"Pikes: a query" Topic

Was the pike of use only if used by a formation of pikemen? Would an individual pikeman be at a severe disadvantage in a hand-to-hand situation? Should he drop his pike and go to a secondary weapon, like a sword, or were there ways of wielding a pike in a one-on-one situation?

You're correct. Pikemen (usually) carried a sword for use in one-on-one situations.

That being said, I've heard that people did train to fence with a pike, so make of that what you will.

Pike certainly was at its most effective when wielded in big numbers.

However, an individual pikeman might not be totally hopeless in confrontation with his pike, as long as he manages to keep the opponent at distance. Gripping the pike by the middle (instead of end) would make it significantly handier in such a situation and would enable you to present a sharp point that the enemy would need to get past.

IMHO.. and from reading.. the pike was useless in melee..

The Spanish had the 'sword and buckler' guys who would specialize in getting under the pikes and in among the pikemen.. There are incidents of Landsnechts grabbing
an armful of pikes and lifting.. allowing their fellows
to get under.

This is why the front rank hand non-pike in the front rank.

The pike was cavalry defense, pure and simple.
Of course, it was very gooood at cavalry defense..:-)

Yeah armies kept the pike and ditched the swords in the end. Surely if they gave them a such an edge in infantry melee they would have lasted longer as a concept.

The pike was cavalry defense, pure and simple.

Actually, in massed formations it was quite effective as an offensive arm against enemy infantry, especially if the said enemy was armed with weapons of shorter reach.

This question has been discussed on TMP extensively. Do a search on pikes and you'll find them. The first question I have is have any of you research the issue from 16th and 17th century primary sources? I'm not trying to be snarky. There is no reason you would unless you're anal like me. Individual pikes were used in duels, training manual for dueling include a section on how to fight with a pike, We have an account of a single man, standing on a broken wall, fighting off the enemy with a single pike. We have accounts of pikes driving out shot from their position in woods. We have descriptions of pikes assaulting over ruble caused by the artillery penetration of the walls of a fortified position. Pikes were used in street fighting. When you stop to think about it, even if there are hundreds of pikemen in the front rank infantry pike fighting always boiled down to one pikeman verses another.

In pike fighting the idea was to stand far enough apart to allow each to fight with their pikes. However, sometimes they got enmeshed with each other where it was too close to fight with pikes. At these times they dropped their pikes and used their swords.

So yes Virginia pikes were used as individual weapons.

As to a pikeman versus a swordsman, my bet is on the pikeman. He can move the head of his pike, which was extremely sharp, faster than a swordsman can move his body.

Rich

"the pike was useless in melee.."

"This is why the front rank hand non-pike in the front rank."

"The pike was cavalry defense, pure and simple."

Not enough reading yet!

Good post, Rich.

Allen

The original question was : Would an individual pikeman be at a severe disadvantage in a hand-to-hand situation..?

I will stand by my answer on that..

> As to a pikeman versus a swordsman, my bet is on the pikeman. He can move the head of his pike, which was extremely sharp, faster than a swordsman can move his body.

You'd lose.. in a one-on-one, the pike would be very easy to smack aside and then move so the point is behind you..

> Individual pikes were used in duels, training manual for dueling include a section on how to fight with a pike,

I suppose there were a few pike duels.. tho I fail to see the relevance to the question.. which was pike versus
shorter hand weapons..

As for pikes being used versus other infantry.. if all you have is pikes, then yeah, 'push of pike' becomes the only option. And no.. unarmored crossbowmen or arquebusiers are not gonna stand there.. any more than they can against
lance armed cavaly.

BUT.. if you think of pikes as unmounted cavalry.. albiet with a longer and more versatile lance.. the use of pike
en masse starts to make sense.. especially if you recall that the Swiss, at least, made their contact at a run.

> pikes driving out shot from their position in woods.

That I can see.. since the arquebus is not a melee weapon.
grip the pike at the front, and it become at least trailable thru woods..

As for reading the original sources, nope.. don't have those available.. (tho some web sites would be interesting if you have them..) Amateur that I am, I just struggle along with Oman and Delbruck and Contamine..:-)

Ive read in a few places the opinion that pikes were useless vs infantry. People often quote flodden as a case where infantry pikes were outdone by the more handy english weapons.

Ive suspected though that this view is just trying to simplify the reasons for defeat.

Thanks Allan.

Rich

Short answer to your initial query and to summerise the above – "yes"

Based on what?

Terrain, I apologize for not responding to your remarks.

Terrain: I suppose there were a few pike duels.. tho I fail to see the relevance to the question.. which was pike versus shorter hand weapons.

Slightly blind are we? Let me help. Corkonian asked, "Was the pike of use only if used by a formation of pikemen?" My answer was no. Clear now?

The original [second] question was : Would an individual pikeman be at a severe disadvantage in a hand-to-hand situation..?

I will stand by my answer on that.

Don't tell me, you didn't bother to go back and read my earlier posts. Hell, it's easy to remain wrong if you don't take the effort to read anything that will challenge your assumptions. I've done all the work. All you have to do is read it.

You'd lose.. in a one-on-one, the pike would be very easy to smack aside and then move so the point is behind you.

How would you know? You haven't read anything on the subject. You don't know and are relying on your imagination. Let's say you smacked that pike aside with your sword. The next thing you will hear is the breaking of your sword. Pike heads have a long metal shaft attached to them for just those kinds of attacks. You sword will hit that metal shaft and break.

Ah, you say, what about a shield. OK, you have a shield and sword facing the pike. What are you going to do, just flick the pike aside? What is the pikeman doing while you try that? Say you have your shield on your left arm at you side because you want to smack the pike to the right. At the close range you need the pike-head to be in order to smack it you will be skewered. The pikeman can do a forward thrust faster than you can overcome the inertia of the shield.

You carry the shield in front planning on smacking it to the left. Again, you have to let the pike-head in close. The pikeman knows what you plan to do with the shield and keeps the pike-head just beyond the point where you need that pike-head to be. The pikeman has several choices. Your shield can't cover your whole body. He can make a sudden thrust and with drawl at the head area or the lower body area faster than you can move that shield to block the thrust. He is certainly not going to leave the pike-head out there to be brushed aside. Or, he makes a feint and withdraws, you move the shield and boom a thrust to your chest. The point being, the pikeman is not going to leave his pike-head out there for you to smack it aside.

The Spanish had the 'sword and buckler' guys who would specialize in getting under the pikes and in among the pikemen.

Those ‘sword and buckler ‘ guys were called rodeleros and specialized in assaulting fortifications. When Gonsolvo landed in Naples with his arquebusiers and rodeleros he had his butt handed to him by the Swiss pikes.

There are incidents of Landsnechts grabbing
an armful of pikes and lifting.. allowing their fellows 
to get under.

I know of one account where a landsknecht used a halberd or a pike to depress the enemy's pikes. I know another account where a landsknecht used his body. In both cases they died. It was not a popular tactic.

This is why the front rank hand non-pike in the front rank.

Now I know you're smoking something. At no time did pike units have anything in the front rank but pikes. Perhaps you are referencing the battle of Ceresole where both sides placed arquebusiers in the second rank, not the first. It never happened before and it never happened since. It was deemed not a good thing to do.

It is quite clear that you know very little about pike fighting. And, you want to keep it that way. I have no problem with that. My advice is don't challenge people who have studied these things because you will come away looking silly. However, if you want to know, I will be happy to help you. Read what I've written and if you have questions I will be happy to try to help.

Rich

Rich, Rich, Rich, a tad bit condescending in tone, no?

Hi

Rich, you have fallen into the same trap you accuse him of. "breaking a sword" by hitting a metal shaft?

You imagined. And you imagined a single man fighting technique for pike. And then, you list a lost battle without context.

In the case of Gonsalvo the issue was a little different. Facing a pike block charging isn't the same as the above individual "fencing" scenario. And leaves out the idea that Gonsalvo also defeated Swiss…by dealing with the mass charging tactic, which has nothing to do with the point.

The final "trap" is what I like to call the "Stratego" trap. This is where discussion becomes heat and not light when we start saying "pike always, arquebus, sword, cav" always always wins, loses or something.

No point in haveing generals or tactics just have the magic unbeatable weapon. Wargamer thinking.

Lets be friends and have friendly discussions.

Rocky

There is plenty of proof for single man fighting techniques for pikes. Many of the fighting masters of the 16th Century (of both the German and Italian schools) taught the use of the pike. Meyer and DiGrassi to name but two authors.
The individual use of the pike grew out of the medieval techniques used by men at arms with the "spear" (i.e often a shortend lance) which can be found both in the German Lichtenauer tradition as well as in the Italian traditon originating in Fiore.

On top of that we have the pictorial evidence of Paul Dolnstein who drew his Landsknecht comrades as they practice their pike fighting skills either man vs man or in group.
picture
picture

Rich, you made good points. But man! how you say it. Reminds me of our protracted "English battleline at Agincourt" thread. Neither of us improved our debating "edge" by resorting to condescending talk….

If I came off condescending, I apologize to all and especially to terrain sherlock.

You imagined. And you imagined a single man fighting technique for pike

There is a difference. I have read how to use a pike in fighting.

In the case of Gonsalvo the issue was a little different. Facing a pike block charging isn't the same as the above individual "fencing" scenario.

Not quite. Gonsalvo had built a field fortification behind which he fought. The pikes had to get up over the dirt that had been thrown up. So, the rodelaros were not facing a mass charge.

The final "trap" is what I like to call the "Stratego" trap. This is where discussion becomes heat and not light when we start saying "pike always, arquebus, sword, cav" always always wins, loses or something.

No point in haveing generals or tactics just have the magic unbeatable weapon. Wargamer thinking.

I think you've missed the subject of the discussion. We were not discussing generals or battles. The discussion concerned one man versus another. In situations such as that, one does not need a general. As far as magical weapons, the assumption in discussions of one weapon versus another is that all else is equal. The assumption is both men are equal in experience and training.

And Doug, as far as our "English battleline at Agincourt" I was never after a debating edge. I would never do that to you. I was looking for a foil but had to settle for your dirk.

Rich

Hi

but I think you see disagreement where there is none.

See, the "tactics and general" are the issue in any fight. IF you let the swiss pike have a free charge in mass, you have a problem and they might be unstoppable. And Gonsalvo did the solution to negate the charge and turn it into a fight that favored HIS capabilities.

So, if we are over a low wall, and you cannot charge in mass, the sword and buckler is now at the advantage. That is the tactics. OR if I can arrange to shoot you down before you close, again tactics. A rude, inaccurate, slow loading gun is a failure in a knife fight when you have fired and missed.

So, I don't think we disagree so much as selecting criteria.

Rocky