Something on early Renaissance Italian infantry tactics

[Erpingham]

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.  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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[PMBardunias]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Erpingham]

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. 

[Justin Swanton]

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  )

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Erpingham]

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?

[RichT]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[RichT]

How did this become another o-word thread?

Justin:

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.

[Erpingham]

As 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. 

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

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.

[Justin Swanton]

How exactly does foyning work? Is there a description of it anywhere?

[Erpingham]

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.