"Pike Blocks, Aggressive or Defensive?" Topic

I'm just getting into the Pike and Shotte period via the Warlord rules of the same name and was wondering how pike blocks would have been really used? The rules mention how a block of charging pikemen was an awesome weapon, would they have really charged? I always thought of pike as a defensive weapon forming a wall of points to deter would be chargers, after all if your pike hits home on an enemy then what? Would you have time, or be able, to pull it out to have a go at another enemy? Apologies if I'm opening a can of worms gentleman but I would value your thoughts…

Both, but I tend to think that they were more trailed to keep the cavalry 'honest' especially during the latter part of war. There are instances of pike leading attacks such as at Lansdown but it was the supporting musketeers who finally drove off the enemy.

At Naseby the veteran Roaylist pike were recorded as dropping their pikes to attack with the sword so presumably the NMA front line had broken at this point.

But yes a can of worms…

In the ECW you would have been unlucky in the extreme to die of a pike wound. If an actual battle casualty (and not popping your clogs to disease) you would most likely have been shot by a musket/pistol, hit by artillery that was actually aiming somewhere else, clubbed to death with a musket, or beaten/stabbed to death by a cavalry sword or tuck (as you tried to run away). A good read on the subject is Stuart Peachey's "The Mechanics of Infantry Combat in the First English Civil War."

Using the Pike and Shotte rules,we found that the pike blocks were basically a more defensive formation-shot blocks just fired at them,rolled a 6,and inflicted a disorder,which meant the pike couldnt charge.We played a game of Parliament verses Scot Royalist,and the Scots were really hampered in their attempts to get stuck in.

Pikes were defensive. They didn't charge as integrity of the formation was key.

Using the P&S rules I tend to lead with the two wings of shotte and pusht the pike through to combat should the enemy get disordered or shaken.

I found just the opposite with Pike and Shotte. One of the best tactics in the game is to take all of your shotte and put it on one flank and put the pike on the other. Use the shot to refuse that flank and sweep everyone facing you with the pike before turning and rolling up the line from the flank.

It worked really well.

That being said there were very few pike charges in the ECW. One of the few pike on pike combats was at Edgehill and there were few wounds inflicted during that, most of the men were just fencing with each other from accounts I've read.

Pike and Shot did not form up separately in the ECW but fought in combined arms regiments. I did not find the way Pike and Shotte handled this very convincing.

In open battle, the Regiments generally form up with their components together, and the behaviour is both defensive and offensive depending on the requirement. They must, of course, defend against horse so cannot move unless they have the support of their own horse.

At Naseby there is a full on infantry v infantry assault. Obviously there is no splitting of shot from pike (all fought), and there is evidence that pikes were not charged as the effect of the ridge was that the two lines lost sight of each other until the last moment (and engaged without shooting or charging).

There is plenty of shot scattered over Closter Hill (and famous casualties e.g. Skippon who was probably 'blue on blue') so firearms were clearly discharged deliberately or by accident in a broad hurly burly involving thousands of soldiers).

Phil
ECW Battles

In its Swiss form, some 150 years before the ECW, the pike block was an offensive weapon and emerged from a block of helbards – the "block" in it was coherency to prevent knights from mobbing up the infantry. For some 50 years the "push of pike" was usually the decisive moment of a battle.

With the ascend of the gunnery – both hand and artillery – the pike blocks became more shallow and a defensive formation, though offensive usage was always an option if circumstances and training allowed for it. During the TYW/ECW pikes were rarely in the dense of fighting (at least not on the giving end) – Grimmelshausen wrote in his "Simplicissimus" that those who killed a pikemen killed an innocent.

There's mention in Cavandish's biography (by his wife), of a pike charge, lead by a certain Posthumous Skirton, at Adwalton Moor, 1643.

@Princeps: Is the Peachey book a reprint of "Gunpowder Triumphant", or was that by somebody else?

In open battle, the Regiments generally form up with their components together, and the behaviour is both defensive and offensive depending on the requirement.

During the TYW/ECW pikes were rarely in the dense of fighting (at least not on the giving end)

Clearly some dichotomy here!

During the TYW/ECW pikes were rarely in the dense of fighting (at least not on the giving end)

What evidence can you offer for this point of view regarding the ECW?

@Princeps: I'll correct myself: Reid is the author of "Gunpowder Triumphant". Interestingly, of his case study battles, two are Lansdown and Adwalton, where, it's claimed, massed pikes were used offensively.

Pikemen apparently arrived on the field, waited for their breakfast whilst everyone else ran around popping off ill-aimed musketry while attempting to stay on their horses or avoid being trampled.

The artillery did some things too.

Then everyone went home and tried to remember why they were fighting.

True story. :)

As pike and shot would most of the time not fight seperately, it is not the question wether the pike was an offensive or defensive weapon, but what role it was meant to play on the battelfield in combination with shot. I'd follow Puster in his interpretation that the "pike" (as the term is used here) startet as an offensive weapon used by the Swiss (and yes, they did charge, astonishing their opponents by advancing rapidly on the battlefield). In the 16th century the use of pikes was generally adopted in European armies, although wether the special attacking style of the Swiss was copied accordingy I am not so sure of. Anyway, a 16th century general would expect his pikes to win the battle, and saw muskets in a supporting role (fighting off pistol armed cavalry if necessary, shooting the enemie's pike if possible). That changend in the 17th century. My guess is, that in the beginning of the 30 Years War generals would still expect their pikes to win battles (at least the more conservative catholic armies), while in time protestant armies made clear that the musket was the killer on the field, and pikes would have to protect them from cavalry charges (until the use of bayonets was adopted). By the time the English Civil War started, those ideas would have been generally accepted. At least that way it all makes sense in my humble opinion.

The very aggressive use of pikes was a century earlier, when pike squares of several thousand men each were what ruled the battlefield. As units got smaller, the ratio of pikes dropped, firearms became more numerous and more effective.

Pikes existed to keep the cavalry away from the shot. Yes, they could attack and sometimes did, but the pikemen didn't believe they ruled the battlefield like the Swiss or Lansquenets of yore. It's one thing getting guys who think they rule the roost to charge. Guys who just want to get promoted into the muskets are another thing.

Thanks everyone. The defensive, protective use of pike certainly makes more sense to myself. I could see them being used to try and push other pike blocks out of the way to make a gap for friendly cavalry or shot (similar to the boars snout technique used in the Dark Ages).

I could see them being used to try and push other pike blocks out of the way to make a gap for friendly cavalry or shot.

All the evidence from the ECW period suggests that pike and shot units operated as a single entity. There is no concept of pike blocks "pushing other pike blocks out of the way to make a gap". Friendly cavalry would be out on the wings so not in any position to exploit a gap even if one were formed. The pikemen and musketeers on both sides fought together as a unit. The only problem is that we don't know exactly how.

If pikes were only used defensively in the ECW then all the close quarters fighting would have to be done by the musketeers and the clubbed musket is only an improvised close quarter weapon at best. So yes, pikes must have been used both offensivly and defensively in the ECW as aprt of a combined arms unit.

Marix Evans suggests 13% of the population died in the English Civil Wars … 4x the proportion that died in the Great War … so I'd suggest there must have been more to the battles than pikemen waiting for breakfast before going home again.

In Foard's intricate analysis of the infantry action and casualty records at Naseby (The Decisive Campaign, pp 257 – 265) he repeatedly emphasises the shot holding tight to the flanks of their pikes, going in with musket butts, or as the reserves drove into the chaos, holding a line with the 4th rank of pikes firing as the pikemen drive forward (again pike and shot in a tight body with the pikes to the centre).

Skippon's exposed regiment held but suffered – excluding actual dead – a casualty ratio of 1:6-ish (quite a lot of fighting, then, given Skippon was on the winning side and held, so none of that was being caught in a rout …) …

In the incident to which Timmo refers that actual quote is that 'falling in with Sword and butt end of Musquet did notable Execution' … again, the pike and shot fight as a single unit.

But, yes it is complex …

Phil

I suspect a lot of the folks who died in the English Civil Wars died of disease. In the days before antibiotics the ratio of disease to battle deaths was often 4-1. Violent deaths often happened during sieges and storms, including those times the storming side would put defenders and civilians to the sword.

I agree pikes and shot stood together and that all sometimes went in with cold steel. But the great days of aggressive pikes were long gone.

Mick A

The device of treating pike & shot as separate entities is a gaming mechanism in Pike & Shotte which as 'YesthatPhil' says is one of the least satisfactory aspects of that rule set. Not quite as bad a Warhammer ECW where the rear ranks of pike expand the frontage once contact with opposing pike ahs been made! Still a howler though.

IT's not a question of whether pikes or muskets were offensive or defensive- both could be , er.., both.

In the larger battles it is what the whole battalia was trying to achieve.

That said, the pikes were certainly thre to help the Muskets from the Horse

SO Pictors tactics with Pike & SHotte rules is worrying – for the rules- HOwever, if you take them as skirmish , small engagement rules then it is entirely feasible as commanders adapted tactics to the ground

There is often a great deal of difference between the what causes the greater number of casualties and what causes the greater morale effect. Taking a steady trickle of casualties from muskets is not the same as having to make a decision (trusting your comrades to do the same) as a tightly packed and disciplined pike block tramps towards you. The lack of depth in ECW infantry groupings mean that most will feel an immediacy that will allow those at the rear to flee that wouldn't have been present in a Tercio or Phalanx (the lack of immediacy means there are unconcerned ranks behind those who are scared so they cannot run).

Adding in the number of casualties from cavalry once a block of infantry break and it is easy to see that analysiss of the causes of casualties may not tell us everything.