"Casualty rates in pike fighting?" Topic

I have some first hand accounts of the experience of pike fighting both in the ECW and earlier.

These suggest that the push of pike started with the pikes charged by the front 3 ranks and ported by the rear three ranks (assuming a 6 rank ECW formation. This formation closes with its opposing pike block and initially at least the main effect is to knock over the enemy rather than kill them. I assume that if the enemy were unarmoured (musketeers or late war pikemen)then there would be more casualties caused in this stage of the fight. Once the two blocks have closed past the the enemies pike points it appears that a selection of nasty blade weapons were drawn (if the press allowed) and used which (again I assume)would be likely to create higher casualty rates.

However I have come across accounts (such as that of the future James II describing Edgehill) that suggests that casualties may have been less than in 16th century pike fights as the two sides were able to break off and retire a few yards and then let the muskateers let fly. This seems to suggest that the troops at edgehill beleived it was safer to engage in a fire fight than a pike engagement. Of course this might just mean that the pike were not the priority target of the fire fight.

Does anyone have any decent evidence for the likely casualty rates in melee combat either in pure pike clashes or or were full units of pike and shot were engaged in hand to hand fighting. I'm looking for some statistical evidence for drawing up casualty tables for ECW rules, but I'm interested in TYW data as well as a comparison.

I think that the casualty rates from pikes in most battles would be pretty light as push of pike did not happen that often.

That being said I have no idea what the actual rates of casualties would be in a clash when it came to it. I'd imagine that the effect of two infantry blocks fighting each other in hand to hand would have almost as much to do with the musketeers clubbing each other down as the pikement hitting each other. At least later in the war.

However I have come across accounts (such as that of the future James II describing Edgehill) that suggests that casualties may have been less than in 16th century pike fights as the two sides were able to break off and retire a few yards and then let the musketeers let fly. This seems to suggest that the troops at edgehill believed it was safer to engage in a fire fight than a pike engagement. Of course this might just mean that the pike were not the priority target of the fire fight.

I would think it was more dangerous to be in a fire fight than a pike-push.

IIRC, pulling apart was due to exhaustion and stalemate, not cowardice.

I would love to know your sources and where I can read them.

Here are some things to think about. When pikes charge one another, pike heads break. They are slender at the head. The sword is used for this occasion. I'm especially interested in the initial stepping back of the pikes. It seems to me this is to reorganize the pikes and to replace those wounded, dead, and exhausted. It is my believe that this stepping back occurred a number of times during a fight.

As to the firing of the shot, Instructions at this time was to have the shot fire at the pikes. So while the pikes are trying to reorganize, the enemy shot was trying to disrupt that reorganization. Remember, in infantry battle, everything depended on breaking the pikes.

Again, Elenderil I would love to know your sources.

Rich

"When pikes charge one another, pike heads break. They are slender at the head."

That's one reason why ECW pikes had metal extending about 3ft down the pole. Also, to stop your opponent chopping off the head of your pike.

"As to the firing of the shot, Instructions at this time was to have the shot fire at the pikes."

Rich I would love to know your sources.

I think I agree with Mike. I would think that the pikes were specifically designed not to just "snap" like cheap hockey sticks.

Re the shotte firing at the pikes, I dunno…… If I'm a musketeer and some enemy musketeer 20 yards away is drawing a beed on me, I'm probably trying to kill him first and the enemy pikes can stand there and do their little reorganization drill and I'll get to them later.

Take a look at an entry on Molyneux's Regt of the English Civil War Society. There is an article on there about pike fightinmg quoting primary sources. I haven't been back to those sources to confirm the accuracy of them. That is where the quote from James II came from.

The use of Languettes to reenforce the pike heads at the business end was to prevent pole arms and swords lopping the heads off. The pikes are indeed very slender at the blade end and they also taper at the but end to improve balance.

Musket target priority I'm not sure of. I suspect that if the pike are coming forwards then they would be the priority target, then again British Musketeers were renown for getting stuck in along side the pike with clubbed muskets so maybe the practice was to shoot at what ever seemed the nearest risk.

Update – the article on Molyneaux'website I bookmarked in the recent thread on pike fighting. It is a collation of primary source material from English Civil War Notes & Queries. The primary material covers the period from the 1520s to the 1640s.

Other material comes from Keith Roberts book "Cromwell's War machine" and the rest is a hodge podge of primary material quoted from various secondary and tertiary sources that qoute their sources.

As to chequer boartd deployment. De Gomme's deployment map of Naseby shows the Royalist foot in this formation. If I recall correctly this map is derived from the depolyment proposed by Rupert as being the basic deployment the army should use if brought to battle. From memory my source for this is either a quote on the Naseby Battlefield Project (NBP) site or the English Heritage Battlefield Report material which can be found here PDF link .

De Gomme's Plan for Naseby can be seen here link on a page of the NBP site. There is a similar plan for marston Moor also by De Gomme but I don't have a copy to hand so I don't know if it shows Chequer Board deployment.

Keith Roberts has reproduced a period engraving of part of the English Army's foot in one of the Bishop's Wars again this shows the battalions in Chequer Board. I know this is not definative evidence for the actual deployment but it is persuasive that the intention and perhaps the best practise was to deploy in this way.

"As to chequer board deployment."

Who said anything on this thread about that?

Stuart Peacheys " Infantry Combat" is a detailed analysis of infantry casualties and provides a good starting point on this subject. I will try to dig it out this evening and post a presis tomorrow. From memory casualties from both musketry and hand to hand were very light, typically things got nasty once someone routed.

I have Peachey's "Infantry Combat" booklet and I have gone over HIS figures again and again. I would NOT rely on Peachey. HIS casualty rates defy logic, history and physics. More on this when I have time to go into details.

SDG

Whoops thats what happens when your dealing with several threads at the same time LOL. My bad

Mathew Sutcliffe: The shot is duided into mosquetters, caliuers, and archers. The use of shot is diuers. In open field therewith wee defend our pikes, and with the same offend the enemies pikes. [shot protects the pikes and shot at the enemy pikes]

Ward states that shot should be advanced in loose order to fire on the pikes. Also shot should be placed under the front pikes to fire on enemy pikes.

There is a third but at the moment I can't find it.

Perhaps I should say the pikes were the primary target of the shot. This is in keeping with the fact without the pikes the shot cannot hold the field.

This is in keeping with the fact without the pikes the shot cannot hold the field.

I always thought that this was because shot fought in too loose an order to maintain cohesion if attacked by horse or pike. But….. was this entirely true by the time of the 30YW or the ECW when shot could maintain a reasonable rate of fire and would double their ranks to 3-deep for volley-ing?

It certainly would not be true by the Restoration when Armies were mainly shot with few pike.

"Mathew Sutcliffe: The shot is duided into mosquetters, caliuers, and archers. The use of shot is diuers. In open field therewith wee defend our pikes, and with the same offend the enemies pikes. [shot protects the pikes and shot at the enemy pikes]"

I presume this is the Matthew Sutcliffe (1550? – 1629). In which case he is describing the Elizabethan army of the late 16th century, not the armies of the ECW. This seems likely as as he mentions three types of shot: "mosquetters, caliuers, and archers" – matchlock muskets, calivers and bows. Calivers and bows had been phased out by the mid 17th century.