"Defeating Pike Blocks with other Infantry" Topic

So despite my efforts to stick to reputable sources for the way that early modern infantry fought, I've never been able to shake the early impressions of Rodeleros or Doppelsoldners breaking into pike blocks and leaving them in disarray, softened up for the main assault.

Considering the way that pikemen stuck around much longer than these other troops, they clearly weren't the counter (or at least not as much as shooting the bastards was).

But did it ever work? Are there examples of these troops getting in and giving the big stick men a good licking? I've spent the last few hours trying to find something, but no luck so far outside of people saying that Doppelsoldner's probably didn't fight like that anyway. An auspicious start!

I think you have to have some kind of missile fire to soften up the pike block, be it gunpowder or crossbow. The Spanish sword and buckler men were trained as I recall to get in under the pikes. Keep in mind that most combined arms formations used the pikes to cover the missile weapons while they reloaded, until reloading times and socket bayonets rendered the pike obsolete.

I've never been able to visualize how a single swordsman could get "inside" the pikes, when he must get "inside" half a dozen ranks of the things. Lop off the head of the nearest pike, the second one behind sticks you, or the third, etc. I think the polearms and swords were for protecting flanks, and usually fought their counterparts in that role….

I wouldn't have thought so. They were used to protect the pikes not break up pike blocks.

Fire, terrain and disorder or flank attacks.

While we speak of them as "pike blocks" the large "haufen" used by Swiss and Landsknechts were actually combined arms formations which were carefully organised to make use of the abilities of soldiers armed with diffrent types of weapons and armour. When made up of veterans led by professionals the "blocks" also had more tactical flexibility than they usually get credit for.

The outer "layer" of the pike block would be formed by well armoured pikemen, behind the the front ranks you would find a few ranks halberdiers ready to fight at short range if enemy infantry defeated the front ranks or if enemy cavalry broke into the square. Then you got ranks of common pikemen until you got to the middle of the formation were you would find the banners surrounded by men with twohanded swords (or halberds if Swiss) together company and regimental staff as wekk as some of the NCO's. Behind the banners you found more common pikemen with the last rank/ranks of the "block" being made up of well armoured pikemen. Along one flank (or both) you would find the arquebusiers ready to move into position as needed.

Throwing a unit of targeteers or men with two-handed swords against the front rank of such a formation would achive little, not only were they likely to be shot up while advancing but they would also find themselves at a serious disadvantage once they got to grips with the front rank pikemen. The ability of targeteers to duck under the pikes/ of two-handed swords to cut through pikeshafts has been greatly exaggerated and seems to be based on the notion that pikemen could do little more than point their weapons straigh ahead. In reality the pike was a dynamic weapon in the hands of a skilled user and it would have been very hard to get past the pikes without being hit.

Spanish rondeleros did have several on several occasion wreak havoc among pikemen but when you look at the details of the fights the pikemen were disordered by terrain or obstacles and had often been hit by close range fire. And last but not least the rondeleros were fighting supported by friendly pikemen. The battle of Ravenna is perhaps the classic example of this.
The Landsknechts of Jakob von Ems (aka Jacob Empser) had first to cross the trench covering the front of the Spanish army, once across the Spanish arquebusiers and war carts pour fire into their ranks, those that survived had to reform and break through the line of the war carts to finly cross pikes with their Spanish counterparts. It is only then that rondeleros enter the fight and prove highly effective against the disordered Landsknechts.

Daniel S is talking sense!

There are some accounts of highlanders braking Covenanters pike,by rolling in under the pike.
This may be just brave talk,if your shot has been swept away by a highlanders charge the pike will not be fare behind them.

Yes, its just like Romans versus Macedonians. The Romans can't touch the pike frontally (well not decent pike) . The Romans fall back, the pike roll on until either they get disordered or the Romans come around behind them. If this stuff about swordsmen slipping under the pikes held then Romans (big shields, sharp swords) would have ripped the Greeks frontally.
What Romans could do was fall back, maintaining cohesion, which other armies found difficult.

I do find myself wondering how a typical Roman army would have fared against Alexander's combined-arms force of pike phalanx, and fast-moving, hard-hitting cavalry. I suspect the Legions would have disintegrated against that force…

One sees such a fine fighting machine once every 500 years or so.

Romans would also create disorder with their Pila. Renaissance swordsmen had to rely on arquebusiers to do that.

Most of the pila would glance against the thicket of pike shafts, and those that reached into the ranks would be few and sans penetrative impact for the most part….

I don't think we have any accounts of Romans disordering pike with their pila and then breaking in and destroying them. Polybius, who wrote at the time and specifically asks the question as to why the Romans won specifically stresses Roman flexibility and swordsmanship in defeating pila.The phalanx becomes vulnerable on rough ground and when its flanks are exposed.
Mark Grindlay and I wrote a series of articles in recent Slingshots explaining (amongst other things) that pika are not the primary weapons of the Romans , they are thrown to prepare the way for the sword and do not kill many opponents, rather they damage shields.

And keep in mind the Romans LOST a lot of fights against pike phalanx. (Pyrrhus may have won Pyrrhic victories, but they were victories.) Ultimately Rome beats Greece with their supply trains -- all of Italy supplying the Roman war machine as the Greek city states squabble as usual.

This has morphed into a Romans vs pike phalanx discussion. Medieval and Renaissance pike phalanxes were sans shields for the most part, and their enemies did not employ hand missiles for the most part, so not the same kind of confrontation as Rome vs Greco-Macedonian phalanxes. It is pretty obvious, at least to me, that the answer to the problem of a stout pike phalanx is another pike phalanx. And that's exactly what we see by the "Renaissance". Once those cancel out, you find all the other tactical ploys coming into it, with everyone trying to find the optimal mix of arms and flexibility, etc….

You make them cross a ditch or a stream, you entrench your troops, you hit them with lots of shot, you blast them with cannons, you hit their flanks or rear with horse. Basically you do whatever you can to disorder the pike ranks so your troops can close and do damage. Absent that you either charge them with your own pike, or you rush them and hope that the surprise catches them off guard.

At least that's my approach.

I just send in the ninjas.