olicana | 03 Oct 2016 12:26 p.m. PST |
OK, as some of you will know I'm quite keen on the Italian Wars and I've been reading and collecting for years. The more I have read the more I have become convinced that when we hear of "9000 Landsknecht pike" we are talking about 9000 men in a single body of pikemen about 9000 strong. They move together as one, fight as one, and run as one if defeated. I know that each pike square was usually made up of more than one Fahlein (company) and that, in rare circumstances, fahlein might be split off from the main body to deal with one circumstance or another but did the rest, the bulk, act, fight, win or run as a single body or were they small units fighting individually as one? Most rules tend not to do huge units because either they don't believe that my general assertion is correct or because their mechanisms just can't cope with units 9000 strong. Please, those who are into the period with reading beyond a rule book, am I wrong? BTW, huge units are pretty big. This is the Swiss at Cerignola. This is a block of 180 figures representing about 4000 Swiss.
Should this formation be represented this way or by several units? |
Puster | 03 Oct 2016 12:44 p.m. PST |
I got the impression that pike blocks maxed at around 5-6000, perhaps a bit more. At Marignano the some 18000 Landsknechts in French service were parted in three blocks. At Pavia both the French and the Imperials used blocks this size. At Bicocca the 16k Swiss moved in two main columns, just as at Cerignola. At Ceresole we have three main blocks, resulting in three different engagements. I have no idea wether this was by design or random. There must be a limit to the distance a voice (supported by drums & fifes) could carry, though. Anyway, the large blocks behaved as a single unit – once they formed up they remained until they broke down, which usually meant victory or defeat anyway. I am not aware of a major block being divided and then acting coherently with the resulting units. |
steamingdave47 | 03 Oct 2016 1:05 p.m. PST |
Not very familiar with this period, but from what I have read they were more likely to have been organised in colunela (1000 or so) or tercios (2 or 3 thousand) rather than one huge block. Would the rules you use give any advantages to the huge block? |
Rich Bliss | 03 Oct 2016 1:12 p.m. PST |
I agree with you. I've always considered Fahlein to be administrative units. I'm not certain that all the pike is specific battle are in a single block but I'd bet most battles didn't have more that 2-3 blocks on a side. |
olicana | 03 Oct 2016 1:56 p.m. PST |
Thanks, the two main voices I wanted to hear from have already answered, as I knew they would. Please, if Rich or Puster could contact me off list, via email olicanapsATgmailDOTcom to discuss this matter further, I'd very much appreciate it. Also, if Jim Sweeney is out there, you bloody reprobate, you might also be able to help. I'm going to be trying Pike and Shotte and I'm finding it hard to get around the big pike square question that the rules throw up by their very nature. I like big pike squares. Perhaps the way the rules work (support in melee) will make it seem reasonable. But I do like the biggies!
|
rct75001 | 03 Oct 2016 2:55 p.m. PST |
And we like your "biggies" as well. |
Phillius | 03 Oct 2016 5:23 p.m. PST |
I organized a P&S game at a local con a year or so ago. I had my Swiss in one big block, 96 figures roughly, plus two or three units of skirmishers in support in the same command. The skirmishers got shot to pieces and fled, and the pikes failed a control test as so many other units in the command had broken. Clearly, this was down to the way I organized the command, but I'm not sure what the solution is. And I haven't had an opportunity to go back to investigate again. However, apart from that problem, I felt P&S worked well for the period. |
clifblkskull | 03 Oct 2016 8:53 p.m. PST |
Good question and nice pics Clif |
Puster | 03 Oct 2016 10:25 p.m. PST |
Big pikes certainly need different morale rules to normal sized units, if small units breaking can create morale tests to the big one. Most soldiers knew that running – actually any loss of cohesion – would doom them. The Swiss, eg, are known to have killed their own stragglers, and their habit of killing all enemies and taking no prisoners comes originally from the demand that all need to stay in the formation – nobody was allowed to take any prisoners back, nor could you leave them on its own. Naturally the losing side saw that less pragmatic, and when able to reprocitated – which led to the many "bad wars" between Landsknechts and Swiss. Olicana, mail sent. Whenever I see your tables in action it feels a bit like a look upon a contemporary painting of a battle. :-) |
wrgmr1 | 03 Oct 2016 10:32 p.m. PST |
Gorgeous table and figures! |
gavandjosh02 | 03 Oct 2016 11:37 p.m. PST |
Please post the results of your off-forum discussion. I'd be grateful for any conclusion. |
peterctid | 04 Oct 2016 2:42 a.m. PST |
The momentum that a large, cohesive body of men generates is always difficult to replicate in rules. I have always thought that the deep column is at a huge disadvantage in rules, but was a formation which offered battlefield advantages- provided it keeps moving forward. |
IanKHemm | 04 Oct 2016 3:26 a.m. PST |
I can't contribute anything to your question but I have to say that those big pike blocks do look fantastic. I don't know how you'd move them but they look lovely. |
Supercilius Maximus | 04 Oct 2016 4:06 a.m. PST |
I can't help wondering, from the way this discussion is headed, if this isn't another "wargamerism" (like ECW "regiments" that, it turns out, were increasingly split into "battalia" and then again into "divisions" of just a few companies, or those "longer than they are wide" Napoleonic columns) that has just taken over the thought process? I don't know about the Swiss, other than that blocks might contain men from different cantons, but my understanding of the Landsknechts was that they formed in "regiments" of, typically, 10 fahnlein/companies, and this constituted a "pike block" – although, again from my reading, this "block" actually consisted of lots of lines (the Napoleonic "column" analogy again comes to mind) of different troops types with different (however slight) tactical functions. This is before we even consider how you would "control" this enormous "mob/mass" of humanity. How did these blocks turn to face a flank or rear if attacked other than in front? Given that they didn't march in step (Landsknechts appear to have moved three paces for every five drumbeats!), how chaotic were they and how far apart was each man – if the bloke behind me keeps treading on the heals of my shoes (and I can't stop to retrieve them) he's likely to be the first person I kill. My guess – and it is only that – is that a "pike block" actually consisted of several distinct units, albeit able to move in some sort of harmony, and (like ECW "regiments") our ground/figure scales have led us to draw them all in to a single big blob on the tabletop. |
Von Trinkenessen | 04 Oct 2016 4:54 a.m. PST |
Olicana thank you for posting these wonderful pictures, as I am currently painting Landsknechts and Italians for "The Von Trinkenessen Chronicles", not quite as many though my wife would disagree. I think I hear the shout going up "Need more pike". Regards Guy T |
Daniel S | 04 Oct 2016 11:24 a.m. PST |
an older post of mine might shed some light on how a large pike block manouvered and at which pace it moved. : Troops were marching at a pace set by drums at least as far back as the 15th Century. Doing so is an important part of using the massive formations employed by the Swiss and others. Jovius describes how the Vitelli brothers (a condottieri family) created an Italian infantry based on the Swiss & Landsknechts in 1496. The troops were taught to "keep step by the drumbeat".From 1495 we have the following description of German foot. "All eyes were attracted to a phalanx of Germans which formed a square and was composed of 6,000 foot soldiers commanded by Georg von Eberstein (Wolkenstein) on a splendid horse. In keeping with the German custom, a large number of drums was heard in this battle formation, almost strong enough to burst one's ears. Wearing only breast armor, they strode along with but little interval between their ranks. The leading men carried long lances with a sharp point, while the following ranks held their lances high. They were followed by halberds and men with two-handed swords. [Sic!] They were accompanied by color bearers whose signals caused the entire unit to move to the right, to the left, and to the rear, as if it were moving along on a float. These units were followed by men armed with the harquebus, with crossbowmen on their right and left. When opposite Duchess Beatrix, on a signal, they suddenly shifted the square into a wedge (that is, the broad formation into a narrow one, or the square with sides of equal length into a square with equal numbers of men on each side). Then they divided into two wings, and finally the entire mass swung about as one part moved very slowly and the other very quickly so that one part revolved about the other, which stood still, so that they appeared to form a single body." (It should be noted that the reference to two handed swords is a mistake by Delbruck, the original latin contains no such reference) This level of ability requires that you march at a set pace, particularly if using such short distances between the ranks. Even without pikes it is easy to foul the formation if everyone is not in step and with pikes the ability to get into trouble due to disorder multiplies. Even more so when the pikes are lowered for combat. When Erik XIV of Sweden issued training instructions for the Swedish infantry in the early 1560's as part of his introduction of large scale pike use one paragraph of the instructions laid down that the captains were to instruct the men in how to march at the pace set by the drums and fifes. The most source which provides the most details afaik is Olnitz "Kriegsordnung" from 1598. He describes two paces for the the infantry. The "Common pace" which was 3 paces to a beat of the drum and an unnamed higher pace in which there was 5 paces to a beat of the drum. In the first case the troops marched 1/4 of a German mile in an hour. Using the higher pace the troops marched a comple German mile in 3 hours. |
Daniel S | 04 Oct 2016 11:40 a.m. PST |
How did these blocks turn to face a flank or rear if attacked other than in front? Because of their size and shape pike formations of the period could fight both to the flank and rear without facing the front rank toward the threat. Rear attacks in particular could be met effectivly as long as the mens morale held. To ensure this experienced commander recomended making up the last ranks with experienced doppelsöldner and that the lieutentat was placed in the last rank. |
Bowman | 04 Oct 2016 1:50 p.m. PST |
Not as familiar with this period to make an informed comment other than your table and troops look gorgeous. Well done. |
Marcus Brutus | 04 Oct 2016 5:42 p.m. PST |
I am dubious that large pike blocks of 6000-9000 men maneuvered as such on the battlefield. One the problems with modelling the big pike blocks is that while we can model frontages reasonably well the depth is way out of scale. And I mean way out of scale. |
John Thomas8 | 05 Oct 2016 7:01 p.m. PST |
I'm with Bowman, that's some super serious eye candy! |
Puster | 05 Oct 2016 11:08 p.m. PST |
Given that they didn't march in step As Daniel already showed, this is certainly not the case. You simply cannot move in such formations without marching in step, and it is not by accident that the Swiss and Landsknechts (who first learned their trade from the Swiss in the Burgundian armies of Maximilian before they spread the knowledge) formalized the usage of drums and fifes. I am dubious that large pike blocks of 6000-9000 men maneuvered as such on the battlefield. Tell that Charles the Bold :-) The Swiss used these large blocks to move aggressively (other then the Scottish Schiltrons) while being safe from cavalry. They usually deployed and went forward, it was not a battle of maneuvers. The question was then who would break first, but it took another pike block to stop them (Cerignola, Marignano, Bicocca) Deploying the block from advancing formations was what counted. Only in rare occsions did a block get outmaneuvered and attacked from several sides, like the Black Band at Pavia. How did these blocks turn to face a flank or rear if attacked other than in front? Individual lines turned and fought into that direction. At Ceresole one Imperal block fought off attacks from three directions, and only surrendered when they lost hope of relieve. Daniel, have you heard of any instance where a formed block seperated into working subunits during a battle? Preferably in the era up to 1550, but later instance are also most welcome. |
Daniel S | 06 Oct 2016 7:00 a.m. PST |
Puster, I guess it depends on how you define subunits? Smaller units such as the detachment of halberdiers who the Swiss sent out to attack the artillery and landsknechts at Novara 1513 are well documented but the Trewer Rath suggests that this could be a case of a prepared sub-unit hidden behind the main body rather than an integrated part of the Haufen detaching to fight on it's own. There is also the Schwyz contigent at Murten who outflanked the Grünhag defences but I can't recall the details of how it was done and don't have acess to the right books at the moment. Then there is Du Bellay's account of Ceresole in which he claims that the large Landsknecht square which fought the French led by Monluc and the Swiss divided into two units to face the Swiss attack which was aimed at one flank of the Landsknecht square. However AFAIK Du Bellay is the only one who mentions this, Monluc who fought the Landsknechts do not mention the manouver and instead writes that the Swiss struck the flank of the Landsknechts. |
Marcus Brutus | 06 Oct 2016 10:52 a.m. PST |
Saying that the Swiss advanced in large blocks tells us very little about how they advanced and the kind of formations used to move. MacDonald's column (Vth Corp) at Wagram was about 8,000-9,000 men and it certainly looked like one large unit but in fact it was made up of numerous battalions and brigades. I simply doubt that it is possible to move 9,000 men as one unit. |
Rich Bliss | 06 Oct 2016 11:29 a.m. PST |
Marcus- You can doubt it all you want, but the Swiss (and others) seem to have figured it out. Now, complicated maneuvers were probably not common, but moving forward to the attack seems to be quite possible. If they did maneuver as sub units, I'd expect to see a much more comprehensive command structure than we have evidence for. |
Daniel S | 06 Oct 2016 2:37 p.m. PST |
MacDonald's "column" at Wagram is a very diffent thing, a huge open square with the front formed by four battalions in line and the sides made up by 4 & 8 battalions in column of divisions and a rear face of 3 battalions in column. I've seen estimates that it covered 550x800m of ground. By comparison a Landsknecht square was a much smaller and more massive affair. The 6000 man square described by the "Trewer Rath" had a frontage of 135 men and a depth of 45 ranks, i.e it's frontage is actually less than than that of many Napoleonic battalions deployed in line. As long as the men keep their postion in the file and follow the file leader it is entirely possible to move such a formation but it did move at a slower pace than a 18th Century or Napoleonic battalion due to the need to mantain orderly ranks & files. Of course there were difficulties in mantaining these large formations on the move, they could and did fall into disorder in some battles. |