"Gendarmes / Knights vs. Pike in Medieval & Ren. War?" Topic

I posted this on another thread, in general history, but I think the question is certainly pertinent to have its own topic. So, anyone have any insight, or good on-line or book resources related to my questions below?

I really wonder about mounted men charging formations of foot troops in the late medieval and renaissance periods, especially vs. pike armed troops, AND with their horses being heavily armored to stave those off. I'm also interested to see how they'd fair against troops armed with halberds and bills, swords, etc., etc..

Sadly, I haven't read enough good, historical accounts to know how those really turned out, but can see it going either way.

Clearly, vs. pikes, it seems to me you'd almost have to ensure that your horses have full metal barding, since otherwise they would be at great risk of being cut or impaled by them. Perhaps though, vs. a charge by horses in tight formations, at the last moment, the pikemen flinch, and try to opt for survival, causing them to lose their grips on their pikes, making them less of a threat to the horses and their riders.

I find it difficult to fathom how foot troops could hope to remain steadfast and not flinch, when facing charging horses ridden by men carrying very long, pointy lances. Seems to me that'd be like standing in the middle of a freeway and taking on a heavy duty pickup or semi-truck. It is not going to end well for those in front of them.

Also, what's not clear to me is if they "charged" at full speed, while trotting, or perhaps even walking in against the men on foot, in order to push them aside. I suspect they'd move at least at the trot, but am not really sure.

Surely, some horses would trip, and/or slip over the bodies of the men they'd run over, causing them to fall, which could make life interesting for the knights, or gendarmes.

What of the unbarded horses charging against pike units. How would they fair in close combat?

Seems to me the riders and their mounts would be at much greater risk against formed pike units.

Anyone have any good battle accounts, or info on the early Italian Wars, and/or the Hundred Years and Burgundian Wars with regard to this?

I'd be interested in knowing how many times these clashes occurred, and what the odds are of one side or the other coming out best in them.

In the battles I have read about the Gensdarmes rarely break a pike block that has not already been weakened or disrupted by either terrain or shooting. They do halt it's advance and cause it to close up – making it vulnerable to artillery in particular.

Gendarmes rode right through a pike block on several occasions, but without breaking it. I'd recommend reading Oman 'Art of war in the 16th century' which is comprehensive and includes first hand accounts from the likes of the Chevalier Bayard who actually charged a pike block himself.

You will find this talk discusses alot of the questions you are asking about – it's quite an eye opener!

link

My perspective on this issue was changed when I read the book L'Ultima Battaglia del Medioevo (La Battaglia Dell'Ariotta, Novara 6 Giugno 1513), by Mario Troso. On Page 88 of the book he states that "the French cavalry could attack a pike square only if it was in motion, while standing, however, the pike are ready to fix the base of the pike to the ground so that the spikes are projected against the chest of the horses, so that a charge would be disastrous". He has a picture showing a pikeman bracing his pike on the ground with one foot against the pike (picture F5).

The book is probably the best book I ever bought on the Italian Wars and changed my perspective on many things. It is in Italian, but the google translate app on my phone solves that problem. Here is a link to my review of the book. link

I actually modified the Pike and Shotte rules to account for Cavalry charging a pike block. Here is a link to that post. link

Malatesta,
Loving that video. The guy seems very knowledgable and has some good information.
The size of the pike block and the experience of the pike block seem to be important. For example at Marignano the French Gendarmes repeatedly attacked the Swiss Pike, causing them to halt, turn and face the cavalry. Despite fierce fighting the Swiss were eventually able to retreat in good order.

Yes, whats missing in rules is the ability to pinn pikes in place with the threat of charging. Often when they do charge their losses are slight because they do not press home their charge if the pikes don't flinch.
My conclusion of cavalry vs. infantry fights is the infantry can usualy resist them, but the cavalry can charge multiple times, and if the infantry isn't ready just one of those times it's over for them.

@badhead

Excellent video – Arne Koets – extremely illuminating.

The collected versus extended horse posture – the turkish cut to back of neck – might explain lobster tail on pot helmets!

On breaking pike formations – he illustrates the use of wedge formation – side horses propel front horses – lances push foot pike out of way.

The book by Mario Troso is an excellent reference.

I would also add ‘The Art Of War in Italy 1494 – 1529 by FL Taylor.
Despite its age, Taylor describes each arm and the differences in their use by the French and Italian states.
The Battle of Ravenna (1512) was a classic use of combined arms – cavalry, infantry and artillery.

The key point that often seems to be overlooked, especially by wargamers, is that a horse has a mind of its own.

Yes, warhorses were trained. And horses can be stupid animals. But no horse is stupid enough to run into a lot of sharp pointy things. Contrary to what Hollywood would have you believe, cavalry are not going to charge headlong into a steady body of infantry pointing pikes or bayonets or similar at them.

If the infantry hold firm the cavalry are relatively powerless. If the infantry run, however…

So, how well trained and motivated are your infantry? That is the real question.

+1 Cerdic, and will add, not men-at-arms was riding a "warhorse".

Cedric,
The idea that "no horse is stupid enough to run into a lot of sharp pointy things" is not supported by the sources from the period including accounts of battles, memoirs and the military manuals written by highly experienced cavalrymen like Melzo and Basta. Not once have I come across a primary source which considers a properly trained horse to be a problem during a charge. It is the rider which comments focus on. And the battle examples of cavalry smashing into and even through steady bodies of infantry are there to read if you go to the primary sources rather than the "filtered" secondary source material. The difference between some secondary accounts of battles and the description of the battle in the primary sources the secondary account supposedly used can be surprisingly large. Or the author of a secondary source was limited to a small number of sources due to a lack of access or the language barrier.

@cerdic

Recommend watching through the video (although is almost two hours long).

The horses are not being forced to impale themselves onto the pikes. The riders using the horses as power to facilitate the parrying of the pikes using the lance and making a lane – which can then be exploited by the rest of the wedge.

Previous posts (going back a long time) mention lancers "splitting" enemy formations, the gaps of which are then exploited – this video shows the naissance of the technique.

Fortunately for most foot – this requires top-notch horses and trained riders – items which may be in short supply generally.

Yes, very good lecture / presentation. The main bit about knights attacking pike blocks is almost exactly 1 hour in.

It's all about controlled charges and getting in among the pikes in a wedge formation, and using the inherent weakness of long massed pikes against themselves in order to break the formation.

However, I think the main point he makes is about the horse's posture / position when attacking. It is not moving in an 'extended' posture like a race horse at full pelt. The horse charges in from a compact posture (with the weight on it's back legs) from close range. This posture allows a horse to go from 0 to 30kph almost instantly. Note the high head and arched neck of the horse in this 'compact posture', the horse is coiled up like a spring – think of the power of these big animals, it's awesome. This picture shows the horse 'releasing', in the compact posture it is sitting more on its back legs as per the link.

link

This is the posture of horses of the medieval period for charging into a mass of pike. They are not galloping headlong, over long distances, like racehorses, flinging themselves uncontrolledly into a mass of pikes. The cavalry come in at a controlled trot (incidentally a horses natural gate for moving) or walk then, possibly after stopping to dress lines, they make a swift dart into the fray from the coiled compact posture – that way the horse remains fully in control, and the formation compact. It is also why we hear of knights being able to make many repeated charges – the horses are not blown because they are only charging a few yards, reforming and charging in again.

His point about horses being hard to kill is also very well, and graphically, made.

Did cavalry charge pike frontally. You bet they did, and often. They just didn't do it in the way you might, from watching Hollywood films, imagine.

How long does it take to train a horse to do that? What was the relative cost of such an animal? I just don't see every men at arms having Lipizzaner Stallion.

Probably not that long if it's done full time, for hours every day. Training war horses would be the full time job for men-at-arms, squires, grooms, etc. when not actively campaigning. Training war horses was simply part of the professional horseman's job – after breakfast, he went to work.

Thank you for all the replies, links, and info.

I really appreciate it.

Even if that was true you just can't buy any old nag a making it into destreir.

The Arne Koets video had a lot of interesting tit-bits:

* The use of two cow-horns emanating from the mounted throng.

* Possibly only the flanking riders had bards – giving protection to the whole from arrows.

* The wedge leaders being propelled by sideways pressure from flanking riders.

Adding on:

Not all the riders would need destriers – nor top-notch armour. Those at the front and leading would have the gucci-kit. (This might be like the 22-rank deep pike blocks – the outer had all the armour.)

Yea, I've read that rear ranks, would either be "archers" carrying lances, and/or men at arms, depending upon the period, and that most of their horses would not have armor.

Apparently they were to follow up after the armored cav, and to help deal with those pikemen who were disordered or knocked down, wounded, etc..

That makes a lot of sense.

Soldiers are extensively trained to perform in a certain manner. Yet in battle natural instincts will kick in and individuals or sometimes entire units will behave contrary to instructions. I find it difficult to believe that horses would be different.

That we don't have evidence from that time of horses balking is not to me dispositive. If mounted attacks on pike units were launched in the deliberate manner suggested here then the effect of individual horses balking would be less disruptive. Plus how many riders are going to want to admit they couldn't control their horses.

IMHO the whole discussion (and it is not the first) sees things in black and white – either you can make horses charge blocks of pike or you cannot. I still believe that the answer lies in the area in between. If in an attacking cavalry force on single rider can make his horse "attack" the block of pike that single break into the ranks could be built upon by those around him and be descisive in the end.

Apart from that I like Daniel's argument: Sometimes what is not there says a lot.

Some horse armor even has covers over the horses eyes for protection, and presumably to keep them from shying away.

I can see where that might be useful in an attack on pike units and others, since the horses will be trained to follow the riders instructions, and will be at their mercy.

During the main battles of the Italian Wars, there are numerous examples of cavalry charging pike armed infantry. However, there are not a lot of examples of the pikes being destroyed by the cavalry alone.

At Marignano we probably have one of the best examples of how well trained cavalry faired against well trained pike. The King of France and his bodyguard consisting of Gendarmes repeatedly charge the Swiss Pikes. The King and his bodyguard were arguably some of the best heavy cavalry in Europe at the time. Against them, the Swiss from the Old cantons were arguably the best pike. The king's gendarmes made upwards of 25 charges on the Swiss. According to accounts the battle was very confused, Bayard even road right through a mass of Swiss at one point.
With a combination of Infantry, Artillery and Cavalry attacking from the front and the flank, the French were able to halt the Swiss, but not able to destroy them. The Swiss Pike eventually retreated in good order.

At Ravenna, the French did manage to break the Spanish line with Cavalry attacking from the flank, but only after repeated frontal attacks by French and Gascon Infantry had seriously weakened them.

From what I have read, I believe that it was not uncommon for Cavalry to attack pike blocks. However, the outcome depended on a number of factors, including, the relative training and skill of the cavalry and pikes and how weakened the pike block was before the encounter.

Fresh well trained Household Gendarmes with infantry support, attacking an already weak Italian pike block on the flank was likely to fair a lot better than some poorly trained lighter cavalry charging head long into a fresh Swiss pike block.

In the adapted Pike and Shotte rules that I use, I allow for cavalry charging pike, but it is not a quick process to wear down a pike block, and attacks from the flank do tend to be more successful.

One of the reason Pikes were employed on the battlefield was as a defense against cavalry, so we should not overlook that they could be very effective. However, countermeasures to the pike were developed by cavalry. But we should refrain from over estimating these and making cavalry super units, while still allowing them to battle the pike in a war of attrition.

During the main battles of the Italian Wars, there are numerous examples of cavalry charging pike armed infantry. However, there are not a lot of examples of the pikes being destroyed by the cavalry alone.

Is there any example of a block of pike being destroyed by cavalry?

During the Italian wars mainly, but also later?

In Delbrück's book on Medieval warfare he describes one of the Battles of the Swiss/Burgundian war in which an Italian Captain and some of his men at arms had tried to waded into the pike blocks with their horse, which only ended badly for the Italians.

Puster,

Looking through some of my books on the Italian wars, I can't find an example of a pike block being destroyed by cavalry alone.
Combined arms, including cavalry, have managed to halt or even destroy a pike block. (eg Sesia or Ravenna).
If others can come up with an example where cavalry alone destroyed pike it would be great.

My impression of the Cavalry v Pike in the Italian Wars is that the cavalry often engaged the pike. They could be very effective at halting the advancing pike,, particularly by hitting the flank and causing them to face the threat. But to destroy a pike block they typically needed combined arms.

To make the question more precise – did cavalry ever attack a pikeblock on its own, or frontally?

All samples I find are that they join in a fight, but to not attack. On the same note, the French Gensdarmes fighting at Bicocca dismounted to fight with the Swiss.