not the tacticians. He concludes that the tacticans closest order, and any other references to such closest order elsewhere, must refer to hoplites not phalangites, since with their overarm grip for the spear they are not constrained by the shields. This would be music to Justin's ears, but he also rules out the overarm hold for the sarissa on practical and evidential grounds.

I've expressed my views on this theory elsewhere. And the Peter Connolly reconstruction as you all can see found, for what it's worth, that close order was possible.

But pleeeeeeeeeeeease let's not go over it all again. Other periods, please.

Mmmff...gloob..Gug...Help! Somebody! I've been tied up and gagged!

[Erpingham]

Two more on 16th century pike fighting, one of which is based on experience just within our period of interest

In their array towards joining with the enemy, they cling and
thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder and shoulder together, with their
pikes in both their hands straight afore them, and their followers in that
order so hard in their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers' shoulders,
that, if they do assail undiscovered, no force can well withstand
them.

William Patten on the Scots 1547.  We've had his view on anti-cavalry tactics in the other thread (it follows directly on from here), this is their attacking formation.  We might note another non-literal reference to very close order.  You can't literally be shoulder to shoulder using the high pike position.  Note also the compression of ranks.  It is an interesting question where the Scots tactics at this time come from.  This formation looks very medieval, as does the continuation about defence.  Is this essentially the old schiltron but with longer weapons?  Or is this Swiss-style, taught them by the French?

As a contrast, we have a completely different view on the depth between ranks from the Landsknecht school.  This doesn't seem to be available in English but Delbruck quotes it, so here is a quote from Delbruck

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.''

Now, if this was Frundsberg, he was a leader of pikemen and a veteran of many pike fights.  This is German school, where individual pike skills are important, contrasting with the "impact en mass" approach of the Swiss, French, Scots and at least some English.  Note the "foremost men" do the work .  Sir John Smythe has, of course, abrasive comments on this
During which time of the pushing and foyning of the two first rankes of the two squadrons of enemies, all the rest of the rankes of both the squadrons must by such an unskilfull kind of fighting stand still and looke on and cry aime...

I realise I'm in danger of slipping away into more discussions of pike fighting but I think there are some useful points about mass and individual action here.  The Trewer Rath's pikemen aren't necessarily in any looser frontage to fight in an individual style but they need to avoid compression from the rear.  The impact school compact their ranks more to get impetus to their "push of pike".  Anyway, even if their aren't, it serves as a reminder to look at the distance between ranks as well as the gap between files.

[Justin Swanton]

Two more on 16th century pike fighting, one of which is based on experience just within our period of interest

In their array towards joining with the enemy, they cling and
thrust so near in the fore rank, shoulder and shoulder together, with their
pikes in both their hands straight afore them, and their followers in that
order so hard in their backs, laying their pikes over their foregoers' shoulders,
that, if they do assail undiscovered, no force can well withstand
them.

William Patten on the Scots 1547.  We've had his view on anti-cavalry tactics in the other thread (it follows directly on from here), this is their attacking formation.  We might note another non-literal reference to very close order.  You can't literally be shoulder to shoulder using the high pike position.  Note also the compression of ranks.  It is an interesting question where the Scots tactics at this time come from.  This formation looks very medieval, as does the continuation about defence.  Is this essentially the old schiltron but with longer weapons?  Or is this Swiss-style, taught them by the French?

Does 'shoulder to shoulder' imply that the front rank held their pikes underarm? 'in both their hands straight afore them' seems to suggest so.

As a contrast, we have a completely different view on the depth between ranks from the Landsknecht school.  This doesn't seem to be available in English but Delbruck quotes it, so here is a quote from Delbruck

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.''

Now, if this was Frundsberg, he was a leader of pikemen and a veteran of many pike fights.  This is German school, where individual pike skills are important, contrasting with the "impact en mass" approach of the Swiss, French, Scots compact in more  and at least some English.  Note the "foremost men" do the work .  Sir John Smythe has, of course, abrasive comments on this
During which time of the pushing and foyning of the two first rankes of the two squadrons of enemies, all the rest of the rankes of both the squadrons must by such an unskilfull kind of fighting stand still and looke on and cry aime...

I realise I'm in danger of slipping away into more discussions of pike fighting but I think there are some useful points about mass and individual action here.  The Trewer Rath's pikemen aren't necessarily in any looser frontage to fight in an individual style but they need to avoid compression from the rear.  The impact school compact their ranks more to get impetus to their "push of pike".  Anyway, even if their aren't, it serves as a reminder to look at the distance between ranks as well as the gap between files.

One question: what is the evidence  (if any) the mediaeval pikers were largely undearm and that pike formations gradually switched to overarm through the 16th and 17th centuries?

[Duncan Head]

David Graff, in The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (see online here, pages 61-62), gives extracts from the military writings of Li Jing, a successful early Tang general whose work survives in later Tang compilations:

In all cases when teaching combat formations, fifty men make up a company (dui). ... Arriving at the left or right side of the training ground, each company unfurls its pennons and deploys in sequence. The companies are positioned ten paces apart, and each company [occupies a space] ten paces square, [with the soldiers] distributed evenly [in that space]. The support companies (zhu dui) block the gaps, standing twenty paces behind the forward companies.

Graff goes on to say:

Within each dui, the individual soldiers have ample room to maneuver since each "pace" here actually represents a Chinese double-pace (bu) of approximately five feet. Each soldier should be five feet away from the men on each side of him and from those to the front and rear. As the drill continues, however, this loose and no doubt easily maneuverable formation is compressed into a closer order ...

Unfortunately it's not clear to me just how close the "closer order" gets.

[Erpingham]

Does 'shoulder to shoulder' imply that the front rank held their pikes underarm? 'in both their hands straight afore them' seems to suggest so.

I don't think so - you aren't shoulder to shoulder with pikes underarm either.  Its possible you have an underarm front rank and an overarm rear from the description but it would also work if both were overarm.

[Andreas Johansson]

David Graff, in The Eurasian Way of War: Military Practice in Seventh-Century China and Byzantium (see online here, pages 61-62), gives extracts from the military writings of Li Jing, a successful early Tang general whose work survives in later Tang compilations:

In all cases when teaching combat formations, fifty men make up a company (dui). ... Arriving at the left or right side of the training ground, each company unfurls its pennons and deploys in sequence. The companies are positioned ten paces apart, and each company [occupies a space] ten paces square, [with the soldiers] distributed evenly [in that space]. The support companies (zhu dui) block the gaps, standing twenty paces behind the forward companies.

Graff goes on to say:

Within each dui, the individual soldiers have ample room to maneuver since each "pace" here actually represents a Chinese double-pace (bu) of approximately five feet. Each soldier should be five feet away from the men on each side of him and from those to the front and rear. As the drill continues, however, this loose and no doubt easily maneuverable formation is compressed into a closer order ...

Unfortunately it's not clear to me just how close the "closer order" gets.

This, I note, only adds up, more or less, numerically if the one bu is the gap between men, not the frontage per man.

[Erpingham]

One question: what is the evidence  (if any) the mediaeval pikers were largely undearm and that pike formations gradually switched to overarm through the 16th and 17th centuries?

A quick picture essay (in chronological order).  I've tried not to repeat ones I referenced in the last thread.

Coutrai, early 14th century.  An underarm pikeman left, earliest example known to me of the anti-cavalry pike stance on right (it is mentioned in literature a lot before this though)



Italian late 14th century.  The Italians are said to have invented the long pike around this time



Scots, 1440s


Now some transitional ones

Fornovo, image dates to 1496.  I confess this is a repeat but it is good.  All underarm, facing cavalry



Two Dolstein pictures, probably drawn 1505-1510.  Note all underarm against horse, all overarm against infantr





Dornach, drawn 1510-20?  Underarm



Two by Burgkmair, 1514-1515, both underarm and overarm formations.





After this, things tend to move towards only overarm.  The usual conclusion is underarm tactics were the norm until 1500 but were increasingly mixed with then replaced by overarm.

As I said in the other thread, there are three medieval two-hand spear holds shown in art.  Underarm, middle (chest high, spear couched under arm) and high.  Middle seems to have fallen by the wayside and pike tactics developed from the other two.

I'll also repeat what I noted there - images of pikes in action from Swiss and German sources at the beginning of the 16th century often show front ranks in combat using a mixture of grips, along with mighty halberd blows and sword use.  Holbeins "Bad War" is a classic of this (but a late one).  It suggests that formation became much looser and wilder at the front after impact and there was much more anything goes.

Sorry if this is a partial reply - I don't have the time to pull out various textual descriptions of spear and pike fighting to search for the transition.

[Erpingham]

Here's a belated addition



A new one to me this - Flemish/Burgundian pikes 1477.

[Justin Swanton]

Thanks for this Anthony. Any theories on why pikemen transitioned from undearm to overarm?

[Imperial Dave]

when Shields started going out of 'fashion' at a guess