Something on early Renaissance Italian infantry tactics

[Erpingham]

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.

[RichT]

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.

[Duncan Head]

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 points out) the pike-and-buckler combination never saw service - so how effective was it really, even in Maurice's trials?

[Andreas Johansson]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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 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.

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

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. 

[RichT]

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?

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.

[Erpingham]

do 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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']

[Justin Swanton]

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.



My idea of low casualties from the pike charge itself comes from your quote from Monluc:

all 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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

[Erpingham]

Which 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.



Here is a slightly earlier one



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. 

[Justin Swanton]

Mmmm...link is broken for the second picture. Can you fix it?