[Russ Ellis]

It seems like this cutting the heads off of pikes thing could be pretty reasonably resolved, all you need is someone holding a pole of the appropriate diameter and composition and a big husky with the two hander of choice. Has no one tried this?

[Patrick Kelly]

[Aaron Schnatterly]

[Matthew Kelty]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well, the point ( Pun alert .....POINTS ) is that a Twohander attacking a pike square would have to chop MANY pikes not just one pike to be effective if chopping the pikes was the objective. Now creating chaos and confusion knocking the pikes out of line and tangling them up would do the job ( As I mentioned previously. )

In a one on one fight the 18' pike would be worse than useless and dropping it in favor of a sword and buckler would be my guess the better option.

[Patrick Kelly]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Patrick;

I've been wondering what is the minimal number of pikemen needed to make the pike effective and not a handicap.

Now a single pikeman seems fairly useless except maybe against a single horseman.

Two pikemen doesn't seem much better and 4 to 8 just a slight touch better ! To give the pikemen a chance we could limit speculation to tactical situations were being flanked is not a factor like in a mountain pass or wide bridge were the numbers of pikemen is sufficient to have one man every 6 feet the whole width of the ground to hold.

Were flanking is possible I would think that the minimum number to be effective would be at least 2X or 3X.

So what do you think the minimum number would be ? I think 12 would be rock bottom minimum with 24 having a chance and 48 being effective in defense against a proportionaly equivalent force of no more than twice the numbers of opponents.

Now adding supporting arms complicates the calculations: Maybe a third of the force with Bills or Halberds, one or two Twohanded swordsmen and at least an additional 50% strong force of missile troops.

Oh, for that poor isolated pikeman, I would suggest cutting his pike down to 9' with a small belt axe given time to prepare.
And the same for an isolated unit too small to be effective.

I might equipt MY fictional pikemen with pikes made of two threaded sections to be able to go back to full length pikes when needed: Might also be a good idea to use the " half pikes " on the march with the other part slung over the shoulder, might be good against supprise attacks or when pillaging the countryside for supplies.( 15th & !6th century ethics .... LOL. )

Oh, if the lower half of the two section pike has a butt spike it might be pressed into service as a javeline ?
( Oh , realise that this is not what was done historically, but I like to speculate about theoretical tactics just for the fun of it. )

[Matthew Kelty]

Jean, you're actually getting quite close to the truth in how pikemen were used. Things shuffle around certainly through the 16th and 17th centuries, proportions slide around due to available technology, resources and objectives, but you've hit fairly close to the mark.

Figure 10% goes into the "Unique" and "Elite" aspects of a Company. These would be your Ensign, the Drums and Fifes, and a few senior or experienced soldiers to direct and protect them (Captain, Leiutenant, Quartemaster, Pioneers, Lancepassados, Two-handed swordsmen, Sword and Buckler men, etc.) in the "Unique" category.

You've also got a smattering of the artillery pieces and their crews, and your corp of mounted Men-At-Arms/Gendarme/Reiters/Cuirassiers/Dragoons, all whose job it is to harass the enemy more directly, rounding out the "Elite" category.

The remaining 90% are now fairly well split into Missile and Polearm roles, and fairly well down the middle.

Depending on the era, your Archer/Crossbow/Harquebus/Caliver/Muskets generally get broken further into some offensive and defensive tools and roles, with Crossbows and Harquebus being more mobile in their offense, and Archers, Calivers and Muskets being more static in their assaults, and perhaps equally offensive as well as defensive (the original reactive armor if you will...

With the Polearms, you have about 10-20% in the "short" arm category (Glaive/Partisan/Halberd/Bill), and they are generally placed around the Ensign, or sent out for sorties between the pike ranks or into the opposing flanks.

Lastly, your pikemen round out the remaining 35-40%.

If you use Machiavelli's 144 men -> Company model for formations (not the only way for sure, but definitely consistent and proportionate with most theories), and have 12 ranks of 12 files, this gives you three ranks deep of Pikemen all across the front, or two ranks of shot along the outside flanks, and 4 ranks deep of pike in the middle.

This gives the Pikemen an nice solid front to stop all comers, and enough resources to protect their flanks, harass up the middle, and defend a potential rout.

Multiply this X 3 Companies, and now you've got a fighting machine...

As far as the Pikeman stranded/broken/routed, he definitely drops the pike and draws his sword. The posture for receiving a Cavalry charge is with the foot on the butt of the pike, holding it firm against the ground (and yes, most had buttcaps, and some had spikes, but there are times where you need to brace the butt with your hand, and spike = bad at that point...

With the tip pointed up towards a horse's chest height, you brace your legs against the pole, and either draw your sword, or at least keep your hand in the guard. If you were charged, once they hit, and the line is crumpled, drop the pike, and start hacking.

So, congratulations, you're instincts are good, but I'd reconsider the collapsible pike, and just give 'em a stout sword...

[Russ Ellis]

[George Hill]

So what were the huge swords for? General hacking?

I sort of had a vision of some very large VERY mobile guys deployed to the front of the enemy formation, hacking the pike heads whilst backing up in front of the formation as quickly as possible. The idea being not to hack into the formation, but to blunt it, so when the lines meet the enemy is already less effective. Then the lines close, and the huge sword boys exit stage right... so the other side's pikes can close in and finsh up.

Sort of like Skirmishers in the napoleonic wars.

[Gordon Frye]

Jean and Matthew:

Per the numbers/percentages of Pikes needed on the battlefield to be effective, it of course depends upon just WHEN we are talking about. In the era pre-1550 or so, there was a definite bias towards Pikes. In the original organization of the Spanish Tercios of 1534, there were 10 companies of Pikes (each company having 219 Pikemen, and in addition some 20 Musketeers) with two companies of Arquebusiers (224 Arquebusiers, along with 15 Musketeers). Contrary to Sir Charles Oman's reference, the Tercio didn't officially go to half and half until a hundred years later, under the ordnance of 1636. one can deduce the there were gradually more Shotte than Pikes as the 16th Century progressed, but the Spaniards for one were rather conservative in their numbers. Thus you have LOTS of Pikes to fairly few Shotte.

English armies showed a greater propencity towards higher percentages of Shotte, while French armies of the late 16th Century showed a marked predeliction for NO pikes at all! Needless to say things often went poorly for French Arquebusiers when the opposing force's Cavalry rode them down...

In any event, it seems as though pike blocks of 3-5,000 men were the norm for the early 16th Century, while smaller "regimental-sized" (say around a thousand men) blocs became more usual by the end of the century.

According to Bert Hall in his excellent book Weapons and Warfare of Renaissance Europe the numbers of Pikes needed for defence against Heavy Horse remained high until the Pistoliers drove the Heavy Horse (i.e. heavily armoured Lancers) from the field in the late 16th Century. Since the Pistoliers didn't offer the same threat to Infantry as the Heavy Horse had done, they could then afford to gradually change the percentages of Pikes to Shotte in favor of the Shotte. At this point Infantry can become more Offensive, as well as able to use much more mobile and thin ranks such as made famous by Maurice of Nassau and Gustavus II Adolphus. Such thin (read also "brittle") formations wouldn't do at all against a charge by fully armoured Gendarmes on barded horses, but were sufficient to hold more lightly armed (and mounted on less aggressive and well trained horses) Pistoliers at bay (most of the time). And as the Pistolier was replaced by the even MORE lightly armoured Harquebusier by the middle of the 17th Century, and then by Dragoons at the end of that century, the need for deep pike formations vanished along with the need for heavy pikes.

So, what pole-arms do I love? I used to own a gorgeous pole-axe I bought from Jeff Schroeter years back, but it unfortunately got lost along the way... so I've transferfed my affections to my new Heavy Lance! It's only a practice lance, but heavy it is, and REALLY whacks a quintain around! Ah, the joys of pole-arms!

Cheers!

Gordon

[Matthew Kelty]

[Jean Thibodeau]

After getting past the points of the pikes I don't the think the pikemen would able to do much more than die or drop their pikes and take hold of their conviently short katzbalger were they may get close enough to the twohanded swordman and take him out.

These guys got paid double for a reason: They might be able to cause chaos for a short time before becoming casualties.

A window of invulnarability preceded and followed by high odds of getting killed.

What would make this useful and not just a suicidal waste would be THE follow up by the intact opposing pikemen if they move in fast before the broken up and confused pikemen could reform, recover their pikes or reserves fill in the gap.

To survive the swordman should avoid closing in too close and get " rapidly " out of the way of the rapidly closing in pikemen on his side: Needs close support !

( Again, logical, I hope, guesswork here as I am not supporting this with any historical examples or practical experience. )
( Note: If one is stating opinion or conjecture with strong forceful language its important to make it clear that the above is not to be taken as statements of facts but more as a questions. )

Oh, from the previous posts I would conclude that at least a company sized group of pikemen would be needed to be a viable tactical unit, with 3 or more companies becoming a real fighting machine.
I still wonder about how few pikemen could still be effective in very small numbers, mostly defensively: How many must there be for it to be a good idea to still use their pikes rather than dropping them in favor of their swords. There must be a minimum number were in ideal conditions they would decide to still use their pikes. (This for small groups of isolated, unsurported by other arms, pikemen and not a balanced small units by choice. )

[Gordon Frye]

Jean; You pose a good question there as to how many (or rather how few) pikes it would take to make a viable tactical unit. I'll have to speak of English armies, since those are the one's I've studied most, but they, unlike the Spaniards, organized their companies in mixed arms (Pikes, Shotte and Halbards/Bills) and then organized the masses together higglety-pigglety. Must have been awkward for larger formations, but rather better for detailing out small garrisons such as were found in the fighting in the Low Countries.

Oh, one note about organizing Pikes: One of the main reasons that tables of square-roots were such a popular staple of the publishing industry of the 16th Century was to organize these huge masses of men into something that made sense. Having a table of square-roots is handy when trying to figure out just how many men you can put in the front rank with how many in files, with what left over, when starting with a number like 3,253 or something. I guess the Sergeant Major General (who was in charge of such organizing for an army) would know just which captains were cheating on their returns!

Anyway, back to pikes. I would imagine from this that since the smallest "viable" English unit was the Company, and that it (ca. 1585) consisted of between 100-250 soldiers, and the SMALLEST percentage of Pikes would be 40%, then a 40-man "square" would be considered "tactically useable", though pretty minimal. This would include 10% "short weapons" : such as 7% halbards and bills, and 3% targeteers with target and broadsword. The other 50% would be Shotte, either Calivers or Bows, or a mixture there-of (though not after 1595 when Bows were no longer accepted into service). (For some of this, since I don't have immediate access to my files, I'll rely on our Librarian Matthew Kelty for proper documentation, LOL!)

As an example of what numbers were NOT considered viable, when skirmishers were sent out from an English force (Caliver-men generally, or Bows) they were often accompanied by the Halbardeers in case they got into a tighter scrape than they bargained for. Pikes were NOT sent out to skirmish but rather kept in reserve for "the big push". There is a great illustration in Derrick's "Image of Ireland" which shows just this.

Anyway, I hope this sort of goes to answer the question!

Cheers,

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Gordon;

Yes it does: Any small group of pikemen would not be out by themselves by choice and pikes are only useful in large groups.

As an individual weapon not viable: Drop the pike, take out your sword, run ..............

[Gordon Frye]

[Justin White-Lowther]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Due to what Silver had to say on the matter and how di Grassi goes into detail on how to duel with the pike, I strongly disagree with the idea that it was useless in single combat. Given room to move about, a single pikeman would do just fine against a lone swordsman. I can't source it, but I remember an account of a battle in which a captain with a halberd and a captain with a pike dueled. The guy with the pike won.

In middle of a tight melee or any other situation in which space is restricted is another matter though. Certainly then the length of a pike can be a disadvantage in many places.

As for hacking up shafts, I agree it's a silly thing to try in single combat (as Swetnam says), but I'm not convinced it was a bad idea in battle. Di Grassi clearly writes about cutting up pikes with a partisan; he seems to have accepted it as a reasonable practice.

[Ryan A. C.]

Well, in a duel where it would be decided what weapons would be used...I guess, why not use a pike? But if there was a chance on someone closing in and getting farther in than the effective arc and stabbing range of the pike. I sure as heck would want something more manageable to fight with. I just wouldn't like the idea that the killing part of my weapon was feet behind the guy with the sword. Fighting is skill, but living through it takes a lot of luck, so yeah, I suppose pikes could defeat shorter weapons in one on one combat. I am very limited however in my knowledge of the pike.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Well I did suggest that if caught in the situation of one pikemam or a small group cutting the pike in half would give you a usable spear. If time permited this might be a better option than just loosing the pike: You would have your backup weapons of sword and dagger and maybe a bucker + what would now be a spear .

I would assume for this to be useful that the pikemen would be trainned in shorter spear techniques, if not we are back to just drop the pike.

I do remenber an old samurai film were there are a series of duals between a samurai armed with a very long yari winning contests of skill against shorter spears and swords. In this case the use of the very long yari was his specialty, so the advantages and weaknesses of the weapon were being used to maximum efficacity by a master spearman.

Now this may just have been a movie, but the martial arts of "classic " samurai films tended to be closer to real use than the usual Hollywood low standard.