balticbattles | 11 Dec 2012 2:47 p.m. PST |
Just a random thought – did anyone use mixed pike and shot units outside Europe? Or was it unique to a particular set of circumstances? |
The Tin Dictator | 11 Dec 2012 2:58 p.m. PST |
They did in the American colonies. |
Meiczyslaw | 11 Dec 2012 3:05 p.m. PST |
And by American colonies, I think he's referring to Latin American colonies and not North American ones. I'm pretty sure the population wasn't dense enough to support the tactics in North America until after the bayonet gained wide acceptance. |
vtsaogames | 11 Dec 2012 3:45 p.m. PST |
Pikes would have been useless against Pequots and other Indians of the woods. As it was, matchlocks weren't so good either, once the natives got flintlocks. |
Meiczyslaw | 11 Dec 2012 4:13 p.m. PST |
Pikes would have been useless against Pequots and other Indians of the woods. Just bein' clear. There are many Old Worlders around here who use "American colonies" to euphemistically refer to the US. I'm pretty sure the Dictator ain't one of 'em, but it was worth saying. |
The Tin Dictator | 11 Dec 2012 5:00 p.m. PST |
As I understand it
The Battle of Severn (ECW) had both pike and shotte formations in it. It was in NORTH AMERICA. Maryland or Virginia
one of those. Can't be bothered to look it up properly right now. |
Meiczyslaw | 11 Dec 2012 5:25 p.m. PST |
Well, I'll be. I'd never heard of that before. I look forward to your further reference. |
Timbo W | 11 Dec 2012 5:35 p.m. PST |
Lots on Google, eg link This claims pike and shot were used, would be good to get confirmation of pike. |
Meiczyslaw | 11 Dec 2012 5:50 p.m. PST |
This claims pike and shot were used, would be good to get confirmation of pike. The consensus seems that the losers used both, but it was possible that the winners had no pikes at all. But that's from trawling the 'web in between compiles, so take with a salt lick. |
Bill N | 11 Dec 2012 9:39 p.m. PST |
What about the Portugese campaigns in Morocco? |
Cerdic | 12 Dec 2012 2:49 a.m. PST |
Surely use of the pike depends on whether or not you have cavalry to face? |
Griefbringer | 12 Dec 2012 4:59 a.m. PST |
Things that come to my mind: 1.) Conquistador civil wars in the New World tended to feature pike, shot and cavalry on both sides. That said, these were essentially European forces fighting against each other (though they may have featured some native auxiliaries). 2.) Imperial excursions to northern Africa in 1530's and 1540's would see European pike and shot armed infantry against local forces. 3.) The civil wars in Japan would see both gunpowder weapons and local version of pike used by various sides in the later half of the 16th century. |
Spreewaldgurken | 12 Dec 2012 7:27 a.m. PST |
The Ottomans used plenty of shot, but no pike. |
Thomas Mante | 12 Dec 2012 9:42 a.m. PST |
Massachusetts Bay ordered all pikemen to be rearmed with firearms in October 1675 and also 3/4 of members of troops of horse to serve on foot with a carbine. However as early as Jan 1674 had been looking to pull out a draft from the militia of men exclusively armed with guns. |
Meiczyslaw | 12 Dec 2012 10:24 a.m. PST |
Surely use of the pike depends on whether or not you have cavalry to face? Pikemen are cheaper to equip and easier to train than swordsmen, so are kinda-sorta the "default" for lower quality massed infantry. |
balticbattles | 12 Dec 2012 10:55 a.m. PST |
To clarify: I was meaning mixed units of co-ordinated pike and shot, rather than separate units of likes and shot. Thanks for all the examples, I wasn't aware of the colonies |
Griefbringer | 12 Dec 2012 11:36 a.m. PST |
Pikemen are cheaper to equip and easier to train than swordsmen Yet with pikemen, you will need to assign them some sort of a sword as a back-up weapon to use in close quarters, and provide some basic training for it. And the effective use of pike in a formation requires a certain amount of drill. Pike certainly could be used offensively against enemy infantry, as demonstrated at various times – Swedish military kept it in use up to 1720 or so, because it fitted well with their aggressive Gå-På tactic. |
Bill N | 12 Dec 2012 3:32 p.m. PST |
Pikemen are cheaper to equip and easier to train than swordsmen, so are kinda-sorta the "default" for lower quality massed infantry. I sometimes wonder if that wan't simply an excuse used by states lacking sufficient firearms and swords to equip infantry properly. I cannot imagine that it would be any easier to train pikemen to carry out the kind of manouvres expected of shot in the 18th and 19th century. Without that kind of training they are going to be pretty much static musket and cannon fodder. |
Condottiere | 12 Dec 2012 4:27 p.m. PST |
Pikemen are cheaper to equip and easier to train than swordsmen, so are kinda-sorta the "default" for lower quality massed infantry. Not sure upon what you are basing this information. Pikemen wore armor.
The proper handling of the pike took a lot of drill and training. Poorly trained pike were virtually useless.
|
vtsaogames | 13 Dec 2012 11:40 a.m. PST |
"Poorly trained pike were virtually useless." In 1978 Humbert used pike-armed Irish peasants to keep the British artillery busy while his French troops flanked the British line. |
Condottiere | 13 Dec 2012 12:41 p.m. PST |
Ok, useful as cannon fodder! |
bobm1959 | 14 Dec 2012 6:52 a.m. PST |
|
Meiczyslaw | 14 Dec 2012 10:15 a.m. PST |
Not sure upon what you are basing this information. Pikemen wore armor. Give an unarmored conscript a pike, and he's minimally useful. Given him a sword, and he's just as likely to cut the guy next to him. I agree that professionals are a different matter.
|
Condottiere | 14 Dec 2012 12:12 p.m. PST |
Point taken, but I think the discussion was about European infantry in late 16th to 17th centuries. But hey, whatever works. |