"Representation of Pike units" Topic

Something that has occurred to me.
Why are Ancients pike units seen as very effective in flat ground but very weak in the flanks yet renaissance Keils as being so much more effective.
Was there any difference in training or that much difference in equipment? I would guess than a argyraspid would probably be just as good as a Swiss.
Was it all down to a few groups of pole armed guys to guard flanks and more steel armour or is it just that ancient texts were written long after the events?

Good question. Much of the traditional thinking about pike blocks puzzles me.

Ancients use shields they lock together, needing the formation block compact. Rennaissance open order to move, close up for contact.
They coukd also turn sideways without difference but the numbers in first line, or pivot faster.
Maybe😉

Partly because Renaissance pike-blocks are formed so much deeper than Hellenistic ones, making all-round defence more practical.

What Duncan said. 1536 Macedonians would likely be 96 men wide by 16 deep, whereas the same number of Swiss would likely be 39 men wide by 39 deep, or thereabouts.

Interesting, never really thought of 16 ranks deep as shallow before.
Any idea if the depth change due to more effective missile fire, crossbows and later arquebuses and perhaps inaccurate artillery, in the hope that most shots would miss completely , so that they could move faster or just due to independent development in later years?
The use and effect of pike did seem quite different from classical times despite the interest in the classics in renaissance Italy, though perhaps the Swiss did not care for Livy.

What Duncan said. 1536 Macedonians would likely be 96 men wide by 16 deep, whereas the same number of Swiss would likely be 39 men wide by 39 deep, or thereabouts.

Or 20 ranks deep as during the Zürich war or 3 ranks deep such as at Seminara 1495, or 10 ranks deep as at Dreux 1562 and so on. The Swiss had no standard depth but would adjust the formation to the situation and forces at hand.

Or 20 ranks deep as during the Zürich war or 3 ranks deep such as at Seminara 1495, or 10 ranks deep as at Dreux 1562 and so on. The Swiss had no standard depth but would adjust the formation to the situation and forces at hand.

And of course the Macedonians/Successors could deepen their formations as well. See Magnesia for instance. But perhaps the flexibility of the Swiss was one the reasons they were so tenacious when caught on a flank and distinguishes them from earlier pikemen.

Well the question is if the Swiss really were that superior in performance when caught by a flank attack? Cavalry charges were one thing as the formation was designed to survive even if cavalry broke through the outer "shell" of pikemen and into or through the middle of the formation. (Though the right discipline and morale was needed to withstand such events as well.)

But infantry flank attacks are another matter as the structure of the formation is not set fight infantry to the flanks. The armoured pikemen are all in the front or very last ranks (and the Swiss had a short supply of them to begin with) and officers and NCO's are in the front rank, last rank or middle of the formation with limited ability to provide leadership to the sides on short notice.

One important factor is the weaponry, unlike the the Macedonian & Successor phalanx the Swiss Keil was a mixed arms formation, up to 1500 the bulk of the Swiss are not pikemen but rather halberdiers supported by an increasingly thick outer shell of pikemen. The Swiss pikes are also quite diffrent in design and use from the Sarissa, even by the start of the Italian Wars the pikes were not more than 10 feet in lenght which made them a lot handier to fight with. This combination of short pikes and halberds would have allowed the Swiss to fight more effectivly to the flanks as the weapons required less space to use while the formation was more spacious than that of the sarissa armed phalanx. (And of course Swiss morale and cohesion made them more willing to fight even in a bad situation)

Well I said "likely" and "thereabouts". :-) Was it not the case that Swiss formations were generally very deep?

Can you support your claim Daniel that the Swiss phalanx in the Burgundian War was still predominately made up of halberds and pike of only 10 ft in length. That goes against everything I have read on the matter. For instance, Oman in "A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages", Vol 2 p.255 argues for the preponderance of pike in the formations (although acknowledging at times the persistence of the older halberd being maintained in larger numbers than desired) and the length of the pike at 18 ft. When one thinks about it, what good is a halberd on the inside of a formation with a thick outer shell pikemen. The weapon is too long and cumbersome on the one hand and too short on the other hand to contribute to the effectiveness of the formation. And when we look at the evolution of the Swiss phalanx in the 16th century the halberds are used very differently than what you suggest for the 15 century.

You are aware that Oman is considered very outdated as a source? This is due to his bias, use of a narrow selection of sources and habit of making the sources fit his theories rather than changing his theories based on the content of the sources. Not to mention that Swiss and other continental historians miight have done a bit of research or two on the subject….

The books you want to look at are the 3 produced by a international team of historians for the 500 anniversery of the Burgundian war in 1976.

Grandson – 1476 : essai d'approche pluridisciplinaire d'une action militaire ( ISBN:2-8280-0000-1)
Die Murtenschlacht : ein Schweizer Ereignis in Europas Geschichte zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit 1476-1976 (Murten 1976)
Cinq-centième anniversaire de la bataille de Nancy (1477) : actes du colloque organisé par l'Institut de recherche régionale en sciences sociales, humaines et économiques de l'Université de Nancy (Nancy 1979)

You will also want to look at Häne's "Militärisches aus dem Alten Zürichkrieg" (Zürich 1928) which has detailed reconstructions of Swiss 15th century formations based on surviving records from the Zürich War.)

Pike lenght is taken from Giovio's account of the Italian wars and fits well with a number of illustrated sources made by veterans of the wars of this period such as Paul Dolnstein. The Swiss also illustrate themselves with pikes that are nowhere near 18 ft in lenght if you look at images of Fornovo and Dornach.

As for pike being predominant the Swiss records tell a very diffrent story well into the Italian wars with complaints about troops bringing too many halberds when mustering, at one point before the battle of Novara the Swiss are reduced to begging pikes from the Duke of Milan due to their critical shortage of the weapon.

The "shell" of pikemen wasn't "thick", 3 ranks during the mid-15th Century Zürich War, 4 ranks at Murten.

The weapon is too long and cumbersome(…)

I take it that you have never handled an actual surviving halberd from the period or a proper reconstruction of one?
When used properly there is nothing cumbersome about the halberd though it is not as quick and nimble as the shorter pollaxe. The things is that like the pollaxe it is not used quite the way that most people imagine when seeing the weapon, to make a long story short you thrust a lot more with than you strike and the blade is used a lot to hook and push rather cut.

Exactly why the Swiss and the Germans who copied them chose to have a core of halberds surrounded by pikemen and how this formation fought we don't know 100% but it is consistent in the documents that survive from the period and is kept in use with variations as long as the halberd saw some mass use with their infantry. Over time the number of halberdiers did shrink but this reduction in numbers happend much later than early historians such as Oman suggested. You also had differences between expeditionary forces and mercenary troops and the "home defence" levies. At home the Swiss still used and manufactured halberds on a large scale even in the 30-years war. In fact Swiss TYW halberds were once misstaken for medieval ones due to their design and numbers.

I used Oman as an easy and accessible example of this information. Actually I disagree with you about Oman. Certainly he is a somewhat dated source (how could he not be) but he was also privy to a wide selection of European sources, evidenced careful use of such sources and showed a high degree of familiarity with languages other than English. So I think you underestimate him.

The Zurich War is mid 15th century and the evidence you provide is exactly the kind of transitional state we would expect 20 years after the Battle of Arbedo in 1422. Are we to suppose that this evolution from halberd to pike was arrested in 1440s? I don't think so. I appreciate the listed sources but what specifically do they say about the relative proportions of pike to halberds in 1470/80s?

In the Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, p.138 Ian Heath states "the Swiss pike of the Burgundian Wars was probably still only 12-15 feet, but there seems to be a general agreement among historians that it had been lengthened to 15-18 feet by the late 15th century. The 18-foot pike itself did not actually originate in Switzerland but in Italy, being first made in Turn in 1327" I use this reference simply to suggest again that your assertion of pike length is outside the consensus understanding. It doesn't mean it is wrong but I am unconvinced.

When one thinks about it to extend the length of halberd by a couple feet with 10' pikes, as you suppose, seems counter intuitive to the tactical lessons learned by the Swiss at Arbedo. A 10' pike is still too short to counter the longer Milanese weapons. Also, I think you misunderstood my comments about the halberd. I just don't see how the halberd contributes to an advancing phalanx whose shell is made up of slightly longer pike. This may be exactly why the Swiss eventually move decisively over to the pike.

The few contemporary depcitions we have from Fornovo or the Swabian war show pikes that are still considerably shorter then the one shown a decade later – my guess would be around 10-12 for Fornovo.

My own guess is that it is the prominence of OTHER pike armed infantry that created a rush to lengthen the pike up to the point where it was hard to handle, which by number of engagements makes the Swabian war a possible trigger. Vs. cavalry or other infantry a shorter pike is sufficient. No hard data to back this up, though.

To the orginal question – why Renaissance pike is allegedly less prone to flank attacks then Ancient … I can also but speculate…
There are some major differences in the origin, size, training, tactical usage and corps de esprit of these units.
The Macedonian "phalanx" was in its infancy a way to counter the better armed and trained Hoplites. Even when it formed the core of later Maceondian armies, it never drew the elite of the soldiers but rather the bulk. It was imbedded into a larger army and played a role of amboss rather then hammer. The Swiss infantry developed from its combat vs. better armed and often mounted opponents, and staying very close to prevent being ridden down is part of its tradition. Here the dense infantry was also at the core of the army, and the unit was often used offensively.

The Renaissance pike block is also a far less rigid formation then is often expected, as the helbards trained to move through the pikes to engage in close combat, while the pikemen learned to close or open ranks when engaging an opponent. Looking at some of the real bad defeats of the Macedonian Phalanx, like Pydna, it seems that they lacked this flexibility (or the arms and training for close combat). Imho this means a Macedonian pike was a more brittle unit when coming under pressure from side or back then the Swiss or Landsknechts, who could react and develope resistance to their flanks.
That said, when attacked in force from the side – as in from a second pike block, the situation was pretty bad as they could not disengage without breaking. Padua saw the Black Band annihilated, and at Ceresole the right Block held off assaults from three directions for quite some time, but could not retreat from the field and finally had to surrender.

Die Murtenschlacht : ein Schweizer Ereignis in Europas Geschichte zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit 1476-1976 (Murten 1976)

Here it is (if, alas, only in German, French and Italian):
link

After reading a bit of that source (Die Murtenschlacht , it gives 5-5,5m as the length of the pike for the Swiss.

No idea how reliable that bit of information is, however, as it is not referenced. It mentions a weight of ~2.5 kg as measured by Häne from surviving samples. It is also mentioned (p83) that Charles had ordered – as a consequence of his defeat at Murten – longer pikes for his army. So the interaction of infantry did have an influence on the length of pikes, and it may be that a unit on a long campaign without expecting a confrontation with other pikes may have used lighter, more handy pikes, as in Fornovo.

My guess is that Häne measured the pikes that survived in several Swiss armouries such as the Zeughaus in Solothurn, the weight and lenght fits those quite well.

The problem is that we have no way of dating these pikes with any degree of accuracy at the moment. At least not without using destructive methods to get carbon dating. And AFAIK there is no one interested in trying to carry out such research at the moment.

I would be very hesitant to draw any conclusions from period illustrations for the length of pikes. There are artistic reasons for illustrators to depict equipment in the manner that they do that has nothing to do with creating an accurate depiction of length. For one, long pikes might interfere with other aspects of the drawing or draw attention from more important considerations. In the example above I would consider the depicted pikes as possible placeholders for the real thing. Gamers make these concessions as well. I tend not to fully replicate the length of pikes on my units for practical gaming purposes and for storage (finding boxes they can fit in.)

If you actually look at the sources used by Oman you will find that they represent a narrow selection of the available sources. Now this shortage of sources is to a certain extent understandable given the state of published research when he wrote the initial edition of his "A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages" but by the time he revised and expanded the 2nd edition and his "A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth century" there was a rich body of indepth research available from other European historians which Oman did not use.

Omans focus on using primary sources is commendable in a number of ways but taken too far you end up robbing yourself of information. For example the Swiss historians who were contemporaries of Oman had access to administrative records and other local source material he simply could not get easy access to. Not using secondary sources led to Oman having to use conjecture to fill in the gaps even though the information was available at the time. A good example of this is the order of battle for Dreux 1562 where Omans version is pretty diffrent compared to that of Coynart and Lenz who had more sources to work with.

Oman was mulitlingual but German language sources are notably absent in his footnotes at a quick glance. (And I do not have the 1924 edition on hand at the moment.)A deliberate choice or a language barrier he could not cross?

evidenced careful use of such sources

When you actually look at the sources which Oman quoted from or refered to in footnotes you from time to time find evidence of the opposite of carefull use of the sources.
For example, for a very long time Oman's claim that the French used the Ordre Mixte at the battle of Albuera was considered to be gospel. Then researchers actually looked up the French document in question and it turns out did not say that at all.

In his description of the battle of Ceresole 1544 he mixes together parts from Monluc and Du Bellay to create composite quotes which he then effectivly puts in the mouth of Monluc.
Any academic doing that today would get into no little trouble.

In his account of the battle of Dreux he "forgets" to mention that the Swiss were broken after a long and hard fight and force to withdraw of the field in small groups consisting of the remanants of one or more companies.

So I think you underestimate him

I could argue that you overestimate him. Oman was one of the first indepth sources I could get my hands on back in my youth and his "A History of the Art of War in the Sixteenth century" was one of the major reasons I became interested in Renaissance warfare. I certainly did not start out with a negative view of his work, rather the opposite. But as I became more proficient in German I discovered that the library also had a rich body of military history written in German by Swiss and German authors and these painted a picture that did not match Oman's. And then I found the modern generation of medieval military history like Verbrüggen and others who extensivly demolished at lot of what men like Oman and Delbruck wrote with superior research methods and sources. Long story short, Oman has not stood the test of time well for me and IMO for sound reasons.

Heath

&

outside the consensus understanding

Heath is pretty much quoting the orthodox/traditional view of how long pikes were and for a long time my view was no different than his. But then I started to dig deep into various footnotes to find the original sources for pike length to go with my own research only to find that there is very little in the way of primary sources that speak about the length of pikes. A lot of times the sources used are decades or even a century out of date or they rely on conjectural dating of surviving pikes which are extremely hard date to being with not to mention that we never know if the shafts are original.
And there was the problem that if the Swiss were using 5 to 5.5 meter pikes why did they not appear in the artwork? And why was it not possible to use pikes of that length in the same way as described by sources?
So I ended up choosing Giovio as a starting point as he is a period source who gives an actual length and combined this with a study of the artwork, in particular art closely connected to the events such as the Swabian war and with a focus on artists such as Paul Dolnstein and Urs Graf who were experienced military men themselves. If we look at Dolnstein, the Dornach and Fornovo prints or the painting of the battle outside Nürnberg 1502 they all show pikes which fit well with the 10 feet length of Giovio. Now it is quite likely that pike length varied a bit and some of the pikes shown could well be 11 or 12 ft long but it is highly unlikely that the Swiss used 15-18 ft pikes in the 1470's only for them and the Germans who copied them to drastically shorten the length over time until we get to 1490-1500.
My view on pike length is certainly unorthodox but it is one based on research into the primary sources, should I find new primary sources that support a length of 15 to 18 ft in the early period I have no problem changing my view again. But so far I have yet to do so.

tactical lessons learned by the Swiss at Arbedo

The main lesson drawn from Arbedo seems to have been to increase the number of pikemen, that we know from surviving documents. I have not seen any documents that refer to a need to increase the length of the pike. An interesting detail is that none of the Swiss accounts I have read so far refer to the Milanese dismounting as described by Heath. But I have not studied the primary sources for this battle in any great depth.

My guess is that Häne measured the pikes that survived in several Swiss armouries such as the Zeughaus in Solothurn, the weight and lenght fits those quite well.

That was my first guess, too, but on the other hand the article is pretty well researched, so I tend to not dismiss it offhand. Alas they give no quote for the length statement.

The problem is that we have no way of dating these pikes with any degree of accuracy at the moment. At least not without using destructive methods to get carbon dating.

Perhaps some day they make one of the more expensive but material conservant versions of the C14 on a pike shaft. I would be very surprised, however, if a pike from before 1500 survived in any Zeughaus. This article ( link ) mentions that they currently develope a C14-method that does not destroy the material at all, so there is hope for many a valuable item to be dated soon. Pikes will probably not high up in that list, though.

The remark about Charles ordering LONGER pikes from Lausann for his army after Grandson ( longer then his old ones or longer then the Swiss is not entirely ylear ) does indicate some kind of arms race here, and I find the notion that pikes shortened in the decade after again not unlikely. The only reason to use "long" pikes vs shorter one is to fight other pikes.

@Marcus Brutus

I would be very hesitant to draw any conclusions from period illustrations for the length of pikes.[/ quote]
Hesitant – yes. But if you see JUST shorter version of the pikes in illustrations up to around 1500-1510, and ONLY longer pikes after, then one of the better explanations is that they mirror actual changes in weapon usage, not a sudden Europe-wide change in artistic freedom. Later illustrators never had a problem depicting the longer versions of the pikes – neither in individual combat nor in unit depictions.

Could you send a link to a drawing or painting that comes to mind Puster that gives evidence to the longer pikes you are talking about? Artistic conventions are changing rapidly from the mid 15th to early 16th century as we move from Medieval painting styles to the Renaissance. For one thing, the 15th century sees the new development in depicting depth realistically. This is a significant change. I notice that your example above is fairly crude in depicting depth. Illustrators seem to be late in coming this new style, much later than painters.

It seems to me that the pikes on these depictions are longer then those of Novara
Ravenna 1513

Guinegate 1513
link
link
link
Novara

Pavia


Weisskunig

Ceresole

Many of these show longer pikes, especially when used in units. Admittedly there are also depictions of shorter pike if you look around, especially for Marignano or Ravenna.

Some of the strictly artistic representations do show larger pikes, like

Great pictures Puster. I want to study them carefully and then get back to you. Much appreciated though.

A really interesting thread. :-)

The picture labelled Ceresole – is that Ceresole? I ask because it's a really great pic, and I'd like to know more about it, but it looks as if the Swiss are losing which suggests it might be another battle.

The Ceresole image shows the rout of the "grietser" (Gruyeres) contingent that fought separately from the main body of Swiss troops.

Super- I see! Many thanks.

Trying to summarise this.
So Ancient armies relied on shields and renaissance on an armoured front rank. This allowed the renaissance troops to be more flexible in their responses due to not relying on keeping the phalanx together. They also had some troops equipped with polearms so that they were better able to react to problems.
Classical pike men were deployed in wide shallow a mere "16" deep) formations while the Keils while massive, deep 2,000 to 4,000 man units (with 10 – 20 subunits) were actually more flexible and responsive.
In effect despite having basically the same core weapon the 2 troop types were quite different.

Though I do suspect that there may be an element of comparing later poorer trained successor pikemen in their decline against renaissance pike units in their prime because we tend to ignore the poorer trained and motivated Italian and French units and concentrate on Swiss and German.
As usual I have a suspicion that the more detailed and complete renaissance sources over the fewer and more distant and possibly Roman biased classical sources may have an effect. Not that Ancient rule writers could possibly be biased in favour of Rome.
As for Ancient rules I would be inclined to allow the few high quality classical pikemen, Alexandrian and Argyraspides to be quite competent (but not great) against flank attacks as I am sure a file or two would have a reasonable chance to react to threats and it only takes a few score pike to dissuade tired disordered pursuing cavalry, the mass conscripted pike little chance though.
After all if Alexander's pikemen's flanks were so vulnerable they would never have had a chance against the large mounted forces of Persia.

The question may then be changed to wether ancient pike units actually WERE weak on the flanks. We know they were brittle when their cohesion was broken by determined infantry, as demonstrated by the Romans on some occasions – but that hardly represents some 200 years of usage over a dozen (though mostly hellenistic) nations.

Are there any incidents out there were the pike phalanx was rolled up from the flank, or worse broke when attacked from the flank?

Daniel, how long do you think a Swiss halberd should be, please?