"The start of Italian Pike units?" Topic

Greetings! The Renaissance is not an area I specialize in but I'd be interested in doing French, Italian & Swiss armies at some point.

One of the questions I've come across is, at what point did the Italian armies begin employing and fielding pikes?

I've been searching some basic medieval and renaissance Web pages to no avail.

Thanks for any tips.

There is an account found in several modern works (Ian Heath's "Armies of the Middle Ages". Bert Hall's "Renaissance Weapons and Warfare") that the 18-foot pike was invented in Italy, in Turin, in 1327. The basis of this story appears to be, as quoted in link -

"Luckily we have two sources that prescribe pike lengths. The first can be found in an article by Müller-Hickler from 1906 where he writes that the citizens of Turin in the north of Italy had to have pikes of 18 feet in 1327."

The reference is Müller-Hickler, H. (1906), "Studien über den langen Spieß". If you feel up to century-old German, you can get the article in pdf from link

M-H says: "In einer Zeit, in der in der Schweiz noch die Helmbarte die allgemein übliche Kriegswaffe war, tritt uns in Italien der Spiefs entgegen und um 1327 war es den Bürgern Turins befohlen, Spiefse von 18' zu führen."

Unfortunately, he doesn't say where he found this nugget of information. But so far, pending better information, the answer to your question would seem to be "in 1327". How far and fast the weapons spread, and how they were used, is another question or several.

Very interesting, thank you Gurkhan!

When you say "Italian Armies" are you referring to the mercenaries hired by the city states? The Italians, for the most part, were notoriously poor at pike tactics, preferring to operate as Spear/crossbow armed troops adopting firearms later. Most pikemen in the service of city states were German or Swiss.

Depends on your period. There are references to Italian Pikes in the later 15th century, usually militia, but sometimes mercenaries. They would usually be outnumbered by foreigners in larger armies, but were part of some state militias. Macchiavelli and his Florentine Militia being the most famous.

Interestingly, when Florence was negotiating contracts with the Black Band in 1527 (after the death of Giovanni de Medici), the state wanted them to have a higher proportion of pikes to be more effective on the battlefield. The committee of captains refused, claiming that their traditional tactics were more effective, and that full scale battles were so rare, it was pointless organizing to reflect them (they obviously weren't wargamers!).

There is a work available on the net somewhere, I down loaded it years ago, by this guy – Maurizio Arfaioli – discusses the engagement of the Black Band by Florence to fulfil their commitment to the League of Cognac.

Rich, I was curious about both groups.

Download: The Black Bands of Giovanni: Infantry and Diplomacy During the Italian Wars (1526-1528) (Pisa: Ed. PLUS, 2005) By Maurizio Arfaioli

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

I find that interesting too.

I read in the past, can't recall where, that over time they lengthened gradually in some areas, and/or with some armies and city-states/countries, kind of like guns on tanks in WWII kept increasing in caliber.

No doubt there was an arms race over time, with spears/pikes gradually increasing over time to out-reach their opponents. I suspect soldiers and militia would like to be able to "reach out and touch someone" without being similarly touched, whenever possible.

The Borgias had plenty of pikes, early 1500's.

I read in the past, can't recall where, that over time they lengthened gradually in some areas,

I noticed this on contemporary depictions. Pikes pre 1500 seem to be considerably shorter then those later, though I never found a written confirmation for that (and admittedly earlier images seem to have more of artistic license).

On the other hand, it would make sense as around that era the pike became the staple weapon for infantry, with Landsknechts and Swiss fighting it out, especially in the Swabian war of 1499. In this context of pike vs. pike a slightly longer weapon would probably given an advantage, so they lengthened until they became unwieldy. Before, when cavalry or other infantry was the main opponent, there was no gain in it. Just speculating, though…

In this context of pike vs. pike a slightly longer weapon would probably given an advantage

Not necessarily; the Swiss held their pike near the midpoint, fighting in a different manner to the Landsknechts, so a longer pike would be of limited value to them.

the Swiss held their pike near the midpoint, fighting in a different manner to the Landsknechts

Thats a notion that troubles me for quite some time.
I have heard that quite often, though not in actual works on Landsknechts and Reisläufer. Do you have a reference to this that does not go back to historians who forfeit the use of sources?

I know that the sketch on Fornovo shows the Swiss so, but later depictions like Diebold clearly show Swiss using the pike from the end, while even later depictions show both Landsknechts and Swiss using different grips depending on situation. I fail to see why any army would not use the grip most suited to the actual tactical situation, and the pike being pretty obvious to use these should be similar. So if you have any hard information I would really be glad to learn of it :-)

Hi Puster, I cite the inimitable Blaise de Montluc at the battle of Ceresole. He writes

"Now, Sir, said I to Monsieur de Tais, it is time to rise, which he suddenly did, and I began to cry out aloud, Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a Battel before, and therefore let me tell you, that if we take our Pikes by the hinder end, and fight at the length of the Pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dextrous at this kind of fight than we are: but you must take your Pikes by the middle as the Swisse do, and run head-long to force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be."

It's on page 70 of book 2 at link

Thanks. Good source. Not entirely convinced, as it seems that fighting with weapon a metre (or more) shorter in range is a severe disadvantage. You certainly have more control when you move, though, and it can be that this was typical while moving, but in the actual "push" grabbing the pike in the middle not only shortens your range but also endangers the man behind you if you are not careful.

Grandson:

Shows Swiss holding the pike at the middle moving AND some at the end while actually using it.

From Weisskönig:

link
Shows Landsknechts holding the pike at the end and at the middle – the second so for the Swiss.

Swiss holding them at the end.

Landsknechte holding them in the middle (in the frontrank)

That said, Monlucs statement is certainly an indication that the Swiss used the middle grip more then the Landsknechts.

A problem with the Monluc quote is that the English translation of that section has a number of questions marks when compared to the original French text. Now I am not an expert in 16th Century French but a comparison between the two showed that the English version contained words and word choices not found in the French text. Now this is not necissarily wrong as translation is as much art as it is science but one has to be very careful when translating to avoid losing content in the process or adding things that do not exist in the original. Have had a number of dicussions over the years due to the English translation of certain texts being ambiguous in a way that the original text was not.

Hi Daniel, I must confess I've not looked at it in the French. My c16th French is also not brilliant (in fact very far from ity!), but I'll try to look at it over the next day or so, and ask some French friends.

It is an interesting one. I can imagine that there would have to be benefits for holding a pike part way along; at Ceresole, the French were breaking into a disrupted formation of Landknechte and a shortened pike was presumably advantageous, working inside the length of the German pike. But I'd imagine that they would be firmly planted in the ground and taking full advantage of the length, if threatened by gendarmes.

This is something I wrote on another forum after I took an actual look at the French text rather once again going with the English translation from 1674. I realy whish I had the language skills to fluently read the original French since it is a remarkable record of 16th Century warfare including the small scale fights that often get overlooked when history is written.

Ceresole 1544 & Monluc
While an excellent read the 1674 English translation of Monlucs "Commentaires" has a number of problems, one of the most significant is that it is not so much a translation of the French 1592 edition as it is Charles Cotton's rewrite of his interpretation of the French text into English. There are significant changes and addtions when you compare Cotton's "translation" with the original French text.

Even later French editions from the 19th & 20th Centuries have problems because of how the original text was written with words left out/implied, idiomatic expressions and 16th Century French with it's non-standard spelling. Add in that the editors were not military historians or familiar with the military context of certain expressions and you see how they add changes and interpretations to make sentences make sense to them. A good example is Monluc's instruction to use the pike in the Swiss style where his "pousser" (push) has been interpreted into "passer" (run)

Cotton's 1674 "translation" of the instruction to fight in the Swiss manner:
Quote:
(…)but you must take your Pikes by the middle as the Swis•e do, and run head-long to force and penetrate into the midst of them,* and you shall see how confounded they will be.

link (page 70)

Original French 1592 edition:
Quote:
(…)que nous en ceste manière. Mais il faut prendre les piques à demy, connue faict le Suisse, et baisser la teste
pour enferrer et pousser en avant, et vous le verrez bien estonné.

From the 1911 editions transcription of the text link
Scanned image of the 1592 edtion link

In the original French there is nothing about running head long nor about forcing and penetrating into the midst of the enemy. Monluc tells them to grip the pike in the middle as the Swiss do, lower the (pike) head to pierce and push forward and this will surprise/shock the enemy. Cotton's rewrite of the text has changed it's meaning.

Even if we interpret Monluc's "la teste" to refer to the men's heads rather than the head/point of the pike Cotton's retwrite is a significant change of the original text. And IMHO it is most likely a reference to the head/point of the pike as "enferrer"is a verb used to describe piercing done with a weapon. (And lowering your head to pierce the enemy makes not much sense even if you assume that they are supposed to pierce the formation, lowering the head means losing vision which is quite dangerous in any fight. Of course there is the possibility that there is some idiomatic meaning to the wording which is not recorded or understood today but IMO we have to rely on what we know rather than what we don't know.

Similar problems are to found throughout the English text, it is not an isolated problem found in only a few sentences.

Quote:
"the second Rank and the third were the cause of our victory; for the last so pushed them on, that they fell in upon the heels of one another, and as ours press'd in, the Enemy was still driven back"

is the text found in the English edition but what Monluc wrote was:
Quote:
"Le second rang et le tiers furent cause de nostre gain : car les derniers les poussoient tant qu'ils furent sur les leurs : et comme nostre bataille poussoit tousjours, les ennemis se renversoient."

You can see that the French word for "heel" ("talon") is missing among other things.

Quote:
"we saw great windows in their bo∣dy, and several Ensigns a good way behind, and all on a suddain rush'd in among them"

Monluc was not seeing gaps in the front ranks of the German formation, from his evelvated position on the ridge he "windows" inside[/u ]the formation. He interpreted this as being due to their rapid advance but this was an misinterpretation of what he saw. What was actually happening was that the Germans divided their massive square into two, one to fight the French, the other to face the Swiss. This manouver is reported by Martin du Bellay whose memoirs is another primary source for the battle. Du Bellay has never been translated into English so his account is much less well known than Monluc's.

Also this quote from Monluc is another example of how Cotton changed things in his 1674 "translation". For example the word "several" does not appear in the original French . Monluc actually wrote "et des
enseignes bien derrière" ("and the ensigns well behind"). Likewise "(…), and all on a suddain rush'd in among them" is not quite what Monluc wrote: "(…).Et tout à ' coup nous nous enferrâmes," Notice that Cotton changed Monluc's "." to a "," and pushed two diffrent sentences into one. And "enferrâmes" is not the same as "rush'd in among them". To much gets lost and added in that translation. (It also reinforces the earlier translation error discussed above.)

I would really like to see a good modern translation of Monluc or at least the most important parts of his text, my own knowledge is only good enough to detect the errors and changes but frankly more than few parts are impossible for me to translate with any confidence due to the 16th Century spelling and missing words.

Hi Daniel- thanks that's very interesting, indeed! Yes a modern translation would be most welcome. I ordered a 1971 edition yesterday, but for all I know that may just be offering the same Cotton translation.

Monluc tells them to grip the pike in the middle as the Swiss do, lower the (pike) head to pierce and push forward and this will surprise/shock the enemy.

I do like your translation of this. It doesn't appear to change the sense of the Swiss style being to hold the pike in the middle, but it does, perhaps, give a clue as to why they did it – perhaps holding the pike at the mid-point allowed them to apply more force than when the pike was held at the end. Also, perhaps, it enabled a more accurate blow to be struck? Presumably they needed to "push forward" to get inside the longer reach of the enemy pike.

I do rather suspect, though, that the Germans were disordered. I'm aware that the German formation dividing, but it seems to me that "windows" isn't a word that one would use to describe a formation being divided into two.

As far as I can translate, he writes that the Germans came on very quickly, that the battalion was (became?) so large that some could not follow (text not very clear here), that the standards fell well behind and that windows opened in their formation. This does sound like the Germans lost their order.

I think the sense (if not the wording) of Cotton's translation might be correct, in this case.

I think that some of the German fencing manuals of the period gives us hints about how the Swiss vs German style worked or was supposed to work. The best surviving example is Joachim Meyer's 1570 manual (Gründtliche Beschreibung der Kunst des Fechtens)https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Joachim_Meyer & link

My personal interpretation is that the methods of fencing with the long staff & pike that Meyer and others taught is the reason why the Germans were considered more "dextrous" when using the full lenght of the pike.

Meyer also includes a drawing which seems to illustrated hold the pike in the middle vs pike held at full lenght.

The drawing shows that the shaft is used to get past the point of the pike and also illustrates the agressive nature of the attack. On the battlefield it would rely more on brute force and morale than on the skilled individual use of the weapon. If it works then you will most likely win, otherwise you will be locked into a more drawn out fight while at a disadvantage.

I strongly doubt that this was the only or even main way that the Swiss used the pike, we have ample examples of them using the pike with other grips but Monluc was giving tactical advice, not giving a lecture on pike use so him keeping it short it understandable.

"lowering the head"

Not sure on the French, but the German term "den Kopf einziehen", which could be translated to "lowering your head", can, in a military context, mean something like "brace for impact": protect your head, as it will be necessary soon…
Chances are the original French term can have a similar meaning.

That said, thanks, Daniel, for bringing these problems with the translation up.

Since TMP does not show the Meyer image properly here is a retry

Looks definitely that the grip depends on situation, not on a national doctrine – though it would make sense that the Swiss favour more dynamic tactics and so become more connected to that grip in the mind of others.

If you feel up to century-old German, you can get the article in pdf from link

The language does barely differ from modern German, and its in latin letters, not fraktur – so quite a good read, thanks GurKhan. The other articles are a treasure trove to explore later, too (especially on handguns and light artillery).

Here is some of the booty:

According to him, the average length of the pikes was 4,65m, with those in excess of 5m (shaft) being exceedingly rare. Probably less of those survived. 1-12 are Swiss pikeheads, 13-15 Germans, with the 13 being the most common for early 16th century Landsknechte.

Hi Daniel, thanks for the post with the Meyer image- fascinating!

but Monluc was giving tactical advice, not giving a lecture on pike use so him keeping it short it understandable.

…and, indeed, the several thousand landsknechte charging at him must have encouraged conciseness. ;-)