Very interesting video, especially because these historical soldiers were human beings, just like us. Of course they were probably much tougher than us, but were still probably almost as likely to wet their pants as I would be if I was in the front row and a wall of pikes was coming towards me and there's basically no way I'm going to avoid a horribly painful screaming death.
I read some books on military history and they describe battles where armored cavalery was charging pikemen. The point is that pikemen were often peasants with fairly low morale, and as soon as the first pikemen had started fleeing the entire army would be defenceless. (And the pikemen knew that very well) - But I believe that these battles took place before the rise of hand guns.
@anotherelvis If you can intimidate the opposition into running away, you need never engage them at all. Yes, a massive formation of fierce-looking men on big horses thundering towards you was very intimidating. Once a pike formation was broken, it was very vulnerable.
but, as i mentioned earlier, the laborious and grim 'push of pikes' was a well documeted phenomenon of the renaissance,
there was actually a phrase 'bad war' which summed up the feelings about warfare and the changes to it, a feeling that started with situations like agincourt where the common longbowmen, instead of ransoming, killed off the french nights.
it was seen as an 'end of an era' and there was a feeling of shock regarding the slaughter that occured when pikeblocks met in battle.
@lindybeige i was more responding to your point that they wouldnt have pushed into each other because it would have ben carnage..
im saying that that this carnage was actually typical of pike vs pike engagements during the renaissance,
and its worth noting that the spanish rodeleros didnt have a much easier time against pikes either
and more careful analysis of the use of zweihanders shows that they wouldnt have been as useful in breaking up pike formations as was initially thought.
im gonna echo darktiggers point, one notable phenomanon that is considered essential to the renaissance warfare, is the famouse concept of 'push of pike' particularly the swiss who had an idea similar to the nappoleonic french 'attack columns' the swiss had deep columns of men that simply went in one direction and steamrolled everything they met, they had a much lower percentage of ranged troops compared to the spaniards and germans etc but the renaissance was really known for these gory clashes
As for cavlary vs pikemen, check up deeds of Polish winged Hussars :) They pretty muched chargd and massacred everything no matter what they had. Pikes, guns, sabres, cheese... whatever.
@YuriPRIME Pikes would likely stop or kill them. The Hussars were great cavalrymen against any other cavalry or firearm formation. But horses tends not to like running into long pointy stuff..
Lindy, in another video you argued against a statement made along the lines of 'he with the longest pike won'. This has vexed me for several months... can you explain your point further? (no pun intended)
@OzClawhammer There are circumstances in which long reach is an advantage, and circumstances in which it is a drawback. If longer reach were always an advantage, everyone would have made the longest weapons that they could lift. The Romans did awfully well with short swords. If you have a pike, and I get to within shortsword range of you, your pike is useless.
Have you ever seen the movie Alatriste? I would think the actual fights may have happened similarly, where some front row men would try to go underneath the other side's pikes to the men.
Do you know of the 1632 series of novels published by Baen Books? And if so do you have any thoughts on their depiction of combat in the titular period.
I'd say that pikemen would engage in close combat with each other...but for very short periods of time (the confidence and running away bit in the video basically). Pikemen are still wearing some fairly substantian armour in this period (thought not all of them) I think it really would be a test of who as the strongest moral. Though looking at battlefield evidence from the period, there are a hell of a lot of 'trample' injuries.
There was a cavalry in XVI and XVII century, that was cutting down dense pike-musket formations of (some say best in the world at the time) Swedish infantry by a FRONTAL charge. Example: Battle of Kircholm. You disregard, or simply don't know about formation of winged hussars, which during the battle of Kluszyn charged 44000 infantry in multiple frontal charges, and won? To all who are interested- there were ONLY 2.500 hussar cavalrymen present.
@JesiennyDeszcz I have been to the museums in Poland and seen the winged hussar armours, and have often seen these warriors depicted on the wargaming table. Even these elite, though, would not choose to charge steady formed-up pikes head-on when there were other options.
@lindybeige On the contrary- that was the basic tactic, which proved extremely successful, mainly because for pikemen it was so obvious that no-one would ever try. Three things alowed husars to win- one was very good armour, second (the most important) their lances were around 6m long, while most of pikes were shorter (lances were hollow inside). Third was a bit upsetting- they agreed with death of their horse. Dead under Kircholm: 65 hussars and 8000 sweeds
@lindybeige The charge was their favourite strategy. The lances they used could reach up to 20 feet in length for the express purpose of overreaching infantry pikes. They had supply wagons full of lances they could charge several times, even with the lances breaking.
@lindybeige Kircholm and Kłuszyn are examples on how this cavalry could charge a block of pikemen and get very slight losses. How? It was about their lances, chivalry and pride. Retreat was not an option, they were high nobles, so they just had to win with poor infantry. And they did so. Army of Carl Gustav X expected double pay if they were supposed to fight Hussars. (And yet still, they were deserting a lot) So in fact, there was a way for cavalry to beat pikemen.
@JesiennyDeszcz At the battle of Kircholm, the hussars won by chasing off the flanks and executing an envelopment. At Kluszyn, the Russians broke because they thought their allies were deserting. In both battles, the hussars did what cavalry always do to broken or routing footmen: massacre.
I love the way You talk about history- in my opinion, if every teacher was as interesting as You are, no kids would ever consider history boring.
However, You seem to share a common flaw of all people from "western europe" which is complete historical disregard for everything happening east of german Reich.
@JesiennyDeszcz Thanks. I talk mainly as most people do - about the familiar. People tend to be more interested in the history that led to their world. Britain was little affected by what was east of the Germans.
I suppose it could be like those line-battles of musketeers showing off their strength by standing ground, but with pikes. Also, pike agaisnt pike is highly uneccesary , unless both sides lack in missiles or artillery.
I've heard that pikemen's role was more or less to shove the enemy of the battlefield while musketeers, cavalry and artillery did the real damage. Can't remember the source though!
as far as i know, the thirst ranks were often armed with a helm and a halfplate (dont know if it is the right word, protects torso and upper legs) so they dont get killed that fast
the front ranks couldent flee that easy as the rear ranks usually could not see what happened before them and pushed the whole formation forward
in the end, it shall hapend often, that the front ranks battelt echother with knifes an the ground
For people wanting some accurate footage on this warfare look for the Battle of Rocroi form the movie Alistriste here on Youtube. Probably the most accurate depiction on Pikeman warfare.
You seem to be under the impression that everything about fighting i supposed to be logical. Firsltly, we are ofcourse talking about a period when most of the troops shat themselves to death before they even saw combat. Secondly, did the kings and other commanders really care about the lives of their troops? Many of them were mercenaries, and if they did not obey orders they were decimated (10% executed). Not quite what I would call a respect for human life.
@lindybeige Then again, infantry assaulting a machine gun nest weigs perhaps even more heavily against human nature, yet it wasn't really uncommon in for example ww2. What is the infantryman going to do? Refuse to advance and hope to go home?
In my view, Pikemen were a cheap and fairly effective form of organized troops. If a commander thinks it necessary and that he has some gain in pitting them against other pikemen, he generally did not have second thoughts about it.
I'm no expert on Renaissance warfare, but I saw an interesting drawing by Hans Holbein from c.1530 showing Swiss pikemen in melee combat. The first ranks on both sides were engaged in hand to hand combat with swords, axes, polearms and daggers, but the other ranks seemed to be holding their pikes above the heads of the front ranks - trying to get at the second and third ranks on the opposing side. This is how they might have done it, but then again I could have misinterpretated the picture.
@Aetius114 Yes, there were occasions when close melee occurred, and of course painters found this subject much more lucrative to paint than scenes of scared men in a stand-off.
@lindybeige You and Aetius are both right. In the initial clash, both front ranks would engage with pikes charged straight ahead, trying for a devastating first strike. As the pikes meshed, parrying and binding would drive the points upward. There, you have a choice between keeping your pike and participating in a shoving match (doing your bit to keep the other side's pikes and poleaxes in check) or drawing your bar mace/falchion/whatever and going to town. Rear ranks still had pike range.
@lindybeige Though, now that I think about it, if the second or third rank's pikes were charged in the reverse grip (angled high to low), they could maintain the front ranks' effective pike-thrusting range by making the below-the-waist zone too dense with points to advance into. By and large, though, I'm inclined to agree that in the pike-and-shot period, pikemen mostly protected gunners from cavalry.
Well there were a few examples of pike blocks actually closing and fighting each other. They were rare, and when they did happen they were typically astoundingly bloody affairs like the Battle of Ceresole in 1544 where a bunch of Landsknechts and Swiss got smashed together in the center of the battlefield.
Interestingly enough the same battle showed the effectiveness of a well timed cavalry charge into a pike block that is already engaged.
The use of pikes as a standoff tool certainly fits with most accounts that I'm aware of. Slightly earlier examples of pike usage in the 16th century make frequent mention of close support detachments to pike blocks, such as small units of gunners, halberdiers, and even the famous greatsword wielding doppensoldners of the landscknecht. This sits well with the idea of pike blocks simply squaring off and intimidate, not really charging or engaging, while detachments skirmish and demoralize.
so heres how i figure it, the pikemen must have been sort of like big spike traps, forcing cavalrymen to try their luck and attack them, possibly by using artillery fire.
why do they not have shields and pikes and plate armors ? It is like putting army in Iraq and not giving them body armors , and no one have a process to improve protection of soldiers , and march large number of them in close proximity .
@papaburger Because musket balls shot straight through plate. In this period the breastplates were getting much thicker and heavier to try and offer some protection. But then you couldn't armour yourself with full plate that thick and heavy, and still walk fast enough to be anything but a big target for the muskets. And you must keep up with the unarmored muskets, that's your job to protect them. Besides only knights could afford full plate.
@papaburger I'm sure the swiss invasions where slightly earlier period, and wore 1/2 or 3/4 plate? Also 1/2 to 3/4 of the swiss pike formations were pole-arms, which can fight melee effectively, both offensively and defensively..
Simple solution... That's why portuguese Terços had haleberdiers and two handed sword units included in the pike formation. Before engaging they would go around them and it would be like cutting through butter
@mwangolatrue Yes, but what if he stabs you in the leg or the arm or the neck or most likely the face. Even a double payed merc. couldn't afford armor to protect against all threats. Even tho armor was more affordable by this time, a full harness was still reserved for the wealthy. We would love to think it was like phalanx warfare, but it wasn't the anvil for the calvary to hammer the enemy into. It is more likely you'd waste a valued unit trying to recreate that on the "modern Battlefield".
@lindybeige Actually the Polish Hussars and French Gendarmes were able to smash up infantry formations with a pretty good degree of regularity throughout the 17th century. Check out the battle of Klushino 1610 for a pretty good example of where the Poles repeatedly charged Russian lines to break them.
in "Alatriste" the end battle is between two pike formations (ok, YES it IS a movie.. but hey...). they dont really use the pikes to fight, the pikes just keep the enemy lines at a distance and are used to push up the enemy pikes, so some guys can move UNDER the pikes and mow down the helpless enemy soldiers.
watch?v=26C758K4Fc0
but all in all i guess pike vs pike is not a smart idea. (on the other hand, standing in a row, 20 paces away from the enemy and wait to be shot isnt smart too...)
the greeks wanted to be at the front and to the right since that part of the phalax for some reason was the most honerable position and the front right was usually the strongest as well. The greeks desided unanomisly that theyd rather win a war in a desisive battle and get it over with instead of using up resorces and people (who could have been doing something more usefull for the econimy) in a siege which could have lasted a long time
The man on the first position of the front rank was the one least protected by the formation, since he was in the rank nearest the enemy and did not have a man with a shield to his right protecting him with the left edge of said shield. In keeping with the generally machismo nature of ancient Greek military thought(f.e. the idea that the very useful skirmisher was somehow unmanly), the man first of foot and right of line probably would have been thought very brave.
What you say makes a lot of sense, but I've heard historians saying they have accounts of people from the earlier years of Pike & Shot warfare saying that some pike on pike combat did happen, with predictably horrific results. The chronicallers of the time often refering to the ensuing slaughter as "dirty war". I think it might have happened due to some group Landsknechts say, being advanced upon by the swiss and figuring, "Hey, we can't just always run from these guys or they will keep doing it
@FakeKraid Oh yes, in war things sometimes go very wrong. If both pike formations believe that their only choice is to press on with an attack, or that they are bound to win...
There are a couple of things that make me think pikes did see some pike on pike action - at least enough to prepare for it. The first is hanging up on my wall right now. My first sword in what hopes to be a collection some day is a landsknecht "zweihander", and almost every source on the sword indicates it was used in conjunction with pike formations to circumcise the enemy's pikes so to speak - lop the heads off. Combined with a Katzbalger designed for the melee pigpile, and it makes me wonder.
@FakeKraid I think he is right other than the fact that they Never clashed. Like you said we have acounts of pike blocks fighting. May I suggest my theory, they did clash and one row of men (usualy who ever was better trained or had the longer pikes) killed the other front row of men. Seeing this the rest of the pike block would flee. Just a theory. :)
Some cavalary units did charge pikes head on, but there only few records of it. Winged Hussars used hollow lances placing them in sort of supporting socket on the saddle. these lances were actually longer than infantry pikes, so hussar could actually hit pikeman, basically throwing him back on his buddies thus breaking the spear wall. For reference: Battle of Kircholm.
technically, all troops are vulnerable to artillery.
as you said it, pikes were primarily a cavalry deterrent, so i doubt any smart commander would shove them into a hostile pike formation just because he can.
Thanks for this, thought. I'm currently writing an Extended-Project on warfare from 1400-1699 and the possiblity of the pikemen simply "seeing off" never occured. The classic "push of pike" did though, and there is a cross over in time between the Zweihander and the Pike; so it might be possible that the Zweihander was used to "break" stalemates should they enter the "tangle" - of course in a situation where one side simply advances they are completely useless.
The reason for employing pikes was probably just to counter enemy cavalary.The infrantry of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVI was entirely composed of musceteers while the oposing Swedish had 2:1 musket pike ratio.The reason was that manisty of Commonwealths army was composed of cavalary while the infrantry where the minority.The enemy calary charges coudl be countered
Maybe in some situations the pikes went up because some men were pushing opposing men's pikes up (to avoid being stabbed by them, naturally), and as more men engaged and pushed each others' pikes up, the formations closed on each other.
And oh, that argument only goes for the first five seconds of battle engagement. Then its' a mosh pit with sharp edges and about everything dirty trick you can use. See "Battle scene" by Hans Holbein the younger. But then again, as firearms improved, it more or less became as you say. And then they vanished completely. but until then, they trained to use their pikes. and by using, means thrusting, parrying, slashing, disarming, tripping, etc etc.
I think the first field artillery didn't come along until the seventeenth century when the Scots and Swedes starting putting boiled leather sheaths around dangerously thin gun barrels. Pikes would probably have been safe from artillery on a Renaissance battlefield provided it wasn't already aimed at them before the battle started.
i read that swiss pikemen held their opponents at distance while a few well trained warriors wit two handed swords opened up the enemy's ranks. forgot the source, though.
Hmm, great video. I assume you would fight with a Pike, much like a spear... Facing a lot of pikes coming at you, with not a lot in the way of protection, I think would make a lot of people run away rather quickly... But to stand around in the field, knowing there is no way you can chuck your pike at the people shooting at you has to make anyone rather scared, in my opinion. Great video. Good luck with more.
well, you have a good point. However, there are a couple of fencing manuals dealing with pike vs pike, such as Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Mair, and as mentioned here earlier, a good armour can help you a great deal. The artillery and muskets were for a very long time rather cumbersome weapons. They were heavy, not always precise, they took time to load, and had to cool off for some time not to explode in the wielders hand, and you have to have a fuse burning in order to fire your gun.
@Catachan1brainleaf A friend of mine modded the WAB rules, and was writing the book for 30YW. I seem to recall he ended up removing most of his rules mods, and instead got what he wanted from alterations to army lists. Not really my period, I'm afraid.
I'd guess they are to keep anyone from charging the muskets and artillery, since reloading guns and artillery took so long back then. also pikemen might beable to hold a line in a crouched positon to where muskets could shoot overhead. or inbetween men.
But i honestly wouldn't know anything to reference it to.
I found this clip from the movie Alatriste. It is the only movie I can think of that actually shows pike on pike combat. But it is a movie so it's credibility is questionable, however it does seem possible.
Eventually Push of Pike was used to refer to any standoff between pikemen but the best theory I've heard for the origin of the phrase is that pikes were, for the most part, too awkward and heavy to thrust through the metal and cloth armors in usage at the time. As the lines clashed pikes would get tangled in each other's gambesons and both sides would end up physically pushing on each other with leveled pikes creating an incredibly vicious fight despite relatively low casualties.
@HBOrrgg cont. . . Later on though commanders began to wise up and started ordering pikemen to thrust with pikes only once and if that was ineffective to close with shorter weapons.
You know, you make an excellent point; apparently it was the same with cavalry warfare (at least Napoleonic, and I dare say the horses didn't get more cowardly through history, so the rest as well). The cavalry NEVER clashed: horses might rarely hit into one another when charging, but usually they'd either stop or pass each other (when there was room). Usually, one formation would start the charge too soon, and would get disordered, then disheartened, and turn and flee...massive game of chicken.
@benofirefly Are there not some rather signifcant exceptions to that? The main one that comes to mind is the clash between Murat's and Bagration's cavalry at Heilsberg.
I don't know if anyone addressed this but you forget pike squares didn't have...just pikemen. You had halberdiers and zweihanders who's job was actually to smash the enemy pikes with their weapons and push through.
In your reenactment example I think people "died" based on set rules, not actually dying. "Oh the tip of the pike touched you, go sit on the sidelines now you are dead." Not a very accurate portrayal.
@Twycross No, these were not fighting according to rules, but as public display, or experimental archaeology.
Yes, in the early period there were sometimes other melee weapons in the blocks, but by the time of the ECW and 30 Years War these weapons had largely fallen out of use.,
@lindybeige Well sure they could fight as public display but you still have to figure out when a guy is out and when he is not right?
I'm pretty sure that even during the 30 years war, Halberds and the likes got even MORE popular as the actual pike block formations became thinner due to the improvements in artillery. I can't for the life of me imagine why I wouldn't keep my pike lowered if I saw an enemy pushing at me. Even if he raised his...sucks for him.
@Twycross It must have been a sort of mutual agreement.
If he lift his but you don't, his natural response is to lower them again! It takes about 2 seconds to do so. Now if you both lower the pike, and push, well, you both die. So if you want to live as well, then you better lift yours.
It's a prisoner dilemma, although if both defect, no one got the better stick.
But isn't it even more surprising when later in history, infantry were armed almost entirely with musket + the socket bayonet.
@Twycross I mean the bayonets were for repelling cavalry, right? But then why don't the cavalry use the long lance instead? Instead, you see cavalry used their puny sabers. Sure, They had to use pistols but you gotta realize that sixth century Byzantine cavalry men were trained to shoot the bow and use the lance. There were exceptions, the Poles for example.
I think it's a kind of mutual agreement. Cavalry uses the saber so the infantry uses the bayonet, raising the relative value of cavalry
@Twycross Yet considering pike-and-shot; the ratio of pike to shot actually goes down over time. It begins with may be 1 pike for 1 gun but in later times, it's 1 pike for 4 guns. Then it must be that pikes actions are rare and muskets gradually supplant them. Sure, train a pikemen take much longer than a musketeers.
@Twycross It's a prisoner dilemma or a game of chicken.
If he raise his pike, but you don't, his reaction would be to lower it back again. If you don't lift yours, he won't and everyone will die. Both sides I think would start lifting their pike far enough so that he can react if the other side don't lift, nor too close that one side can rush in.
In a way, it's like this: no matter what the other side do, you better NOT lift your pike. BUT if neither lift their pikes, everyone will die.
@Twycross I am going to guess that's why Swiss Pikemen never only ever carried pikes. While the pike is the main weapon after all, it certainly isn't the only weapon. Especially said of the Landsknechte (who had a fierce reputpation on their own).
Another reason the Swiss would do well, aside from reputation - or why they got their reputation in the first place - is that with other pikemen, the individual soldiers in a formation would stop short. If the Swiss do not hesitate, their pike block moves as one single solid mass.
What might happen is as two pike blocks approach each other, some pikemen hold back more than others, and it starts creating small gaps in the line that get exploited.
Also, if the front rank is well armoured, they could get pushed over by the mass of several pikes pushing against them but not penetrating their armour (maybe disrupting the pikes as they get up?).
Always when fighting in blocks formations the tricky bit is not upfront but at the end of the formation. I think the fhalanx, roman legion they all had rows of veterans in the last lines to prevent the formation from breaking from the hind.
First line guys simply had nowhere to hide so it was fight or fight for them.
During the wars of Italy Carlo V and François I had both swiss pikes and Landsknechts and i'm pretty sure they did come to fight piketopike
Psychology of troops in combat is the single most important factor. "The moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1."--Napoleon
The damage done to a pike formation by artillery was offset by the density of the formation. The question is this: can you get enough men together and get them across the field fast enough to minimize the damage artillery will do? How many shots will they get into your formation before you bulldoze them off the field? The artillery was inaccurate, to say the least.
its also worth noting that pikemen wwore armour. fairly good armour too,it was usually. brestplates, tassets, and a morion helmet.
id also imagine that both formations, like hoplites wouldnt simply press forwward until shoulder to shoulder, but sort of standoff and have a poking match.
also its worth remembering that many nations had special melee troops in the front ranks. the spanish had sword/shieldmen and the germans had the landscknects with their large zweihanders to chop at pikes
Contemporary images (drat, links not allowed) show most pike upright indeed. In others I have seen of Gewalthaufen clashing there is a mix of lowered, partially uprised and rised pikes. While pikemen did not have shields the classic outfit was the knechtischer Harnisch protecting the upper body and upper parts of the leg. Austria fielded Rondartschiers (round shielders) to deal with pikemen, esp. in the case of gridlocked pike formations.
@Segalmed Yes, the pikes would be upright almost all the time. It takes only a second or two to lower them, and they are much heavier to carry when lowered.
@lindybeige I was referring not to pictures general but to those of units in actual engagement (with other infantry). Btw, there are contemporary illustrated manuals about the proper use of the pike (what stance against what type of opposition) similar to those used for the instruction of fencers and musketeers.
Unfortunately, newsreels and training films seem not to have survived ;-)
(In a school history textbook of mine there was the question: Why are there no audiotapes form the stone age?)
Well there has been a lot of thought that has been given recently to the psychology of warfare and killing. One of the theories that has been discovered is that only about 2% of any given population is actually capable of killing their fellow humans without any qualms. I'd recommend the book "On Killing"...
With regards to pikes fighting other pikes, from what I have read (granted it was talking about duels) Giacomo di Grassi call it the "... AS among all other weapons, which are worn by the side, the single sword is the most honorable, as beeing such a one which is left capable of deceit of any other: So among the weapons of the Staffe, the Pike is the most plaine, most honorable, and most noble weapon of all the rest...", so if that is on interest I'd recommend Di Grassi's musings "Of the Pike".
It is actually very true that the pikes where used to stab at the enemy, but only if they (the side attacking) where heavily armored. if they weren't armored, they used the pikes as intimidation and did most of the fighting with swords.
There existed soldiers whose main job it was to break up the walls of pikeheads, so that the formation would not hold and the pikemen behind them could sweep away the disorganized mass - these are those doppelsoldners you were talking about; they used large two-handed swords and chopped their way into the pike block.
Interesting how you think early era skirmishes were fought by standing at an distance and Pike warfare would be close in your face. Movie Aletriste shows an interesting portrayal of Pike warfare with the formations stopping in Pike range and "dueling" with their pikes and people going around and between pikes to slash with sword etc. Think of Zweihanders which were ordered to disrupt pikes and Halbediers with pikes etc. Also Landsknechte had at a point 1/4 Muskets and rest pike. So pikes fought.
@Spartiatai300 aye i noticed that point as well. that everyone just dropped their pikewent for the knife and simply scuffled under the 'roof' of pikes.
Although in general just about any human being has a visceral dislike of coming into "shock" combat, wasn't Renaissance era pikemen (at least the double-paid front rankers) usually quite heavily armored, with half or three quarter harnische? I suspected that would make them quite a bit more willing to enter into close combat than bayonet-armed musketeers of later era, although occasions of pike blocks actually coming into close combat might be the exception rather than the norm.
@HaNsWiDjAjA i remember, personally reading how musketeers were consideredquite low in the english civil war and so went unarmoured,and yeah pikemans armour was , for the ren period germans, 3/4 armour and a burgonet. in english civil war, the helm was a morion type.
Artillery of the Renaissance as used by most armies were rather immobile and slow firing compared to say the Napoleonic era, and while it's true that they were murderously effective against pike blocks when the latter was caught in a vulnerable position (etc. Marignano, Biccoca, Rocroi) good infantry could usually outmaneuver them and made the gunners role less than decisive.
Antoine Henry Jomini, the famous Napoleonic era general, once remarked that he never actually witnessed fights between large bodies of troops in the open with bayonets, although during small skirmishes in woods and city streets cold steel clashes were fairly common. Even cavalry on cavalry fights of these era were more often than not decided without two opposing lines coming into blows, according to French cavalry officer Ardant du Piq.
A little bit of googling brings up the terms "push of pike " and the "bad war". I get the impression that it is something that's happened at least once, if it wasn't a common occurrence.
@JayCeeEss1337 Oh yes, I sure it happened _sometimes_, but it would be so horrendous that both sides would seek to avoid it. What if both sides considered themselves fearsome, but failed to recognise the other?
Now I know this is from a film (Alatriste) the pikes actually clash, and men get killed instantly , but they have musket guys in the unit also, standing in the front line, shooting, and then when danger comes, they get back behind or in the middle of the unit.. so well if you could maby tell me why, and if this movie hold any reality..
Very interesting, very interesting indeed, I hadn't considered this scenario before, strangely, you could almost say its as good for armored swordsmen to charge pikemen, all things considered. I do vastly agree however about the artillery idea, and once again, I'd like to buy you a beer sometime. Tell me do you teach somewhere, or rather what is it you do professionally with this much historical knowledge?
well... in the Daidochi Wars (Alexanders Successers: Ptolemy, Seleukos, Kassandros,Lysemarchos, Antigonous) there were many pike on pike engagements, but the pike phalanx alone, was a wave of pikes, they push the enemy because the enemy first dont want a sarissa in the guts and they cant reach them... unless they have pikes too... and yes the Daidochi wars was a carnage...
If they are wearing breast plates a disabling limb injury seems more likely than death, although on the other hand allot of helmets from that period have a very open face. It has always struck me as a very mysterious and strange way of fighting I would rather have a shield.
So your thesis is that the job of the pikeman was to protect others sutch as the musketeers from close quarter combat.
And the whold always have musketeers within their ranks whouldnt they ?
but what about the swords they used to have, I remember seeing a picture of the front row of pikemen having a foot and one hand on the pik and te other hand on the sword or sword in hand..
and what about the mutch shorter officer weapon, how wre they used.. or were they only lazy ?
@WoodyHaroo Yes, many men would have a shorter weapon to back up their pike. In the period I'm talking about, the musketeers were usually in a block next to the pikes, rather than mixed in with the pikes.
Apparently, on the account of swiss pikemen, it was read somewhere, that theory was that each man who owned armour was sent into front ranks. Those with most being first row. Also it is said that they changed from halberd that was perfect for mountainous Alpine terrain onto pikes so they can beat cavalry on the plains.
your conclusion sounds very logical to me. and it does sound stupid that pikemen would fight other pikemen without shields or good armour. I also presume that they were on the battlefield to defend the musketeers against cavalry.
i'd probably defecate myself is the pike men just walked at me like that. actually i'd probably defecate if a normal person walked into me like that because i'd think they were a bit unhinged.
Wait, what about heavy infantry? Even if they weren't common (which they could be; truthfully, I don't know) wouldn't they absolutely smash a pike formation? A man in Gothic plate with his flamberge, along with 100 or so of his buddies equipped in the same way, would have no trouble destroying a pike square. The pikes wouldn't even get through their mail, and once they got in among the pikemen, they would have absolutely zero chance.
@LucanJacups Pikes are excellent cooperation weapons. A man approaching a pike block has to fight not just the man in front of him, but several others at the same time, just to close with one opponent. Some very brave men tried it, and some succeeded, but after a while, they stopped trying.
This is a topic that has always greatly troubled me. I've heard of pike formations tangling up with each other, but I always wondered where the logic of pike vs. pike was. Then again, I have trouble seeing the logic behind dense formation fighting period so I suppose I have a long way to go!
This is a good point. There's actually a pen sketch from an Italian artist in the late 16th/early 17th century. It shows two pike formations actually fighting, and the first rank of both sides is literally represented by just a mass of blood spewing everywhere. I think it's called "The Bad War".
@LucanJacups Yes, obviously there was always the risk that two units would find themselves obliged to engage. It would be pretty horrible if neither unit backed off.
Well I was pretty sure the pikes were used as defense only and not against other pikes. Wasn't the whole point that early armies were afraid of the long reload times so they thought a one to one ratio of melee/range was a good thing. Besides pikes were the best against shock attacks from cavalry or rushes from enemy troops.
So the main point was defense only, and even more specifically reload time defense. They also had swordmen in some nations but Europe mostly had pikes as the last melee.
Great vid, yeah would agree on all elements there. Great you brought up three factors in the arguement: The double pay men (doppelsoldners) and was the pay enough, the Swiss reputation (this could also go for German Landsknecht's) and that artillery must of had a ball (pun) with them.
The point you made with E.Civil War Reenacters with "first rows just massacred" is probably quite valid, the Landsknecht "Katzbalger" sword was used for the meeting of pikes they called the "bad war". Gruesome.
I was hoping you'd do a video on this topic. While I agree with you on the advantages over cavalry and disadvantages against artillery, i have to point out that the most successful pike&shot formations also employed dedicated melee fighters. The Spanish used sword&shield men (rodeleros) and the Swiss and Landsknechts used halberds and longswords. My thought is that these men would sally forth from their square to try to breach the enemy square. If they failed or needed a rest they could return.
@absolutesilence Yes, I did not add the complication of these men to the video. These men are absent from the battlefield after the early period of pike and shot, however.
To the best of my understanding, pike/spear men were generally used to keep back horse charges and protect ranged units. Since muskets (and archers) were valuable due to their ability to kill the enemy quickly but vulnerable to melee, pike men were used to keep any horses, swashbucklers, or anyone else at bay.
It would make sense if they had a threatening reputation and were to protect ranged units. It would only help keep the enemy from the valuable ranged infantry.
Pikes fighting pikes would also be quickly exhausting. I think that they were mainly used to protect vulnerable units like archers/musketeers and 'the line' from cavalry.
surely from th17th century there have to be records of what pikemen were actually doing on the battlefield. I think your right though. I think probably by the English Civil war most of the fighting was done with guns and the pike acted as a sort of bayonet unit. Also pikes were cheap and easy units to put on the battle field. The weapons cost very little, and the men need little training.
did they just acted like a wall of pikes and pushed the enemy to a point where the musketters could pick them off or perhaps shield the musketeers from the cavalry charges
Very interesting video, especially because these historical soldiers were human beings, just like us. Of course they were probably much tougher than us, but were still probably almost as likely to wet their pants as I would be if I was in the front row and a wall of pikes was coming towards me and there's basically no way I'm going to avoid a horribly painful screaming death.
ranger5230 2 weeks ago
I read some books on military history and they describe battles where armored cavalery was charging pikemen. The point is that pikemen were often peasants with fairly low morale, and as soon as the first pikemen had started fleeing the entire army would be defenceless. (And the pikemen knew that very well) - But I believe that these battles took place before the rise of hand guns.
anotherelvis 1 month ago
@anotherelvis If you can intimidate the opposition into running away, you need never engage them at all. Yes, a massive formation of fierce-looking men on big horses thundering towards you was very intimidating. Once a pike formation was broken, it was very vulnerable.
lindybeige 1 month ago
but, as i mentioned earlier, the laborious and grim 'push of pikes' was a well documeted phenomenon of the renaissance,
there was actually a phrase 'bad war' which summed up the feelings about warfare and the changes to it, a feeling that started with situations like agincourt where the common longbowmen, instead of ransoming, killed off the french nights.
it was seen as an 'end of an era' and there was a feeling of shock regarding the slaughter that occured when pikeblocks met in battle.
elgostine 1 month ago
@elgostine I'm not saying that pike never fought pike, but it was the exception.
lindybeige 1 month ago
@lindybeige i was more responding to your point that they wouldnt have pushed into each other because it would have ben carnage..
im saying that that this carnage was actually typical of pike vs pike engagements during the renaissance,
and its worth noting that the spanish rodeleros didnt have a much easier time against pikes either
and more careful analysis of the use of zweihanders shows that they wouldnt have been as useful in breaking up pike formations as was initially thought.
elgostine 1 month ago
im gonna echo darktiggers point, one notable phenomanon that is considered essential to the renaissance warfare, is the famouse concept of 'push of pike' particularly the swiss who had an idea similar to the nappoleonic french 'attack columns' the swiss had deep columns of men that simply went in one direction and steamrolled everything they met, they had a much lower percentage of ranged troops compared to the spaniards and germans etc but the renaissance was really known for these gory clashes
elgostine 1 month ago
As for cavlary vs pikemen, check up deeds of Polish winged Hussars :) They pretty muched chargd and massacred everything no matter what they had. Pikes, guns, sabres, cheese... whatever.
YuriPRIME 1 month ago
@YuriPRIME Pikes would likely stop or kill them. The Hussars were great cavalrymen against any other cavalry or firearm formation. But horses tends not to like running into long pointy stuff..
maaderllin 1 month ago
Lindy, in another video you argued against a statement made along the lines of 'he with the longest pike won'. This has vexed me for several months... can you explain your point further? (no pun intended)
OzClawhammer 2 months ago
@OzClawhammer There are circumstances in which long reach is an advantage, and circumstances in which it is a drawback. If longer reach were always an advantage, everyone would have made the longest weapons that they could lift. The Romans did awfully well with short swords. If you have a pike, and I get to within shortsword range of you, your pike is useless.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige Spanx :)
OzClawhammer 2 months ago
Have you ever seen the movie Alatriste? I would think the actual fights may have happened similarly, where some front row men would try to go underneath the other side's pikes to the men.
deathpunish2 2 months ago
@deathpunish2 I think I might have seen the clip.
lindybeige 2 months ago
Do you know of the 1632 series of novels published by Baen Books? And if so do you have any thoughts on their depiction of combat in the titular period.
bronzedivision 2 months ago
@bronzedivision No - sorry.
lindybeige 2 months ago
I think I once, read an german article about battels during the Italian Wars where swiss and german pike format meeled.
And well yes, this battels wehre massacars for both sides.
DarkTigger1988 2 months ago
To and my two cents worth....
I'd say that pikemen would engage in close combat with each other...but for very short periods of time (the confidence and running away bit in the video basically). Pikemen are still wearing some fairly substantian armour in this period (thought not all of them) I think it really would be a test of who as the strongest moral. Though looking at battlefield evidence from the period, there are a hell of a lot of 'trample' injuries.
Wraaaul 2 months ago
So much of combat is psychological posturing. More so then then mass media or the common person is likely to ever understand.
000majorwinters000 2 months ago
And the best answer to the pike is...the bill. Just chop through the darn things.
TheGameFilmGuruMan 2 months ago
why not use phalanxes? It is an amazing word.
freeclimb96 2 months ago
@freeclimb96 And also pretty common when describing both the Greek and Macedonian type.
000majorwinters000 2 months ago
There was a cavalry in XVI and XVII century, that was cutting down dense pike-musket formations of (some say best in the world at the time) Swedish infantry by a FRONTAL charge. Example: Battle of Kircholm. You disregard, or simply don't know about formation of winged hussars, which during the battle of Kluszyn charged 44000 infantry in multiple frontal charges, and won? To all who are interested- there were ONLY 2.500 hussar cavalrymen present.
JesiennyDeszcz 2 months ago
@JesiennyDeszcz I have been to the museums in Poland and seen the winged hussar armours, and have often seen these warriors depicted on the wargaming table. Even these elite, though, would not choose to charge steady formed-up pikes head-on when there were other options.
lindybeige 2 months ago
@lindybeige On the contrary- that was the basic tactic, which proved extremely successful, mainly because for pikemen it was so obvious that no-one would ever try. Three things alowed husars to win- one was very good armour, second (the most important) their lances were around 6m long, while most of pikes were shorter (lances were hollow inside). Third was a bit upsetting- they agreed with death of their horse. Dead under Kircholm: 65 hussars and 8000 sweeds
JesiennyDeszcz 2 months ago
@lindybeige The charge was their favourite strategy. The lances they used could reach up to 20 feet in length for the express purpose of overreaching infantry pikes. They had supply wagons full of lances they could charge several times, even with the lances breaking.
VaterYester 2 months ago
@lindybeige Kircholm and Kłuszyn are examples on how this cavalry could charge a block of pikemen and get very slight losses. How? It was about their lances, chivalry and pride. Retreat was not an option, they were high nobles, so they just had to win with poor infantry. And they did so. Army of Carl Gustav X expected double pay if they were supposed to fight Hussars. (And yet still, they were deserting a lot) So in fact, there was a way for cavalry to beat pikemen.
KuroNekoPL 2 months ago
@JesiennyDeszcz At the battle of Kircholm, the hussars won by chasing off the flanks and executing an envelopment. At Kluszyn, the Russians broke because they thought their allies were deserting. In both battles, the hussars did what cavalry always do to broken or routing footmen: massacre.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 2 months ago
I love the way You talk about history- in my opinion, if every teacher was as interesting as You are, no kids would ever consider history boring.
However, You seem to share a common flaw of all people from "western europe" which is complete historical disregard for everything happening east of german Reich.
JesiennyDeszcz 2 months ago
@JesiennyDeszcz Thanks. I talk mainly as most people do - about the familiar. People tend to be more interested in the history that led to their world. Britain was little affected by what was east of the Germans.
lindybeige 2 months ago
I suppose it could be like those line-battles of musketeers showing off their strength by standing ground, but with pikes. Also, pike agaisnt pike is highly uneccesary , unless both sides lack in missiles or artillery.
Jake4595 3 months ago in playlist More videos from lindybeige
I've heard that pikemen's role was more or less to shove the enemy of the battlefield while musketeers, cavalry and artillery did the real damage. Can't remember the source though!
foll500 3 months ago
as far as i know, the thirst ranks were often armed with a helm and a halfplate (dont know if it is the right word, protects torso and upper legs) so they dont get killed that fast
the front ranks couldent flee that easy as the rear ranks usually could not see what happened before them and pushed the whole formation forward
in the end, it shall hapend often, that the front ranks battelt echother with knifes an the ground
TheLoki7281 3 months ago
For people wanting some accurate footage on this warfare look for the Battle of Rocroi form the movie Alistriste here on Youtube. Probably the most accurate depiction on Pikeman warfare.
Spartiatai300 4 months ago
You seem to be under the impression that everything about fighting i supposed to be logical. Firsltly, we are ofcourse talking about a period when most of the troops shat themselves to death before they even saw combat. Secondly, did the kings and other commanders really care about the lives of their troops? Many of them were mercenaries, and if they did not obey orders they were decimated (10% executed). Not quite what I would call a respect for human life.
Frauenman 4 months ago
@Frauenman They were still human, and with human fears. The logic of the situation has to take into account human nature.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige Then again, infantry assaulting a machine gun nest weigs perhaps even more heavily against human nature, yet it wasn't really uncommon in for example ww2. What is the infantryman going to do? Refuse to advance and hope to go home?
In my view, Pikemen were a cheap and fairly effective form of organized troops. If a commander thinks it necessary and that he has some gain in pitting them against other pikemen, he generally did not have second thoughts about it.
Frauenman 4 months ago
I'm no expert on Renaissance warfare, but I saw an interesting drawing by Hans Holbein from c.1530 showing Swiss pikemen in melee combat. The first ranks on both sides were engaged in hand to hand combat with swords, axes, polearms and daggers, but the other ranks seemed to be holding their pikes above the heads of the front ranks - trying to get at the second and third ranks on the opposing side. This is how they might have done it, but then again I could have misinterpretated the picture.
Aetius114 4 months ago
@Aetius114 Yes, there were occasions when close melee occurred, and of course painters found this subject much more lucrative to paint than scenes of scared men in a stand-off.
lindybeige 4 months ago
@lindybeige You and Aetius are both right. In the initial clash, both front ranks would engage with pikes charged straight ahead, trying for a devastating first strike. As the pikes meshed, parrying and binding would drive the points upward. There, you have a choice between keeping your pike and participating in a shoving match (doing your bit to keep the other side's pikes and poleaxes in check) or drawing your bar mace/falchion/whatever and going to town. Rear ranks still had pike range.
PDXOutsider 3 months ago
@lindybeige Though, now that I think about it, if the second or third rank's pikes were charged in the reverse grip (angled high to low), they could maintain the front ranks' effective pike-thrusting range by making the below-the-waist zone too dense with points to advance into. By and large, though, I'm inclined to agree that in the pike-and-shot period, pikemen mostly protected gunners from cavalry.
PDXOutsider 3 months ago
Well there were a few examples of pike blocks actually closing and fighting each other. They were rare, and when they did happen they were typically astoundingly bloody affairs like the Battle of Ceresole in 1544 where a bunch of Landsknechts and Swiss got smashed together in the center of the battlefield.
Interestingly enough the same battle showed the effectiveness of a well timed cavalry charge into a pike block that is already engaged.
imperialus11 4 months ago
the pikemen protect the musketeers, and the cavalry trys to take out the artillery before they take out the musketeers. this makes sense.
therealquade 4 months ago
The use of pikes as a standoff tool certainly fits with most accounts that I'm aware of. Slightly earlier examples of pike usage in the 16th century make frequent mention of close support detachments to pike blocks, such as small units of gunners, halberdiers, and even the famous greatsword wielding doppensoldners of the landscknecht. This sits well with the idea of pike blocks simply squaring off and intimidate, not really charging or engaging, while detachments skirmish and demoralize.
GeekControl2MajorTim 4 months ago
so heres how i figure it, the pikemen must have been sort of like big spike traps, forcing cavalrymen to try their luck and attack them, possibly by using artillery fire.
yourlitlesister 4 months ago
there is pike on pike fight on the movie alatriste
shadowfury01 5 months ago
why do they not have shields and pikes and plate armors ? It is like putting army in Iraq and not giving them body armors , and no one have a process to improve protection of soldiers , and march large number of them in close proximity .
papaburger 5 months ago
@papaburger If pikes were to fight pikes, then perhaps they would have carried shields, but if they were for holding off cavalry... fits the theory.
lindybeige 5 months ago
@papaburger Because musket balls shot straight through plate. In this period the breastplates were getting much thicker and heavier to try and offer some protection. But then you couldn't armour yourself with full plate that thick and heavy, and still walk fast enough to be anything but a big target for the muskets. And you must keep up with the unarmored muskets, that's your job to protect them. Besides only knights could afford full plate.
scotynz 4 months ago
@papaburger I'm sure the swiss invasions where slightly earlier period, and wore 1/2 or 3/4 plate? Also 1/2 to 3/4 of the swiss pike formations were pole-arms, which can fight melee effectively, both offensively and defensively..
scotynz 4 months ago
Simple solution... That's why portuguese Terços had haleberdiers and two handed sword units included in the pike formation. Before engaging they would go around them and it would be like cutting through butter
PompeusMagnus 5 months ago
I think you are missing the point that the first row gets double pay to get some armoud and breast plate.
mwangolatrue 5 months ago
@mwangolatrue Yes, but what if he stabs you in the leg or the arm or the neck or most likely the face. Even a double payed merc. couldn't afford armor to protect against all threats. Even tho armor was more affordable by this time, a full harness was still reserved for the wealthy. We would love to think it was like phalanx warfare, but it wasn't the anvil for the calvary to hammer the enemy into. It is more likely you'd waste a valued unit trying to recreate that on the "modern Battlefield".
TimothyMellott 5 months ago
Polish Winged Hussars loved to rape renaissance pikemen (especially the Swedish ones).
MEEHOWtv 6 months ago
@MEEHOWtv Metaphorically?
lindybeige 6 months ago 2
@lindybeige
No, literally.
MEEHOWtv 6 months ago
@lindybeige and they use to make kebab from Janniesaries :D
TurboRatownik 6 months ago in playlist Więcej filmów od użytkownika lindybeige
@lindybeige Actually the Polish Hussars and French Gendarmes were able to smash up infantry formations with a pretty good degree of regularity throughout the 17th century. Check out the battle of Klushino 1610 for a pretty good example of where the Poles repeatedly charged Russian lines to break them.
imperialus11 4 months ago
@imperialus11 I doubt that you are suggesting that the cavalry charged headlong into steady formations of pikes, though.
lindybeige 4 months ago
in "Alatriste" the end battle is between two pike formations (ok, YES it IS a movie.. but hey...). they dont really use the pikes to fight, the pikes just keep the enemy lines at a distance and are used to push up the enemy pikes, so some guys can move UNDER the pikes and mow down the helpless enemy soldiers.
watch?v=26C758K4Fc0
but all in all i guess pike vs pike is not a smart idea. (on the other hand, standing in a row, 20 paces away from the enemy and wait to be shot isnt smart too...)
Glimmlampe1982 6 months ago
I've seen some depictions of colliding pike blocks, after the first pike thursts, dropping their pikes and going at it with swords and knives.
Tareltonlives 6 months ago
the greeks wanted to be at the front and to the right since that part of the phalax for some reason was the most honerable position and the front right was usually the strongest as well. The greeks desided unanomisly that theyd rather win a war in a desisive battle and get it over with instead of using up resorces and people (who could have been doing something more usefull for the econimy) in a siege which could have lasted a long time
raysetiger285 6 months ago
@raysetiger285
The man on the first position of the front rank was the one least protected by the formation, since he was in the rank nearest the enemy and did not have a man with a shield to his right protecting him with the left edge of said shield. In keeping with the generally machismo nature of ancient Greek military thought(f.e. the idea that the very useful skirmisher was somehow unmanly), the man first of foot and right of line probably would have been thought very brave.
AdNeeb 6 months ago
What you say makes a lot of sense, but I've heard historians saying they have accounts of people from the earlier years of Pike & Shot warfare saying that some pike on pike combat did happen, with predictably horrific results. The chronicallers of the time often refering to the ensuing slaughter as "dirty war". I think it might have happened due to some group Landsknechts say, being advanced upon by the swiss and figuring, "Hey, we can't just always run from these guys or they will keep doing it
FakeKraid 6 months ago
@FakeKraid Oh yes, in war things sometimes go very wrong. If both pike formations believe that their only choice is to press on with an attack, or that they are bound to win...
lindybeige 6 months ago
There are a couple of things that make me think pikes did see some pike on pike action - at least enough to prepare for it. The first is hanging up on my wall right now. My first sword in what hopes to be a collection some day is a landsknecht "zweihander", and almost every source on the sword indicates it was used in conjunction with pike formations to circumcise the enemy's pikes so to speak - lop the heads off. Combined with a Katzbalger designed for the melee pigpile, and it makes me wonder.
BaronCappuccino 5 months ago
@FakeKraid I think he is right other than the fact that they Never clashed. Like you said we have acounts of pike blocks fighting. May I suggest my theory, they did clash and one row of men (usualy who ever was better trained or had the longer pikes) killed the other front row of men. Seeing this the rest of the pike block would flee. Just a theory. :)
olddudesrock 4 months ago
Some cavalary units did charge pikes head on, but there only few records of it. Winged Hussars used hollow lances placing them in sort of supporting socket on the saddle. these lances were actually longer than infantry pikes, so hussar could actually hit pikeman, basically throwing him back on his buddies thus breaking the spear wall. For reference: Battle of Kircholm.
Beneficiis 6 months ago
technically, all troops are vulnerable to artillery.
as you said it, pikes were primarily a cavalry deterrent, so i doubt any smart commander would shove them into a hostile pike formation just because he can.
kroatiFtl 6 months ago
Thanks for this, thought. I'm currently writing an Extended-Project on warfare from 1400-1699 and the possiblity of the pikemen simply "seeing off" never occured. The classic "push of pike" did though, and there is a cross over in time between the Zweihander and the Pike; so it might be possible that the Zweihander was used to "break" stalemates should they enter the "tangle" - of course in a situation where one side simply advances they are completely useless.
AbokaseeTheTroll 6 months ago
So you're not lloyd? That explains ALOT.
KingofBoredom1189 7 months ago
See Push of Pike - Battle of Ceresole
RhoDaZZGR 7 months ago
See the film "Alatriste"... In this appears 1 good fight of two formations of pikemen
Valherjes 7 months ago
poked to death LOL
MooseHunter911 7 months ago
The reason for employing pikes was probably just to counter enemy cavalary.The infrantry of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in XVI was entirely composed of musceteers while the oposing Swedish had 2:1 musket pike ratio.The reason was that manisty of Commonwealths army was composed of cavalary while the infrantry where the minority.The enemy calary charges coudl be countered
by Commonwealths own mounted unists.
Kharmazov 8 months ago
Maybe in some situations the pikes went up because some men were pushing opposing men's pikes up (to avoid being stabbed by them, naturally), and as more men engaged and pushed each others' pikes up, the formations closed on each other.
fakejohnwilkesbooth 8 months ago
And oh, that argument only goes for the first five seconds of battle engagement. Then its' a mosh pit with sharp edges and about everything dirty trick you can use. See "Battle scene" by Hans Holbein the younger. But then again, as firearms improved, it more or less became as you say. And then they vanished completely. but until then, they trained to use their pikes. and by using, means thrusting, parrying, slashing, disarming, tripping, etc etc.
permhaaland 8 months ago
Calvary CAN charge into a pike formation and utterly destroy them.... if they have Gandalf with them. :P
JetConvoy 8 months ago 24
I think the first field artillery didn't come along until the seventeenth century when the Scots and Swedes starting putting boiled leather sheaths around dangerously thin gun barrels. Pikes would probably have been safe from artillery on a Renaissance battlefield provided it wasn't already aimed at them before the battle started.
CountArtha 9 months ago
i read that swiss pikemen held their opponents at distance while a few well trained warriors wit two handed swords opened up the enemy's ranks. forgot the source, though.
ApollonPythios 9 months ago
I wonder if Lloyd plays Mount & Blade.
UncleJunkyard 9 months ago 3
@UncleJunkyard He doesn't.
lindybeige 9 months ago 5
@lindybeige He should start doing it ;) And the Vikingr Mod is amzing :D
shohchkheh 5 months ago
Can you be my history teacher. please :C
EverythingMUSIC62 9 months ago
Hmm, great video. I assume you would fight with a Pike, much like a spear... Facing a lot of pikes coming at you, with not a lot in the way of protection, I think would make a lot of people run away rather quickly... But to stand around in the field, knowing there is no way you can chuck your pike at the people shooting at you has to make anyone rather scared, in my opinion. Great video. Good luck with more.
tomcat2222 9 months ago
well, you have a good point. However, there are a couple of fencing manuals dealing with pike vs pike, such as Joachim Meyer and Paulus Hector Mair, and as mentioned here earlier, a good armour can help you a great deal. The artillery and muskets were for a very long time rather cumbersome weapons. They were heavy, not always precise, they took time to load, and had to cool off for some time not to explode in the wielders hand, and you have to have a fuse burning in order to fire your gun.
permhaaland 9 months ago
This reminds me of your point about bayonets...it's really quite the same idea, isn't it? No one's going to stand around to get "piked" :-p
Setrus 9 months ago
@Catachan1brainleaf A friend of mine modded the WAB rules, and was writing the book for 30YW. I seem to recall he ended up removing most of his rules mods, and instead got what he wanted from alterations to army lists. Not really my period, I'm afraid.
lindybeige 9 months ago
I'd guess they are to keep anyone from charging the muskets and artillery, since reloading guns and artillery took so long back then. also pikemen might beable to hold a line in a crouched positon to where muskets could shoot overhead. or inbetween men.
But i honestly wouldn't know anything to reference it to.
tripleschnell 9 months ago
I found this clip from the movie Alatriste. It is the only movie I can think of that actually shows pike on pike combat. But it is a movie so it's credibility is questionable, however it does seem possible.
Just type in youtube.com and follow it with
/watch?v=26C758K4Fc0&feature=related
EvidensInsania 10 months ago
Eventually Push of Pike was used to refer to any standoff between pikemen but the best theory I've heard for the origin of the phrase is that pikes were, for the most part, too awkward and heavy to thrust through the metal and cloth armors in usage at the time. As the lines clashed pikes would get tangled in each other's gambesons and both sides would end up physically pushing on each other with leveled pikes creating an incredibly vicious fight despite relatively low casualties.
HBOrrgg 10 months ago
@HBOrrgg cont. . . Later on though commanders began to wise up and started ordering pikemen to thrust with pikes only once and if that was ineffective to close with shorter weapons.
HBOrrgg 10 months ago
You know, you make an excellent point; apparently it was the same with cavalry warfare (at least Napoleonic, and I dare say the horses didn't get more cowardly through history, so the rest as well). The cavalry NEVER clashed: horses might rarely hit into one another when charging, but usually they'd either stop or pass each other (when there was room). Usually, one formation would start the charge too soon, and would get disordered, then disheartened, and turn and flee...massive game of chicken.
benofirefly 10 months ago
@benofirefly Are there not some rather signifcant exceptions to that? The main one that comes to mind is the clash between Murat's and Bagration's cavalry at Heilsberg.
LucanJacups 8 months ago
@LucanJacups You're right, these things did indeed happen.
Like when French lancers and cuirassiers countercharged the Union Brigade at Waterloo.
Or when the French Grenadiers à cheval met the Russian guard cavalry at Austerlitz.
Or when the British Heavy Brigade threw back the Russian cavalry at Balaclava.
Timrath 6 months ago
I don't know if anyone addressed this but you forget pike squares didn't have...just pikemen. You had halberdiers and zweihanders who's job was actually to smash the enemy pikes with their weapons and push through.
In your reenactment example I think people "died" based on set rules, not actually dying. "Oh the tip of the pike touched you, go sit on the sidelines now you are dead." Not a very accurate portrayal.
Twycross 11 months ago
@Twycross No, these were not fighting according to rules, but as public display, or experimental archaeology.
Yes, in the early period there were sometimes other melee weapons in the blocks, but by the time of the ECW and 30 Years War these weapons had largely fallen out of use.,
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige Well sure they could fight as public display but you still have to figure out when a guy is out and when he is not right?
I'm pretty sure that even during the 30 years war, Halberds and the likes got even MORE popular as the actual pike block formations became thinner due to the improvements in artillery. I can't for the life of me imagine why I wouldn't keep my pike lowered if I saw an enemy pushing at me. Even if he raised his...sucks for him.
Twycross 11 months ago
@Twycross It must have been a sort of mutual agreement.
If he lift his but you don't, his natural response is to lower them again! It takes about 2 seconds to do so. Now if you both lower the pike, and push, well, you both die. So if you want to live as well, then you better lift yours.
It's a prisoner dilemma, although if both defect, no one got the better stick.
But isn't it even more surprising when later in history, infantry were armed almost entirely with musket + the socket bayonet.
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@Twycross I mean the bayonets were for repelling cavalry, right? But then why don't the cavalry use the long lance instead? Instead, you see cavalry used their puny sabers. Sure, They had to use pistols but you gotta realize that sixth century Byzantine cavalry men were trained to shoot the bow and use the lance. There were exceptions, the Poles for example.
I think it's a kind of mutual agreement. Cavalry uses the saber so the infantry uses the bayonet, raising the relative value of cavalry
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@Twycross Yet considering pike-and-shot; the ratio of pike to shot actually goes down over time. It begins with may be 1 pike for 1 gun but in later times, it's 1 pike for 4 guns. Then it must be that pikes actions are rare and muskets gradually supplant them. Sure, train a pikemen take much longer than a musketeers.
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@Twycross It's a prisoner dilemma or a game of chicken.
If he raise his pike, but you don't, his reaction would be to lower it back again. If you don't lift yours, he won't and everyone will die. Both sides I think would start lifting their pike far enough so that he can react if the other side don't lift, nor too close that one side can rush in.
In a way, it's like this: no matter what the other side do, you better NOT lift your pike. BUT if neither lift their pikes, everyone will die.
ImEternalWanderer 10 months ago
@Twycross I am going to guess that's why Swiss Pikemen never only ever carried pikes. While the pike is the main weapon after all, it certainly isn't the only weapon. Especially said of the Landsknechte (who had a fierce reputpation on their own).
WritingFighter 10 months ago
Another reason the Swiss would do well, aside from reputation - or why they got their reputation in the first place - is that with other pikemen, the individual soldiers in a formation would stop short. If the Swiss do not hesitate, their pike block moves as one single solid mass.
Railstarfish 11 months ago
What might happen is as two pike blocks approach each other, some pikemen hold back more than others, and it starts creating small gaps in the line that get exploited.
Also, if the front rank is well armoured, they could get pushed over by the mass of several pikes pushing against them but not penetrating their armour (maybe disrupting the pikes as they get up?).
Railstarfish 11 months ago
lovely ranting as usual Lloyd! Good show!
Always when fighting in blocks formations the tricky bit is not upfront but at the end of the formation. I think the fhalanx, roman legion they all had rows of veterans in the last lines to prevent the formation from breaking from the hind.
First line guys simply had nowhere to hide so it was fight or fight for them.
During the wars of Italy Carlo V and François I had both swiss pikes and Landsknechts and i'm pretty sure they did come to fight piketopike
mordechaimordechai 11 months ago
Psychology of troops in combat is the single most important factor. "The moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1."--Napoleon
The damage done to a pike formation by artillery was offset by the density of the formation. The question is this: can you get enough men together and get them across the field fast enough to minimize the damage artillery will do? How many shots will they get into your formation before you bulldoze them off the field? The artillery was inaccurate, to say the least.
Polymarkos 11 months ago
its also worth noting that pikemen wwore armour. fairly good armour too,it was usually. brestplates, tassets, and a morion helmet.
id also imagine that both formations, like hoplites wouldnt simply press forwward until shoulder to shoulder, but sort of standoff and have a poking match.
also its worth remembering that many nations had special melee troops in the front ranks. the spanish had sword/shieldmen and the germans had the landscknects with their large zweihanders to chop at pikes
elgostine 11 months ago
Contemporary images (drat, links not allowed) show most pike upright indeed. In others I have seen of Gewalthaufen clashing there is a mix of lowered, partially uprised and rised pikes. While pikemen did not have shields the classic outfit was the knechtischer Harnisch protecting the upper body and upper parts of the leg. Austria fielded Rondartschiers (round shielders) to deal with pikemen, esp. in the case of gridlocked pike formations.
Segalmed 11 months ago
@Segalmed Yes, the pikes would be upright almost all the time. It takes only a second or two to lower them, and they are much heavier to carry when lowered.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige I was referring not to pictures general but to those of units in actual engagement (with other infantry). Btw, there are contemporary illustrated manuals about the proper use of the pike (what stance against what type of opposition) similar to those used for the instruction of fencers and musketeers.
Unfortunately, newsreels and training films seem not to have survived ;-)
(In a school history textbook of mine there was the question: Why are there no audiotapes form the stone age?)
Segalmed 11 months ago
Well there has been a lot of thought that has been given recently to the psychology of warfare and killing. One of the theories that has been discovered is that only about 2% of any given population is actually capable of killing their fellow humans without any qualms. I'd recommend the book "On Killing"...
TheRecR 11 months ago
With regards to pikes fighting other pikes, from what I have read (granted it was talking about duels) Giacomo di Grassi call it the "... AS among all other weapons, which are worn by the side, the single sword is the most honorable, as beeing such a one which is left capable of deceit of any other: So among the weapons of the Staffe, the Pike is the most plaine, most honorable, and most noble weapon of all the rest...", so if that is on interest I'd recommend Di Grassi's musings "Of the Pike".
SamGCampbell 11 months ago
It is actually very true that the pikes where used to stab at the enemy, but only if they (the side attacking) where heavily armored. if they weren't armored, they used the pikes as intimidation and did most of the fighting with swords.
PresidentDRCI 11 months ago
applicants must be over 14 x'D
NevalWald 11 months ago
There existed soldiers whose main job it was to break up the walls of pikeheads, so that the formation would not hold and the pikemen behind them could sweep away the disorganized mass - these are those doppelsoldners you were talking about; they used large two-handed swords and chopped their way into the pike block.
targetfixed 11 months ago
Interesting how you think early era skirmishes were fought by standing at an distance and Pike warfare would be close in your face. Movie Aletriste shows an interesting portrayal of Pike warfare with the formations stopping in Pike range and "dueling" with their pikes and people going around and between pikes to slash with sword etc. Think of Zweihanders which were ordered to disrupt pikes and Halbediers with pikes etc. Also Landsknechte had at a point 1/4 Muskets and rest pike. So pikes fought.
Spartiatai300 11 months ago
@Spartiatai300 aye i noticed that point as well. that everyone just dropped their pikewent for the knife and simply scuffled under the 'roof' of pikes.
elgostine 11 months ago
Although in general just about any human being has a visceral dislike of coming into "shock" combat, wasn't Renaissance era pikemen (at least the double-paid front rankers) usually quite heavily armored, with half or three quarter harnische? I suspected that would make them quite a bit more willing to enter into close combat than bayonet-armed musketeers of later era, although occasions of pike blocks actually coming into close combat might be the exception rather than the norm.
HaNsWiDjAjA 11 months ago
@HaNsWiDjAjA i remember, personally reading how musketeers were consideredquite low in the english civil war and so went unarmoured,and yeah pikemans armour was , for the ren period germans, 3/4 armour and a burgonet. in english civil war, the helm was a morion type.
elgostine 11 months ago
Artillery of the Renaissance as used by most armies were rather immobile and slow firing compared to say the Napoleonic era, and while it's true that they were murderously effective against pike blocks when the latter was caught in a vulnerable position (etc. Marignano, Biccoca, Rocroi) good infantry could usually outmaneuver them and made the gunners role less than decisive.
HaNsWiDjAjA 11 months ago
Antoine Henry Jomini, the famous Napoleonic era general, once remarked that he never actually witnessed fights between large bodies of troops in the open with bayonets, although during small skirmishes in woods and city streets cold steel clashes were fairly common. Even cavalry on cavalry fights of these era were more often than not decided without two opposing lines coming into blows, according to French cavalry officer Ardant du Piq.
HaNsWiDjAjA 11 months ago
A little bit of googling brings up the terms "push of pike " and the "bad war". I get the impression that it is something that's happened at least once, if it wasn't a common occurrence.
Thoughts?
JayCeeEss1337 11 months ago
@JayCeeEss1337 Oh yes, I sure it happened _sometimes_, but it would be so horrendous that both sides would seek to avoid it. What if both sides considered themselves fearsome, but failed to recognise the other?
lindybeige 11 months ago
Defense only has been my impression as well. The bayonet changed it all! =)
hathiphnath 11 months ago
Now I know this is from a film (Alatriste) the pikes actually clash, and men get killed instantly , but they have musket guys in the unit also, standing in the front line, shooting, and then when danger comes, they get back behind or in the middle of the unit.. so well if you could maby tell me why, and if this movie hold any reality..
Great Point you came up with this time :)
sorry for my bad English.
fiskerlord 11 months ago
Very interesting, very interesting indeed, I hadn't considered this scenario before, strangely, you could almost say its as good for armored swordsmen to charge pikemen, all things considered. I do vastly agree however about the artillery idea, and once again, I'd like to buy you a beer sometime. Tell me do you teach somewhere, or rather what is it you do professionally with this much historical knowledge?
TheVoraciousSnapmare 11 months ago
well... in the Daidochi Wars (Alexanders Successers: Ptolemy, Seleukos, Kassandros,Lysemarchos, Antigonous) there were many pike on pike engagements, but the pike phalanx alone, was a wave of pikes, they push the enemy because the enemy first dont want a sarissa in the guts and they cant reach them... unless they have pikes too... and yes the Daidochi wars was a carnage...
FaakedLillebror 11 months ago
@FaakedLillebror Yes, I was talking solely about the post-musket invention pike.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige sure, i was merely supporting your point on the pike as a deterrent...
FaakedLillebror 11 months ago
If they are wearing breast plates a disabling limb injury seems more likely than death, although on the other hand allot of helmets from that period have a very open face. It has always struck me as a very mysterious and strange way of fighting I would rather have a shield.
MrMonkeybat 11 months ago
What do you think about the battle scene from Alatriste?
panzercomander 11 months ago
Oh by the way you need to watch your own video with 1911 mode switched on its fantastic!
Fedaykin24 11 months ago
I agree! I have always assumed that Pikeman were there to protect the very slow loading musketmen from cavalry etc.
Fedaykin24 11 months ago
So your thesis is that the job of the pikeman was to protect others sutch as the musketeers from close quarter combat.
And the whold always have musketeers within their ranks whouldnt they ?
but what about the swords they used to have, I remember seeing a picture of the front row of pikemen having a foot and one hand on the pik and te other hand on the sword or sword in hand..
and what about the mutch shorter officer weapon, how wre they used.. or were they only lazy ?
Cheers
dan
WoodyHaroo 11 months ago
@WoodyHaroo Yes, many men would have a shorter weapon to back up their pike. In the period I'm talking about, the musketeers were usually in a block next to the pikes, rather than mixed in with the pikes.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Apparently, on the account of swiss pikemen, it was read somewhere, that theory was that each man who owned armour was sent into front ranks. Those with most being first row. Also it is said that they changed from halberd that was perfect for mountainous Alpine terrain onto pikes so they can beat cavalry on the plains.
Macekinaizaugla 11 months ago
what about sword-and-buckler men? weren't they the other part of the tercio? and used specifically against pikes?
Mithrohir 11 months ago
your conclusion sounds very logical to me. and it does sound stupid that pikemen would fight other pikemen without shields or good armour. I also presume that they were on the battlefield to defend the musketeers against cavalry.
uoranosaurus 11 months ago
i'd probably defecate myself is the pike men just walked at me like that. actually i'd probably defecate if a normal person walked into me like that because i'd think they were a bit unhinged.
FatGuyWithAKatana 11 months ago
Am I first commenter now? Or is my youtube still messed up
landmine21 11 months ago
@landmine21 I had the settings such that comments required approval.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Wait, what about heavy infantry? Even if they weren't common (which they could be; truthfully, I don't know) wouldn't they absolutely smash a pike formation? A man in Gothic plate with his flamberge, along with 100 or so of his buddies equipped in the same way, would have no trouble destroying a pike square. The pikes wouldn't even get through their mail, and once they got in among the pikemen, they would have absolutely zero chance.
LucanJacups 11 months ago
@LucanJacups Pikes are excellent cooperation weapons. A man approaching a pike block has to fight not just the man in front of him, but several others at the same time, just to close with one opponent. Some very brave men tried it, and some succeeded, but after a while, they stopped trying.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Respond to this video... Don't forget also that right next to the pikemen are musketeers, and your heavy infantry is not musket proof.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige That is very true.
LucanJacups 11 months ago
This is a topic that has always greatly troubled me. I've heard of pike formations tangling up with each other, but I always wondered where the logic of pike vs. pike was. Then again, I have trouble seeing the logic behind dense formation fighting period so I suppose I have a long way to go!
revolrz22 11 months ago
interesting subject! i wanna watch a documentary on this sorta thing!
OmniAndro 11 months ago
Landsknechts maybe armored.
ChaohsiangChen 11 months ago
This is a good point. There's actually a pen sketch from an Italian artist in the late 16th/early 17th century. It shows two pike formations actually fighting, and the first rank of both sides is literally represented by just a mass of blood spewing everywhere. I think it's called "The Bad War".
LucanJacups 11 months ago
@LucanJacups Yes, obviously there was always the risk that two units would find themselves obliged to engage. It would be pretty horrible if neither unit backed off.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Great video Lloyd :)
leofootyrome 11 months ago
Well I was pretty sure the pikes were used as defense only and not against other pikes. Wasn't the whole point that early armies were afraid of the long reload times so they thought a one to one ratio of melee/range was a good thing. Besides pikes were the best against shock attacks from cavalry or rushes from enemy troops.
So the main point was defense only, and even more specifically reload time defense. They also had swordmen in some nations but Europe mostly had pikes as the last melee.
scrap222666 11 months ago
Great vid, yeah would agree on all elements there. Great you brought up three factors in the arguement: The double pay men (doppelsoldners) and was the pay enough, the Swiss reputation (this could also go for German Landsknecht's) and that artillery must of had a ball (pun) with them.
The point you made with E.Civil War Reenacters with "first rows just massacred" is probably quite valid, the Landsknecht "Katzbalger" sword was used for the meeting of pikes they called the "bad war". Gruesome.
tgillies101 11 months ago
I was hoping you'd do a video on this topic. While I agree with you on the advantages over cavalry and disadvantages against artillery, i have to point out that the most successful pike&shot formations also employed dedicated melee fighters. The Spanish used sword&shield men (rodeleros) and the Swiss and Landsknechts used halberds and longswords. My thought is that these men would sally forth from their square to try to breach the enemy square. If they failed or needed a rest they could return.
absolutesilence 11 months ago
@absolutesilence Yes, I did not add the complication of these men to the video. These men are absent from the battlefield after the early period of pike and shot, however.
lindybeige 11 months ago
To the best of my understanding, pike/spear men were generally used to keep back horse charges and protect ranged units. Since muskets (and archers) were valuable due to their ability to kill the enemy quickly but vulnerable to melee, pike men were used to keep any horses, swashbucklers, or anyone else at bay.
It would make sense if they had a threatening reputation and were to protect ranged units. It would only help keep the enemy from the valuable ranged infantry.
alexanderthesomewhat 11 months ago
post 1 because i am that sad :(
ArmedBrit 11 months ago
@ArmedBrit Um... possibly you failed to take into account the approval process?
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige
yes I did. It only occurred to me after I posted.
anyway back to the content of the video. perhaps looking at the casualty figures for known pike on pike engagements would provide more insight?
ArmedBrit 11 months ago
Makes sense, as you want to win wars and not just fights. so you want your soldiers to live for another day.
arvidmann 11 months ago
Pikes fighting pikes would also be quickly exhausting. I think that they were mainly used to protect vulnerable units like archers/musketeers and 'the line' from cavalry.
wesmatron 11 months ago
surely from th17th century there have to be records of what pikemen were actually doing on the battlefield. I think your right though. I think probably by the English Civil war most of the fighting was done with guns and the pike acted as a sort of bayonet unit. Also pikes were cheap and easy units to put on the battle field. The weapons cost very little, and the men need little training.
300warrior300 11 months ago
did they just acted like a wall of pikes and pushed the enemy to a point where the musketters could pick them off or perhaps shield the musketeers from the cavalry charges
1x93cm 11 months ago
Lindy I love you so much
TheDrSquidly