I knew he had an eclecitic mix but it seems he combined Pikes and Longbow in the same unit - according to the Osprey anyway.
Any ideas on how they operated?
badly in history ... real well under most rules that-over power longbows.
Think I recall hearing that they were English mercenaries.
the thing to keep in mind is the era. its right at the tail end of the 100YW and at the dawn of the Kiel era, so its entirely unsurprising that he was trying out all of the best bits from 'then and now' as it were.
hence also all the gunpowder weapons.
Here is the original instruction
In like manner the archers with their horses, to get them
used to dismounting and drawing their bows. They must learn
how to attach their horses together by their bridles and make
them walk forward directly behind them, attaching the horses of
three archers by their bridles to the saddlebow of the page to
whose man—at—arms they belong; also to march briskly for-
wards and to shoot without breaking rank.
The pikemen must be made to advance in close formation in
front of the said archers, kneel at a sign from them, holding
their pikes lowered to the level of a horse's back so that the
archers can shoot over the said pikemen as if over a wall... The
archers must also learn to place themselves back to back in dou-
ble defence, or in a square or a circle, always with the pikemen
outside them to withstand the charge of the enemy horse, and
their horses with the pages enclosed in their midst.
Ordnance of St Maximin de Trèves, October 1473
Thanks - that is a formation that I have never seen on a wargames table 8)
Quote from: Dave Knight on March 29, 2021, 01:42:13 PM
Thanks - that is a formation that I have never seen on a wargames table 8)
And possibly not on a battlefield either - its not explicitly recorded anywhere, I think.
As Mark says, context is all. It looks odd to us because we are used to the "pikes and sleeves of shot" model but this was actually evolving alongside and its superiority hadn't been demonstrated.
If you think about it, the Burgundians had used English tactics of giving archers stakes but it is cumbersome if your plan is to manouever and use your archers in a less static way. So using pikes (which they have available) as mobile stakes makes sense to try.
loved painting my army of Charles the Bold back way back when. Its those pesky red x's that used to make me cross-eyed. Never won a battle with them but Charles himself wasnt that successful either
IMnsHO that is the best reason for doing a Burgundian army,
Painting those Blackburn Rovers tops with the Red Cross.
Any other reason smacks of attempting a Seleucid style bit of everything army for the Middle Ages.
Well, that and insisting your opponent has a city deployed so you can play with the Burgundians at the Gates
Quote from: Erpingham on March 29, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
Here is the original instruction
In like manner the archers with their horses, to get them
used to dismounting and drawing their bows. They must learn
how to attach their horses together by their bridles and make
them walk forward directly behind them, attaching the horses of
three archers by their bridles to the saddlebow of the page to
whose man—at—arms they belong; also to march briskly for-
wards and to shoot without breaking rank.
The pikemen must be made to advance in close formation in
front of the said archers, kneel at a sign from them, holding
their pikes lowered to the level of a horse's back so that the
archers can shoot over the said pikemen as if over a wall... The
archers must also learn to place themselves back to back in dou-
ble defence, or in a square or a circle, always with the pikemen
outside them to withstand the charge of the enemy horse, and
their horses with the pages enclosed in their midst.
Ordnance of St Maximin de Trèves, October 1473
Not my period, but that does seem - to my mind at least - to beg the question of depth of the pike formation. Two to four ranks, seems plausible. More, less so. It is not that I am suggesting a competent archer could not physically shoot over eight or sixteen ranks of suitably crouched chaps, but it does seem counter intuitive. Also, unless one dismisses this all as a drill manual fantasy, it would seem to require a lot more pikes than archers.
Quote from: DBS on March 30, 2021, 08:07:43 PM
Not my period, but that does seem - to my mind at least - to beg the question of depth of the pike formation. Two to four ranks, seems plausible. More, less so. It is not that I am suggesting a competent archer could not physically shoot over eight or sixteen ranks of suitably crouched chaps, but it does seem counter intuitive. Also, unless one dismisses this all as a drill manual fantasy, it would seem to require a lot more pikes than archers.
I suspect you are not imagining this formation correctly. The number of pikemen isn't given in the 1473 ordonnance - in fact it doesn't talk about the infantry of the companies at all in numerical terms. In the 1471 Ordonnance, there was one pikeman per lance. In the 1472 ordonnance, the overall proportion was 2 pikemen to 3 mounted archers and one foot archer. So its likely that the archers outnumbered the pikemen two or three to one.
The ranks of pikemen are therefore likely to be very thin - one or two ranks - with several ranks of archers behind. Overall, these are going to be linear formations, not deep blocks.
It is thus within a group of very respectable pedigree;
Persian Sparabara.
Aririan against the Alans
Vegetius
The Strategikon and several Byzantine manuals
Even, sort of, the Anglo Normans at the
Richard the Lionheart at Jaffa.. l suggest that it works against cavalry and static infantry, but is not well suited to a massed , aggressive infantry that runs at it.
Incidentally doesn't Verbruggen have a plan of a combined pike/ archer formation for Charles which shows them interspersed together in a line.
Charles was a military innovator and clearly trying to solve the conundrum of deploying missiles and shock troops in the same unit. He was just 100 years ahead of his time.
Does it mention how long the pikes are?
After a certain length to only work when standing up.
And I think we have previously established that longbows, while capable of high angle arching shots, are pretty much rendered useless as a penetration weapon by them once the level of armour is raised, so by this period they are a short range flat trajectory weapon.
It all sounds like the sort of innovative wheeze that never got put to the test to me. So far ahead of its time it couldn't work with the kit they had.
Besides, if you gamed with a combination pike and longbow formation, it's going to be pretty damn deadly using existing pike rules and longbow rules. And you'd need a single unit special rule to do it any other way - for which your only evidence to base the rule on is ... not much more than the medieval version of the Daphne parade
Quote from: Mark G on March 31, 2021, 12:42:18 PM
Does it mention how long the pikes are?
"In comparison, the prescribed pike length for the Burgundian troops in 1473 was 14 and 16 feet,"
- http://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-14th-century-pike-and-its.html
Not sure where in the ordonnances that comes from, though.
QuoteBesides, if you gamed with a combination pike and longbow formation, it's going to be pretty damn deadly using existing pike rules and longbow rules. And you'd need a single unit special rule to do it any other way - for which your only evidence to base the rule on is ... not much more than the medieval version of the Daphne parade
A harsh comparison, since it is in the ordonnance - the army's formal, established, written regulations. No reason to believe that the formation was not trained and practiced as the ordonnance requires. No-one seems to doubt what the same ordonnance says about the organisation and training of the men-at-arms, for instance.
(Full text of the ordonnance (http://legioburgundiae.unblog.fr/2006/08/23/ordonnance-de-st-maximin-de-treves-octobre-1473/) here.)
There is comparison evidence in the prints of Master WA which show a mixed body of "pikes" and archers; but they are probably earlier - pre-ordonnance - and show bows in front of "pikes", and the pikes are shorter; it's more like the English "bow with a bill at his back". But it does at least establish a Burgundian tradition of mixing bows with close-quarter weapons.
I don't see why existing pike and bow rules should have any trouble representing it, unless the existing rules hugely overrate the effectiveness of a single rank of pikemen.
QuoteDoes it mention how long the pikes are?
No. Some of the ordonnances go into detail on armour but less on weapons. I think Verbruggen did some work on pike supplies to urban militias in the 1470s and showed they were getting longer - from about 14 feet up to 18 feet. Interestingly they were buying batches of 14, 16 and 18 ft at about the same time, so exact length may not have been that important.
On Roy's point, the emphasis in this formation is clearly in its anti-cavalry potential.
Thinking about the origins of the technique, this ordonnance is the one where Italian influence comes to the fore. Is this experiment influenced by Italian
lanze longhe tactics?
(https://legaitalica1454.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/hesperis-arsenal-folio-112-verso-assedio-della-torre-di-vada-dettaglio-lanze-longhe.jpg?w=640)
That is such a cool picture. Don't fancy the job of the chap with the handgunners behind him.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on March 31, 2021, 03:01:48 PM
That is such a cool picture. Don't fancy the job of the chap with the handgunners behind him.
Roy
Its from a work by Basinio de Basini from 1457
http://warfare.gq/15/Bodley-Hesperides.htm
It is full of these lovely little sketches showing skirmishes, camp scenes and naval activities.
Duncan,
That was an interesting link (Deventer Burgerscap).
At the same page, on the right are a list of Labels, the one 'Militair en Politiek' offers more related medieval topics.
Of interest to some is 'The Push of Pike In The 14th Century' and under older topics (bottom of page) 'Wat Zijn Landweren?',
And also http://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-pikey-wisby-project-phase-1.html which has a bit of pike-training re-enactment; unfortunately nothing to indicate that the "pikey wisby project" went any further, and nothing new on the blog since early 2018.
Having double checked my Verbruggen source, I need to do a minor correction.
Pikes were being bought in lengths of 13 to 20 ft. This was in 1477 and, he believes, reflects a desire to modernise arsenals after the experience of fighting the Swiss, who used longer pikes. So 13-16ft is a good guess for 1473.
He also says,
inter alia, there were 2,200 pikemen in the 1473 army, though he is referring to secondary studies not contemporary records.
QuoteThere is comparison evidence in the prints of Master WA which show a mixed body of "pikes" and archers;
It is open to question what this represents. The archers are clearly mounted archers, given their riding boots and spurs. The short weapons and love of helmet decorations suggest to me the second rank men could be dismounted coustilliers. Unfortunately, we can't see their legs and feet to check for long boots or spurs.
It seems Deventer Burgerscap migrated from blog to Facebook, however, October 2020 is the last entry.
Great photo collection at FB.
Quote from: Erpingham on March 31, 2021, 09:32:30 AM
Quote from: DBS on March 30, 2021, 08:07:43 PM
Not my period, but that does seem - to my mind at least - to beg the question of depth of the pike formation. Two to four ranks, seems plausible. More, less so. It is not that I am suggesting a competent archer could not physically shoot over eight or sixteen ranks of suitably crouched chaps, but it does seem counter intuitive. Also, unless one dismisses this all as a drill manual fantasy, it would seem to require a lot more pikes than archers.
I suspect you are not imagining this formation correctly. The number of pikemen isn't given in the 1473 ordonnance - in fact it doesn't talk about the infantry of the companies at all in numerical terms. In the 1471 Ordonnance, there was one pikeman per lance. In the 1472 ordonnance, the overall proportion was 2 pikemen to 3 mounted archers and one foot archer. So its likely that the archers outnumbered the pikemen two or three to one.
The ranks of pikemen are therefore likely to be very thin - one or two ranks - with several ranks of archers behind. Overall, these are going to be linear formations, not deep blocks.
Actually, that was precisely the point I was trying to make - I could believe this much more readily as a shallow line.
In fact, the ancient comparison that struck me was the reported experimental Alexandrian phalanx - sparabara with sarissa phalangites to be crude...
A single rank of men with very very very long sticks, which may very likely be expected to be spaced far enough apart for a longbowman to move through - if not shoot through even - does not sound like an effective anti anything tactic to me.
When has one rank of close formed pikes ever been successful?
I'm well past skepticism on this, it screams out "ludicrous" to me.
Quote from: Mark G on April 01, 2021, 07:12:44 AM
When has one rank of close formed pikes ever been successful?
Pike and shot battalions were sometimes "fraised", ie had their pikes distributed along their entire width instead of concentrated in the centre. This might amount to a single rank of pike as the proportion of pikes fell, and acc'd Nosworthy such formations were effective enough at repelling cavalry; they were abandoned because of poor manoeuvrability.
The circles of foot spear into which knights retired for protection at Bouvibes were, I think, only two ranks deep. Richard 1 at Jaffa deters cavalry with only a single rank of spear, In Arab tactics doesn't tge infantry formation have only two ranks of spear backed by missilemen. I suppose it depends upon how determined tge attacking and defending units are. A close order spearwall with two ranks will present four spearpoints to the breast of each horse and four archers shooting on the same frontage would provide a considerable deterrent. It becomes a matter of confidence in your fellows and nerve.
Roy
Sorry Andreas, but you are talking about much shorter weapons - the sort of pike that can have one end planted under a foot and still project at a horses head height.
And it's defended by gunmen able to pack much closer together.
This proposal is for huge pike lengths, which must offer the space for a long bowman to operate behind - and as we established before, that involves quite a bit of working room.
It's not a matter of will, it's an impossibility.
Long pikes only work by a solid array of multiple points close together making it impossible to brush past. They generally also need a roof array to offer some degree of plunging missile protection too.
Shorter pikes (long spears even) can work as a buttress to the main missile weapon behind them. But not long pikes, and absolutely not in a single row with lateral space.
Quote from: Mark G on April 01, 2021, 01:53:59 PM
Sorry Andreas, but you are talking about much shorter weapons - the sort of pike that can have one end planted under a foot and still project at a horses head height.
And it's defended by gunmen able to pack much closer together.
I don't know that 14' pikes (typical length in the French army in the mid-17C, when fraising was officially prohibited as injurious to manoeuvrability) are that much shorter than the 13'-16' ones Anthony speaks about for the Burgundians.
Also, gunmen with matchlocks are well adviced not pack too close together.
Quote from: Mark G on April 01, 2021, 01:53:59 PM
Sorry Andreas, but you are talking about much shorter weapons - the sort of pike that can have one end planted under a foot and still project at a horses head height.
...
This proposal is for huge pike lengths,
No, it isn't. Remember that we don't actually know for certain that the 14-16 feet cited by deventer burgerscap was correct for the pikes of the ordonnance pikemen, since they don't cite a source; and in any case that's not "huge", as pikes go.
The regulation requires the pikemen to plant one knee on the ground, and to level the pike at the height of the horse's saddle ("
ils habitueront les piquenaires à mettre genou en terre au signal, en tenant leurs piques baissées à la hauteur des arçons des chevaux, afin que les archers puissent tirer par dessus eux comme derrière un mur"). It follows, therefore, that the pikes must have been of such a length that would permit this arrangement.
The pictures and video at the deventer "pikey wisby" link show pikes of about fourteen feet braced at close to horse-head height, and that's with the pikemen crouching as prescribed by their 17th-century drill-master, not as the ordonnance requires, kneeling on one knee - and hence, lower. I suspect your geometrical assumptions are faulty.
We did a playtest which had the pike/bow formation with artlllery support against a Swiss Pike block in the centre of the battlefield. We were developing the rules as we went along, based in part on our Wars of the Roses set, and it ended up as an entertaining game.
The result was actually quite close because of missile casualties (largely from the artillery) inflicted on the Swiss and some damage done to them by the Burgundian men at arms but once contact was made the pike/bow combo stood little chance.
One thing that history shows is that relying on shooting to stop a rampaging Swiss pike formation was futile. Burgundian artillery couldn't stop them at Murten nor French artillery at Novara. If you could stop them - use cavalry for example or a field fortification - then pile on the fire you had a chance. Even then, they usually managed to withdraw.
I ont think the Burgundians will win regularly against the Swiss but in a wargame both sides have to have some chance
The Burgundians did use a mixed formation of bows and pikes in the field, not just in training, at Neuss in 1475:
QuoteDeployment of the first battle
In the first battle [we posted] all the infantry, pikemen of our ordinance, and the English archers both of Messire Jehan Middleton's company and of our household and guard, together with the infantry belonging to [the companies of] the lords of Fiennes, Roeux, Céquy, Haines, and Peene and other enfeoffed lords. [Among] all these pikemen were intermingled the archers in groups of four, so that there was a pikeman between every group of archers.
Order of march, river-crossing
After these battles had been organized in this way a certain amount of time elapsed, more than was necessary, because the companies did not arrive soon enough at their appointed places. Nevertheless, regardless of the time, we crossed the said river at a ford which was not too deep, firm with a good bottom and, because of the narrowness of the said ford, we made the reserve of the right wing of the first battle march across it in files, the men-at-arms with their coustilliers and pages on their right and likewise in file after them went the right wing and all the archers and pikemen of this wing. Then followed the archers and pikemen of the left wing and, after the wing, its reserve, and, in just the same way, the second battle crossed, the reserve of the right wing followed by the wing , the archers of the same wing, and all the rest of the second battle in similar order to the first.
Jean de Wavrin also describes the Flemish pikemen as being deployed between two archers to deter cavalry attacks in 1471.
These pikes make very convenient poles for placing a spike between two archers against the terrifying efforts of cavalry trying to break their ranks, for there is no horse which if struck in the chest with a pike will not unfailingly die. These pikemen can also approach and attack horsemen from the side and pierce them right through ...
What seems clear that this mixed model of archers with added pike support was tried in the Burgundian army in various forms over a period of years.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 01, 2021, 04:13:26 PM
One thing that history shows is that relying on shooting to stop a rampaging Swiss pike formation was futile. Burgundian artillery couldn't stop them at Murten nor French artillery at Novara. If you could stop them - use cavalry for example or a field fortification - then pile on the fire you had a chance. Even then, they usually managed to withdraw.
Yeah, but at Murten the Burgundian pike and longbows were all off collecting their pay when the Swiss rocked up. Even then, the Swiss had to find a weak spot at the end of the fortifications to break into the Burgundian lines.
Quote from: NickHarbud on April 02, 2021, 01:32:30 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on April 01, 2021, 04:13:26 PM
One thing that history shows is that relying on shooting to stop a rampaging Swiss pike formation was futile. Burgundian artillery couldn't stop them at Murten nor French artillery at Novara. If you could stop them - use cavalry for example or a field fortification - then pile on the fire you had a chance. Even then, they usually managed to withdraw.
Yeah, but at Murten the Burgundian pike and longbows were all off collecting their pay when the Swiss rocked up. Even then, the Swiss had to find a weak spot at the end of the fortifications to break into the Burgundian lines.
"If you could stop them - use for example .... a field fortification" If the Burgundian fortifications were fully manned, things may have been different. However, the Burgundian artillery couldn't stop the advance of the Swiss Vorhut and the Vorhut's advance screened the Gewalthaufen which meant they hit the weakly manned defences intact. Whether the combined bows and pikes of the Burgundians would have been able to hold is one of those "what ifs". Judging from later Italian Wars experience, counter attacking forces behind the fortification may have been needed to stop a Swiss breakthrough and it isn't clear (to me at least) whether these were in Charles' plan.
Thanks for all the input.
I have been struggling to find much in English beyond the Ospreys
Dave,
you mentioned you were trying rules for this formation (or abomination) as you went.
what were you trying out ?
a slightly better defensive rating for an otherwise normal longbow unit, or a full swiss pike kiel with (overpowered) long range missile capability?
Given the number of folk here who think its a viable formation, I guess I'd be inclined to tolerate it if the pikes were treated as something not dissimilar to stakes - but at a cost to missile effect.
which approach(s) were you trying?
QuoteGiven the number of folk here who think its a viable formation
Primarily on the basis of the number of mentions of versions of it at different times and places. I do wonder how it worked. Mounted archers and infantry pikemen in one formation.
QuoteI guess I'd be inclined to tolerate it if the pikes were treated as something not dissimilar to stakes - but at a cost to missile effect.
That's how I'd approach it. Not sure about making the archery less effective, though.
Well if you lose a third of your front row archers, I think that must show a detriment
First pass we are trying a mixed unit. We have kept the Longbows as in our Wars of the Roses rules and as such they are not as effective as in most sets and the Swiss Pike Blocks can take a lot of punishment. Unless the Swiss have already been significantly weakened the Pike element is not likely to do serious damage.
One of the joys of period specific rules is that you don't have to worry about non historical interactions so although the bow/pike combo might seem overpowered it really isn't when compared to the Swiss.
So it's not an embellished bow unit, it's a Kiel with missile capability?
From a third of one rank with pikes?
The first thing to say is that we have only played one game so far so it is all very speculative at the moment :)
The figures we are using are in 2 ranks on a 60mm wide base so for starters we had 2 bases per unit 1 of Pike and one of Bow. A two base unit, or company as we call them, is standard in our Wars of the Roses rules.
In contrast the Swiss are in 9s, 3 x 3.
In the game we gave the Burgundians considerable artillery support
No doubt if we continue with this project there will be a number of twists and turns along the way in terms of formations 8)
Thanks to Mark of the suggestion of the Burgundian Army book fromm Freezywater Publications
I have found an article on the Swabain War which is also of interest
It was sent to me as a PDF but should be available as below
Winkler, Albert (2020) "The Swiss in the Swabian War of 1499: An Analysis of the Swiss Military at the End of the Fifteenth Century," Swiss American Historical Society Review: Vol. 56 : No. 3 , Article 4. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/sahs_review/vol56/iss3/4
Thanks for that Dave. You might also like this Albert Winkler article:
The Battle of Murten: The Invasion of Charles the Bold and the Survival of the Swiss States
(https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/facpub/1804/)
There is a nice eyewitness account of the effect of artillery on the Swiss at Murten quoted in there.
Very useful - thanks
Thanks for the Swabian Wars article. Not one there is a lot about in English. One of the things I love about Swiss is their failure to read the bit in the rules where it says pike formation can't move through woods. :)
I'd not read about the battle of Calven before, which is surprising for such a sizeable action. A lot in there for Nick Harbud's study of the role of field fortifications in Late Medieval warfare, I thought.
Pretty much all new to me as well.
I remember an article in The Slingshot back in the mid 70s where the author experimented using WRG 3rd Ed. rules to recreate the experimental mixed archer/pike phalanx of Alexander the Great. If I remember correctly, the mixed phalanx was effective against most other infantry units but was a failure against a full pike unit (no surprise). Perhaps someone can located the article on the Slingshot CD archive. :)