Kenneth Portner | 20 Jun 2015 8:56 p.m. PST |
Was this only an anti-cavalry formation or was this also how shot would shelter when being attacked by pike? Is it correct that shot would seek protection of the pike when attacked by other infantry? If yes, how did this work and how is it reflected in wargames rules? Thanks. |
Codsticker | 21 Jun 2015 9:41 a.m. PST |
I believe it was a reaction to a cavalry charge only. |
Baccus 6mm | 21 Jun 2015 3:23 p.m. PST |
I've yet to see any evidence that this was a regularly used or formal formation. It really does seem to be a reenactor/wargamer concept rather than something actually used at the time. |
Jeff of SaxeBearstein | 21 Jun 2015 3:50 p.m. PST |
We are all guilty of "cross-gaming" from time to time -- that is to apply something from one period or rules set to the rules or period that we are currently playing. That being said, I would not at all be surprised if Baccus 6mm turned out to be correct. On the other hand, there were numerous veterans of the Thirty Years War in the ECW . . . so I would ask if this was a tactic used in that conflict. Personally I know very little about the 30YW so I have no opinion about the matter. Nevertheless perhaps someone who knows if it was common in that conflict can help . . . for if it was, then it probably got conveyed to the ECW as well. -- Jeff
|
Yesthatphil | 22 Jun 2015 2:26 a.m. PST |
What Baccus said … it doesn't really feature in the first hand accounts of battle with which I am familiar. Phil ECWBattles |
Mac1638 | 22 Jun 2015 4:50 a.m. PST |
By the mid 17th century I have difficulty believing in that formation (hedgehogs or sheltrons) that 2 musketeers can be defended by 1 pikeman. |
Codsticker | 22 Jun 2015 8:37 a.m. PST |
I thought there were military manuals of the age that showed the formation. Whether it was actually used is another matter…. |
Who asked this joker | 22 Jun 2015 11:10 a.m. PST |
I suspect it had more to do with the musketeers putting the pike in the way of the cavalry. The squares were not hollow so you can't go in there. The pikes were long so you could potentially dive underneath. I doubt all of them though. Some musketeers would undoubtedly have to run for it. |
Baccus 6mm | 22 Jun 2015 11:38 a.m. PST |
Codsticker, the manuals are what I was referring to when I used the term 'formal'. I am absolutely prepared to be proven wrong but I have yet to find a reference to this sort of action in any drill book of the period. To the contrary, all of the emphasis is on maintaining formation and dressing to enable the efficient use of weaponry as a body. Mixing pikemen and musketeers in a single ad hoc formation with the resultant breakdown in file discipline, command, and reduced weapon effectiveness is a recipe for disaster, even ignoring the logistical impossibility of a body of pike giving shelter to twice their number of shot. |
Herkybird | 22 Jun 2015 1:09 p.m. PST |
By the mid 17th century I have difficulty believing in that formation (hedgehogs or sheltrons) that 2 musketeers can be defended by 1 pikeman. I think you may be surprised that later in the 17th century even less pikes were used in formations. Look up the Battle of the Boyne for an example of how this worked in practice. |
Kenneth Portner | 22 Jun 2015 4:49 p.m. PST |
Ok, let's put aside the term "hedgehog" or the idea of a square formation designed to counter cavalry. Did musketeers seek shelter among / behind the pikemen when hand to hand combat was imminent? If not, what did they do against pikes? Once the pike dropped their pikes is there any reason to think the pike were more effective hand to hand than the musketeers? Thanks. |
Codsticker | 22 Jun 2015 5:54 p.m. PST |
If not, what did they do against pikes? Or cavalry for that matter? |
AussieAndy | 22 Jun 2015 8:43 p.m. PST |
The concept of the "hedgehog" has bothered me too, as I haven't come across anything that really describes how infantry responded to cavalry attacks. I would be very interested to see if someone with expertise in 17th century drill manuals can point us to examples. My guess is, however, that any formal drill prescribed by the manuals would have been more theoretical than practical, as the movements necessary to form a pike square or ring in an orderly way would likely have been awkward for even the best trained troops and, more importantly, too slow. Having all the musketeers try to shelter behind a block of pikemen doesn't seem very useful when the cavalry could just ride around the pike block to slaughter the musketeers. My guess as to what likely happened is that, if the musketeers didn't just break and run, the closest would have forced their way through the files of the pike block and those further away would have dived under the pikes as best they could. Presumably, the pike block would have opened up a bit as the musketeers forced their way in and the pikemen on sides and rear turned to face any threats from those sides. I can't see why one pikeman couldn't have offered protection to at least two musketeers in those circumstances, as surely two could have sheltered under a pike, without even counting those that had forced their way into the pike block. So, I'm guessing that it was more an ad hoc response to a dangerous situation, rather than an exercise in formal drill. That being said, if I was an infantry colonel, I think that I would have had my men go through a few dry runs before they got to a battlefield. All of this is just a guess, but I am otherwise struggling to see how pikemen could have protected musketeers. I may well be wrong, but my impression of infantry combat is that the pikemen from each side would attack each other while the musketeers belaboured each other with the butts of their guns and any aswords that they possessed. Presumably, if either muketeers or pikemen won their part of the combat, they would pitch in to help their colleagues. |
Baccus 6mm | 23 Jun 2015 3:48 a.m. PST |
I think that a major part of the problem is that we look at such issues as wargames and situations that come up in games rather than contemporary soldiers. It's the same sort of thing that causes rules writers to tie themselves in knots over handling sub units of pike and shot instead of looking at how battlefield units really operated. The fact is that frontal charges by horse on formed front just did not happen under the normal scheme of things. If foot suffered the attention of chaps on horses it was because a flank had collapsed and the attack was coming from flank or rear. There is no formal method for handling a mounted charge but my best guess using contemporary drop is as follows. A battalia could adopt three basic postures: 1) with pike and shot ranked even MPM 2) with shot advanced P M M 3) with pike advanced M M P Each posture can be used depending on tactical situation. Given the limitations of drill these are simple and robust options. My best guess, and it is all that it can be, is that if a battalia was facing mounted attack, the pike were advanced. The shot divisions both closed their files creating as compact bodies as they could and either held position or perhaps closed to the centre behind the pike division. The pike thus acted as a central 'breakwater'. Remember that real charging cavalry cannot zoom in on attacking a specific target. Horses are herd animals and if a good chunk of the unit balks it will easily take the momentum out of the attack. All the musketeers need do is stand firm. The pike are giving shelter to the shot but in a way which allows for contemporary drill and custom. How does that sound? |
Codsticker | 23 Jun 2015 7:51 a.m. PST |
3) with pike advanced M M .P If I recall correctly, that is how the Warhammer ECW rules proscribe a reaction by an infantry regiment to a cavalry charge- there is no option to form a "hedgehog". |
Elenderil | 24 Jun 2015 12:04 a.m. PST |
The units of foot were bigger than our tabletop units seem to be. For a musketeer on the far flanks of a body of 600 plus foot to run to the shelter of a pike block in the centre of the unit really isn't practical. |
Supercilius Maximus | 24 Jun 2015 5:08 a.m. PST |
I, too, have never understood how large bodies of shot managed to "shelter" in the lee of blocks of pikemen that were growing smaller and smaller as the period went on. By the early-to-mid-18th Century, pike-less infantry had evolved ways of dealing with enemy horse to their front which rendered frontal cavalry assaults almost suicidal (essentially close-range volleys by rank, with the rear rank(s) holding their fire for emergencies). Did these tactics perhaps evolve from the late ECW/TYW eras where large bodies of foot armed exclusively with muskets became more and more common on the battlefield proper (as opposed to holding defensive positions or difficult – for horse – terrain)? Large bodies of salvo-firing foot would, I suspect, have thrown out impressive volumes of fire – quite possibly enough to halt cavalry in their tracks and/or take the impetus out of their forward motion. In such circumstances, is it not equally likely that "converged" blocks of pikemen – possibly from all of the battalia in a brigade – would be placed outside the foot to deal with flank attacks (by far the more likely possibility) and the odd rear attack? |
Oh Bugger | 24 Jun 2015 6:21 a.m. PST |
"A battalia could adopt three basic postures: 1) with pike and shot ranked even MPM 2) with shot advanced P M M 3) with pike advanced M M P" I think that is very interesting what in your view are the respective advantages of the three formations? |
Elenderil | 24 Jun 2015 11:23 a.m. PST |
Musket forward allows maximum weight of fire and protects the pike block from incoming fire to a small extent. This is especially true if all the shot in a brigade are deployed forward. Pike centre with shot wings is a kind of default general purpose formation. Pike forward would allow the shot some protection from oncoming pike or horse. There were more formations available as the combat formation depicted in manuals was the brigade not the regiment. Brigades could deploy with one regiment forward in MPM formation with a regiment on their right rear deployed PMM and one to the left rear deployed MMP. Generals could and apparently did mix things up according to circumstances. I'm coming to the conclusion that shot did the damage and pike were the arm of decision. So shot would be deployed in what ever way allowed them to do the most damage while maintaining contact with their pike element. |
Oh Bugger | 24 Jun 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
That's interesting. I'm currently reading Destructive and Formidable and that and pretty much everything else I've read says that a well delivered first fire at close range was hard to resist. The firers quickly falling on post volley. The question is how would a battalia deploy for such an assault? Pike forward would add to the shock while musket forward would aid the weight of fire. |
Baccus 6mm | 24 Jun 2015 3:42 p.m. PST |
Elenderil pretty much states the options. Again, only my opinion, but the tactical options open to a battalia commander were all about either withstanding or applying pressure on the enemy. Let's say he wished to advance on and dislodge enemy to the front. This would initially be done with the shot advanced gaining ground by giving fire with each rank of each musket and as they turned to clear the front stepping the body forward about 6 feet, thus continually maintaining fire while moving forward purposefully. The pike would maintain their position relative to the shot. If the enemy looked discomfited by this, or the decision was taken to force the issue, then the shot would hold their ground and perhaps prepare to give a salvee, while the pike would then move forward charging their weapons and showing their willingness to inflict grievous bodily harm on the enemy. If all went well, said enemy would remove themselves, if not then the brave pikemen would decide that the time was no quite right for GBH or very, very occasionally there would be actual combat in the form of the infamous 'push of pike'. The musketeers would in all likelihood join in with all the fun with whatever they had to hand. If the battalia needed to conduct an ordered retreat, then the reverse could be used with the pike ranked level to provide a spiky riposte to any pursuers and the shot giving fire and losing ground. As Elenderil said, the tactical options open to a battalia commander were flexible provided his men were drilled well enough to undertake them. |
Oh Bugger | 24 Jun 2015 4:32 p.m. PST |
This is all good and makes sense although I understand we can never be entirely sure. I always get the two mixed up but I think taking ground requires fire by introduction. Each rank forming in front of the next and giving ground sees each rank forming behind the next. The pike as you say maintaing their position relative to the new front line. So in wargames terms we have three formations, easily recognisable on the table, that most troops should be able to carry out. The pluses and negatives seem clear with the default position being neutral. The level of drill seems key. Perhaps less well drilled troops would find it difficult to move from firing by rank to firing a salvee. I'm thinking confidence versus being nervous here. There does seem to be an issue with less experienced or just plain unhappy soldiers opening up at too long a range. |
Baccus 6mm | 24 Jun 2015 6:09 p.m. PST |
Just one thing. Fire by introduction (at least by the time of the ECW) was replaced by firing by rank or by file. The latter two systems proved simpler and meant a body of shot did not need to move to open order between files. Firing by rank allows you to take, maintain or lose ground very simply. |
Oh Bugger | 25 Jun 2015 4:19 a.m. PST |
Very good thanks for that its all informing my upcoming Kilsyth game. |
Kenneth Portner | 25 Jun 2015 9:58 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the informative discussion. The original question was prompted by reading people complaining about how Warlord Games' Pike & Shotte rules treats infantry in the ECW-- in that game they are separate "units" of pike and shot. You read a lot of complaints about how pike and shot did not act separately in the wars. Exactly how the shot obtained protection from the pike, etc. doesn't matter in rules, like for example Forlorn Hope (which I think was written by Baccus 6mm), where the various machinations between the elements happen at a level below that depicted by the discrete units in the game. But games like P&S, where pike elements and shot elements are separate in game units, I suppose, are trying to depict in some way the actual mechanics between the two types of infantry. |
Kenneth Portner | 25 Jun 2015 10:01 a.m. PST |
I'm coming to the conclusion that shot did the damage and pike were the arm of decision. So shot would be deployed in what ever way allowed them to do the most damage while maintaining contact with their pike element. It would be interesting to see how this might be reflected in wargames rules. Anyone want to write a set that does so? :) |
Oh Bugger | 25 Jun 2015 5:14 p.m. PST |
I'm going to try something out for my Kilsyth game. If it works I'll write the game up. The Piquet system of 1 up 2 down might lend itself very well for this type of action. I should say for those who don't know Piquet a unit has a basic dice value that is modified up or down according to circumstances. |
Codsticker | 26 Jun 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
It will be interesting to see if Warlord addresses this in their new ECW supplement… I suspect not though. |
John Dixon | 27 Jun 2015 12:01 p.m. PST |
I have a particular bugbear over rules for the ECW that include detailed rules for hedgehogs. I have played a lot of games where the infantry all end up in hedgehogs while the cavalry roam around threatening them. What really happened? At Cheriton Hoptons infantry closed ranks and the shot fired at two pikes length to fend off the horse. At Newbury Byrons horse were beaten off by foot closed up in ranks with a hedge to their backs. So the defensive formation itself was not the issue, if foot could remain disciplined and closed up they could fend off the horse. Being amongst hedges helped as horse could not get momentum together and became disorganised. On the other hand if the horse could get close to the foot and the foot were disordered or unable to maintain discipline the foot could crumble. Ruperts horse got in amongst Skippons foot at Naseby while they were fighting to their front and disordered as a result. Fairfax and the Parliamentarian horse got amongst Ruperts foot at close range when they were disordered. At Marston Moor some of the Scots regiments were beaten up by the Royalist horse when they could not react quickly enough. So my view is that the main issue was the discipline or disorder of the foot and the terrain. I have found that the Victory Without Quarter rules depict the role of the horse v foot issue best. Infantry can try and form a defence against horse, dependent on how far the horse are away and how disciplined the foot are. |
Baccus 6mm | 29 Jun 2015 11:55 a.m. PST |
At the risk of sounding heretical, is there any need to attempt to model the effect of battalia formations? Why not assume that the chap in charge had enough about him to use the most effective formation as required? I think there are enough options in terms of weapon ratios, troop quality, terrain modifiers, officer ability and unit attrition to play with without adding more twiddle bits in. It's a level of abstraction that may appear alien to many at first but it's the approach I took with the Polemos ECW rules and it works well enough. You can over think a subject and create more confusion than is merited. |
Codsticker | 29 Jun 2015 3:59 p.m. PST |
At the risk of sounding heretical, is there any need to attempt to model the effect of battalia formations? Why not assume that the chap in charge had enough about him to use the most effective formation as required? That thought came to mind this weekend when I was comparing a couple of different rule books I have. Once deployed, presumably the "unit" commanders would issue appropriate orders. A possible exception could be forces that come under attack when still in column. |
Elenderil | 30 Jun 2015 5:30 a.m. PST |
I haven't played Pike and Shot so please take this as a comment from an interested bystander! I don't have an issue with pike and shot components of a unit being separate provided that they have to stay in some sort of close proximity to each other. Think WRG ancient rules for sub-units of light infantry to be linked to heavier foot. It requires the player to understand their period and to want to play in accordance to the tactics actually used. In the two games of P&S I have watched the pike and the shot seemed to go off in all directions with no thought to the impact this would have had on command and control. I would simply require shot elements to always be within a set distance of the command group modelled as part of the pike to counter this. If you want your pike and shot to be able to operate independently (as could be the case during the TYW for well trained experienced troops) pay an additional points cost to represent the better training. Or as Peter has said just subsume it into the rules as being something your little lead (or plastic) officers are controlling for you! |
Kenneth Portner | 01 Jul 2015 12:05 p.m. PST |
I haven't played Pike and Shot so please take this as a comment from an interested bystander! I don't have an issue with pike and shot components of a unit being separate provided that they have to stay in some sort of close proximity to each other. The rules don't say the pike and shot units must stay within any particular distance. But a shot unit within 6" of a pike unit can form a "hedgehog" with that pike unit if the shot unit is charged. So there is reason to keep them close, even if people don't always do so. My question really derived from wondering whether this was "right" when the shot were being charged by infantry instead of by cavalry. |
Kenneth Portner | 01 Jul 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
At the risk of sounding heretical, is there any need to attempt to model the effect of battalia formations? No, there's no need. Rules that abstract those elements can be just as "historical" and just as much fun. But some people like rules that model those things. And if they're going to model it you'd hope they'd get it right. Wondering about that is what prompted me to start the thread. :) |
Elenderil | 01 Jul 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
Back to the point on foot v horse I came across a reference to Roundway Down today. Its from a tertiary source on the internet so needs some checking. The gist of it is that after the Parliamentarian Horse had been routed Waller formed his foot into squares (lets read that as being some generic anti cavalry formation) and stood off the Royalist Horse even managing to retire the foot towards safety for a while. It was only the arrival of the Cornish Foot under Holton which eventually broke Waller's foot units. Source is the British Civil Wars project website. |
Baccus 6mm | 02 Jul 2015 4:58 a.m. PST |
I don't have my sources to hand, but if my misremembering isn't too strong today, Wallers foot adopted a large hollow square formation. I'd see this as a sensible document to stop that rampant royalist horse getting where it shouldn't. Such a formation could only have worked with each battalia maintaining its ranks and files and not forming clumps, as this would leave holes in the square leading to all sorts of unpleasantness. |
Elenderil | 02 Jul 2015 5:52 a.m. PST |
Couple of quotes re Roundway from original sources. "we found the enemy in sight, marching towards us; we long'd to charge them with our horse, which we did with some disadvantage, and were put to a retreat disorderly: But rallied againe with the helpe of our reserve. The enemy came on, and we charged them the second time, and then all our horse were routed, their reserve standing firme. Wee fled; they followed, yet our foot, being scarce considerable, stood one houre and an halfe, and forced their horse to retreat divers times: but their foote comming up from the Devises, made ours leave their armes and flye." From A True Relation of the Late Fight between Sir W Waller's Forces and those sent from Oxford sent from a Colonell in that Army now in Bristoll to a friend of his in London. 1643 Reprinted in Bibliotheca Gloucestrensis ed. John Washbourn (1825) "….but when they saw my horse rallied together again before them, & the Lieut. Gen. continuing still in the rear of them, and that the Cornish foot began to sally out of the town, they thought it not fit to stay any longer, they began first gently to march off, their officer marching before them, amongst which (as I have been told since) Sir W. W. himself was, & Popham. With that I advanced towards them with those troops I had rallied, & shot at them with the cannon I had formerly taken, their officers thought it not fit to stay any longer, but such as had horses rid away as fast as they could, & too fast for us to overtake them, & the rest blew up their powder & threw down their arms & betook themselves to their heels, our horse fell in amongst them & killed 600 of them, & hurt many more, and took 800 prisoners & all their colours, & this was the success of their great conqueror." Richard Atkyns Quoted from 'The Vindication of Richard Atkyns'. ed. Peter Young Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 35, 1957 Slingsby noted that Waller's foot stood for about an hour and a half unsupported against the Royalist Horse. |
huevans011 | 05 Jul 2015 1:55 p.m. PST |
I think that we are dis serviced by the fact that almost all of us developed our wargaming instincts when playing Napoleonics. Cavalry EAT unformed or disordered infantry in the early 1800's. Either the infantry are caught in thin lines or 1's and 2's in the open, or they are formed in square and repel the cavalry 90% of the time. And in the 10% or less when the square in broken, the infantry is smashed. But infantry in the 1800's was not trained to go mano a mano with cavalry. Their whole mentality was to preserve their formation and fire. To maximize firepower, they were crammed in shoulder to shoulder and were largely unable to use their bayonets in any movement except a stab forward. If their formation was broken into, they were pretty much defenceless. Pike and shot infantry were spaced more widely apart and were deployed in thicker formations. So they could – and would – melee effectively against cavalry. While they would likely get the worse of a melee with charging cavalry, they would damage it badly in return. French cavalry hit a pike block twice and road right through it at Ceresole. But the cavalry was pretty smashed up as well at the end of the fight. So my guess is that normally cavalry avoided a head's down charge against foote unless they had a lot of firepower support from their own infantry or they were able to hit from a flank. That means that i agree with Bacchus that shot didn't scuttle under the pikes when threatened with cavalry. The pikes likely advanced some yards to break up the cavalry charge and the shot crowded together to concentrate their fire and prepared to deliver a point blank doubled rank volley and then melee. |