"Pikes and how Rules Treat them" Topic

As I try to find a set of ECW rules I like I've been thinking about the way pikes were used in real life and the way various rules address them.

First, my impression is that pikes were defensive weapons. They were intended to keep the enemy, particularly the horse, at bay.

So, assuming my understanding of what they did with the pikes is correct, let's see how some popular ECW rules address this reality.

Wahammer ECW-- Pike armed models can fight up to four ranks deep and the shot can shelter behind them if they're close enough.

1644-- Pike armed models can fight in more ranks then musketeers. Also, if enough pike armed models are engaged in the combat, the enemy's offensive capability is reduced.

Forlorn Hope-- A unit that has a higher ratio of pikes to shot will have a higher close combat factor and thus will cause more casualties.

Victory without Quarter-- An infantry unit that includes pikes will get a saving throw for casualites as long as the unit is in good order.

Of these rules, only 1644 and VwQ seem to ascribe an increased defensive capability to pikes. WECW, Forlorn Hope and 1644 all seem to ascribe a better offensive capability to pikes. (Forlorn Hope is the most blantant; WECW and 1644 give more offensive power by allowing more ranks to fight).

I think it's ironic that Forlorn Hope, which seems to be regarded as the most "accurate" of these rules, represents the capabilities of pike armed troops by giving them a better offensive capability.

What do you think?

"my impression is that pikes were defensive weapons"

They were described as "The queen of the battlefield". The impression I get is that in the era leading up to the ECW, pikes were the main weapon and muskets were a harassing tool.

Pikes held ground against both pikes and horse, whereas muskets were a weapon for threatening units but only rarely displacing them. There was, as I read it, still a view that when it came down to it, push of pike would win the day.

This changed in the era of the ECW, and muskets came to dominate the field. But this was a slow process which really relied on the increasingly common appearance of firelocks instead of matchlocks.

"my impression is that pikes were defensive weapons"

Certainly not always. A little out of period but I recall reading that a Elizabethan English formation that had run out of ammo was reduced to sending out a 'sleeve of Pike' to prevent being overun by the Irish. Also in period were the Cornish Pike not famous for their aggression?

They were described as "The queen of the battlefield".

That's all infantry not just pikes. But now that piece of disinformation has appeared on the internets, I suppose it'll be historiacl truth by Monday.

What Oh said. The best way of moving a body of formed pike is with another body of pike. 'at push of pike' is a bone fide historicism. Is suppose that's pretty offensive :)

Swedish were using pike rather aggressively in the Great Northern War (early 18th century), at a time when the bayonet was available and many other armies had largely phased out pike already.

Griefbringer

I would think the pike is a weapon that will affect morale, seeing a pike armed body of men bearing down on you. However, as an offensive weapon?, maybe not as after the initial contact it will be useless, thus I think the pike's best use is the same as that of the bayonet later on, primarily as a defence against primarily cavalry.

I'm more familiar with action on the continent, but they were going through many of the same developments in tactics at the time. Pkie was seen as the 'arm of decision'. They were certainly expected to be used offensively. Pikemen were held in higher regard, were given better kit and sometimes better pay.

On the approach they certainly did have a morale effect, and a good number of matches would be settled before contact. But when two steady units met up it could come down to a shoving match between the front ranks, with the further back ranks poking pointy sticks over their heads into the enemy. Plus, they carried swords which would be used close in. When one side got the advantage in the shoving match the pushed over opponent would often lose all formation (rather like a formation of bowling pins does when a ball pushes back the front one) and real slaughter would ensue.

At the start of the period muskets were an accessory to disrupt the opposing pike formation as it came forward. As time went by and muskets got better they took over a greater role and their ratio to pike went up. But as often happens, change in tactics and attitudes changed more slowly than technology, and pikes were certainly still regarded as offensive weapons in 1648 when fighting dropped off on the continent. Armies were rebuilt fairly quickly after that with much more emphasis on musketry for the later 17th century wars (except in places like Sweden as Griefbringer points out).

In the late 16th/early 17th century pikes became a largely defensive weapon (Swedes being the very big exception), however, as you move backward in time, it becomes a more and more offensive weapon (I have never gotten the impression that Landsknechts were used defensively). During the ECW, I believe, pikes were used defensively against horse, and used in both roles against infantry

What I have trouble envisioning is the pike's use as an offensive weapon.

How do you manage to stab someone with a 16 foot long pole? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to avoid the jab if you were on the other end?

I guess I always assumed that after a bit of a scrum and pushing the pikemen would drop their pikes, draw their swords and have at it.

With respect to cavalry, I've assumed that the horses would shy away from the pikes, the shot would pepper the horse with fire and this would discourage the horse from hanging around. I never thought the pikemen were actually trying to stab the horse with their pikes (or maybe it's more precise to say that I don't expect the horse would get close enough to allow the pikes to do that).

Maybe I need to join a reenacting outfit to see how it might have happened.

How do you manage to stab someone with a 16 foot long pole? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to avoid the jab if you were on the other end?

It is not just a matter of avoiding a single stab – remember that the pikemen tended to fight in deep and wide formations, so you would be faced with quite a hedge of pointy sticks. Remember that pikes of the first six ranks reach ahead of the formation.

As regards facing horses, the preferable approach was to brace your pike against the ground, and then point the pointy end in the general direction of the enemy – any horse trying to charge your unit frontally had a good chance of turning itself into a shish-kebab.

Griefbringer

Whilst it might be hard to impale somebody with the pike I still think pikemen can be used aggressively and in an offensive role ie with the view moving forward and pushing an enemy to rout. However, I do think the ratio system in FH is flawed.

"Maybe I need to join a reenacting outfit to see how it might have happened."

I don't think that would help. The one thing re-enactor pikemen CANNOT do is use their pikes aggressively. Health & Safety regulations do not allow it!!

If pike were really that effective,why then did it begin to disappear shortly after the period in question?

Re: Skinkmaster's question – my take on that was that pikes phased out more due to speed and campaign concerns. I always thought it interesting that post ECW commentators (I think Turner, and I know for Monck) lameneted the loss of pikes. And both were hard headed guys – I don't think they were romantics looking back on golden days. On a battlefield I don't think Pikes ever lost their usefulness (particulary against horse). But on campaign, they slowed down the march, and were just not as all around handy as shot. I suspect that advantage gained from being able to manuever better outweighed the usefulness on the battlefield. Just a thought.
BC

If pike were really that effective,why then did it begin to disappear shortly after the period in question?

Because commanders started to prefer use of firepower at distance to closing in with pointy sticks?

Getting into close combat takes some guts – especially when the enemy keeps peppering you with their muskets. Much more comfortable to sit back and pound them with as many muskets of your own as you can muster.

Also, outside field battles – eg. in sieges or skirmishes – the musketeers were probably more handy than pikemen.

Griefbringer

Pikes were used extremly effectively as offensive weapons by professionals of most nations for much of the 17th Century. The reason it began to fall out use was that it was moste usefull in pitched battles, the final assault on a breach or similar actions. For the "small war" and siege work which were far more common activities the the musket was the prefered weapon.

The rapid movement found in the TYW, Northern War and in Turenne's campaign's also favour the more mobile musketeer. Even when at war with the superior Polish cavalry in 1620's the Swedes began to fight much of their actions with horse and musket alone in order to match the mobility of the Poles.

There was also the problem of replacing lost pikemen and their gear. Usefull recruits were limited in availability as pikemen were no longer better paid but still had to be larger and stronger than a musketeer inorder to wear the armour both on march and in battle.

It should be noted that there was not much of a reduction in fighting after 1648. Germany might be a peace but France still fought Spain and had nasty civil war as well (The Fronde) Sweden, Poland-Lithuania, Denmark, Brandenburg and the Austrians all fought the savage Northern War in the 1655's with the Russians and Cossacks added in for good measure.

The thing that killed pikes was first, the lighter, faster loading muskets, followed by the socket bayonet. Even during the ECW, the ideal was more muskets then pikes. By the late 16oo's the percentage of pikes had dropped drastically. Once the socket bayonet (with lugs) came into widespread usage, the pike was no longer a viable weapon, as infantry with muskets could perform both the function of musketeers and pikemen. It should be noted that the pike did not disappear… Russian militia of the Napoleonic Wars used them, and I seem to recall pikes being issued as late as WW2 (Russians again) though that had more to do with a lack of firearms than any belief that it was still an effective battlefield weapon

I seem to recall pikes being issued as late as WW2 (Russians again) though that had more to do with a lack of firearms than any belief that it was still an effective battlefield weapon

Don't forget the British Home Guard!

Though I think that in both cases the weapons were more likely to be equivalent to spears than pikes.

Griefbringer

The musket (and its decendants) have yet to reign even half as long on the battlefield as the pike did.

Re-enacted Landsknecht Pike with St Maximilian's guild I can tell you three things about Pikes:
1. They are meant to be used en masse so you can't dodge them.

2. They are totally versatile on attack and defense.

3. They are quite intimidating when leveled at you and moving forward at a determined clip.

Noch Weiter!

A Macedonian Phalangite might have a thing or two to say about the pike being only a defensive weapon.

Other posters have summarised the pros & cons of the pike in the ECW.

A couple of things that should be kept in mind about the use of pikes: it took quite a number of years to train a good pikeman. This is why ECW pikes probably never acquired the professionalism of the continental pikes. They did perform well at the Battle of the Dunes but they had had time to train to the level of the continental pikes.

Another thing, the pike was used in single combat. In pike fights it was one pike man versus another no matter how large the unit. Pikes were used in units as small as 100 and as large as 3,000. They were used as readily in sieges as on the battlefield.

With regards to the interaction of pike and shot in infantry combat, it was the function of the shot to disable as many pikemen as possible prior to the clash of pikes. In order to defeat the infantry you had to defeat the pikes. Pikes can hold the battlefield without shot but shot cannot hold the battlefield without pikes. Of course, to be most effective they are used together.

As to the ideal ratio, during the TYW that ratio was 1:1. This differs from the muster ratio that tried to be more shot than pikes. One of the reasons for this is that shot were used on many more assignments than pikes. They were used on convoys, holding strategic positions holding small villages, raids, etc. These musketeers were taken from the pike and shot units. For the commander to insure he had enough shot should there be a battle, he had to stock up on shot at muster time.

How do you manage to stab someone with a 16 foot long pole? Wouldn't it be pretty easy to avoid the jab if you were on the other end?

This misinterprets how the pike was used. The pike was held ¾ of the way towards the tail end. The advanced arm was used as a fulcrum and the rear arm as the guide. A small move with the rear hand translates into a much large movement of the pike head (which was extremely sharp). Thus, the pike head can move faster than a man can move.

The term "push of pike" refers to what one did with the pike and not what a pike unit did. In other words, the term ‘push' can be substituted with the term ‘thrust'. One can say, "they came to thrust of pike." The idea was after the first contact, to allow the front couple of ranks to fight with their pikes and for the rear ranks not to push on the backs of those fighting. In the ECW, some of the less trained pike units may indeed have ended in a rugby scrum. That simply demonstrated their lack of training.

They were described as "The queen of the battlefield".

That's all infantry not just pikes. But now that piece of disinformation has appeared on the internet, I suppose it'll be historical truth by Monday.

No, the historical truth appeared on Sunday. Montecuccoli called the pikes the queen of weapons.

To recount, the main function of the pikes was to defeat the enemy pikes and drive the infantry from the field. On occasion, a pike and shot unit would face attacking cavalry. In those cases their job was to drive off the enemy horse with the help of the shot. However, it was the primary job of cavalry to drive off the enemy cavalry. The difference between ECW pikes and Continental pikes was that the Continental pikes were simply better at these jobs because they were professionals and had more experience.

Rich

A couple of things that should be kept in mind about the use of pikes: it took quite a number of years to train a good pikeman. This is why ECW pikes probably never acquired the professionalism of the continental pikes.

An interesting statement. What accounts lead you to think that ECW pikemen were not performing as well as their continental counterparts?

Hello Rich …

Do I take it the silence is there is no real reason – or that you haven't looked here for a while ;-)

Ah Nik my humble apologies, I forgot where I wrote this. Roger Williams wrote it took 4-5 years to train a good pikeman. I take this to mean that English pikes finally began to acquire the proficiency of continental pikes towards the end of the ECW. Also, continental accounts seem to indicate that continental pikes were performing actions not readily seen by ECW pikemen such as being used in attacks on fortified positions and fighting within towns. I readily admit I'm not an expert in ECW attacks on fortifications but I believe I read somewhere that assaults of these types were carried out by musketeers and clubmen.

Rich

Ta :-)

I wonder if this difference, and I think you are possibly right, is because the English shot were more inclined to get stuck in with the butt end of the musket than the continentals? I certainly have the impression that by the ECW the English tended to view the pike as only necessary for keeping cavalry at bay but otherwise you were better off with musketeers as better all round troops.

Nik, that might simply be a reflection of the shot making up for the lack of experience of the pikes

Rich

I think the English had a long tradition of getting stuck in regardless of weaponry – IIRC they tended to lead assults in the Dutch army for example because of this. I doubt it was a compensation for any problems with pike usage.

I came across an interesting summary of primary evidence on pike fighting on the web which includes some quotes from primary sources. it can be found at link While this is from a re-enacting source it does cast some light on the actual use of pikes.

The musket (and its decendants) have yet to reign even half as long on the battlefield as the pike did.

Which only tells you that the technology of weaponry and tactics is accelerating.