Pike length - just how important tactically?

[Erpingham]

I've hunted out an article by J.F. Verbruggen Arms and the Art of War : The Ghentenaar and Brugeois Militia in 1477-79

A re-armament of 1477 resulted in the following pike purchases

Ghent : 300 13ft, 300 16ft including heads
Bruges : 200 14ft, 100 20ft

While there is no clear standardisation, there seems to be a short version and a long one. Unfortunately, other than saying all these were used at the same time, there is nothing on how they were used.

[Duncan Head]

Out of period, but pike length famously played a part at Benburb (1646):

The British officer whose account of O'Neill's speech as given in History of the Wars in Ireland has been quoted, attributes the defeat of the Scots primarily to over-confidence, and also to the fact that the soldiers were wearied by their long march from Lisburn, having had but little rest or refreshment on the way, and having had to stand to their arms for at least five hours. To these he adds another reason, the shortness of the Scottish pike. "The Irish pikes", he says, "were longer by a foot or two, and far better to pierce, being four square and small, and the other pikes broad-headed, which are the worst in the world."

https://electricscotland.com/history/ulster/vol3chap10.htm

[Erpingham]

I've had a look for sources of the long Italian pikes. It is difficult to pin down a contemporary source but the military innovator Vitellozzo Vitelli is said to have armed his men with pikes 70cm longer than landsknechts in 1497. He seems to have got the idea from service with the French. With these men, he defeated Borgia landsknechts at Soriano in January.  The innovation is also attributed to Pietro Monte at the battle of Cadore (or Rio Secco) in March 1508. Monte apparently gave his men pikes 60cm longer than the opposing landsknechts. Again, the landsknechts lost.

[DBS]

Those were the two primary incidents that triggered my original question.

[Erpingham]

From what I can tell of the two battles, the longer pikes were noted but it isn't clear they were the sole contributor to victory.  Certainly, at Cadore, the Habsburgs were under attack by cavalry, infantry and artillery on the flanks as well as engaged with Venetian pikes to the front.

[Martin Smith]

Maybe the psychological effect of being told you have 'a longer weapon' than the previously feared enemy helped in making the pikemen more determined and sure of victory? (As inferred by previous posts...not a physical advantage, as such).

[Mark G]

Just on the two length pike orders - would that indicate the formations operated in paired ranks with tips at the same point when levelled?  Second rank covering the first when thrusting?

[Erpingham]

Looking again at Cadore, I went back to Pietro Monte's tactic for defeating Germans which started the older pike thread I referenced. This must have been written around the time of Cadore, as Monte was killed the following year, though whether after or before is impossible to ascertain. In the passage, Monte refers to having some men equipped with longer lances than the Germans. These were to be particularly useful if the German's adopted a defensive, close order stance with crossed pikes.