Go to page 1, 2  Next

pikeman showdown experiement hellenistic vs renaissance
so, one thing that gets brought up when theres wild anachronisms in films such as braveharts greatsword and later kilts, with wild statements like "its like giving washingtons army m16's and tanks"

and, yeah it showcases the wild difference the stuff is out of date...

but those lines usually talk about people of the medieval period or early modern owning modern advanced tech...

the issue i, in a sense have is that... for much of our history, say in western europe, things didnt change much really...

and, to my eyes, the difference in technology between a regiment sized group of decently well off gallic warriors vs, say, english billmen and infantry of the wars of the roses.


or is it?


so, we have two forces, groups of pikemen,
Group 1: maccedonian pikemen of the hellenistic period
with sarissa, the pelta on thier shoulder, a combination of linothorax, spolas, whole scale armours, the occasional muscled cuirass

the other are a group of pikemen from the italian wars,be it landsknechts, spaniards, etc
these landsknechts are similarly well armoured for pikemen of the era, breastplates, mail standards, mail shirts, front ranks having half or 3/4 harness.

both troops are about similar in number of men, theyre both not the best of the best in terms of veterancy, but not completely green either.


those two groups go head to head.. what happens?

outcome 1, its largely a stalemate, both forces armour and weapons are about as sharp, and tough as each other, neither can REALLY pierce the body armour so its attacking the other parts, exposed legs, arms, faces etc, swords getting drawn when needed etc. it becomes a push of pike and is won by the skill, training, discipline etc of the men.

outcome 2. the small advantages add up, a landsknechts pike is likely made of decently hardened steel points, the macedonian is likely made of lower carbon steel/ iron, its softer,

>the greeks would struggle to pierce the iron or steel breastplates of the landsknechts, and their sarissa heads are broader, more slicing than pointed for punching.
>the bronze scales of greek armour are fairly thin, usually 1mm or less would fare a lot less well and be compromised more easily.

if it were to come to swords, messers, katzbalgers, etc would be comparabble arms to a xiphos and kopis.. but the medieval steel is likely to be sharp good steel,
the greek swords , some may be steel, many iron
in that case the landsknecht swords may more easily sunder and even pierce some of the greek armour.

and many of the landsknechts have arm protection, and dont need a shield to keep part of their arms safe, and tasselts under the breastplate some of the time.
greeks have the pelta protecting part of their body, plus greaves on the lower leg,
thin in areas , albeit likely work hardened bronze helmets vs decently reinforced iron and steel helmets .

any one of these differences would be small on their own, but i can see them potentially adding up and resulting in much higher attritional loss for the greeks. and thus, other elements being equal, the landsknechts win every time.


and thats not even counting the fact that renaissance formations have halberdiers and men with big two handed swords.
halberds striking power would be hell for the armour of the greeks, given its really not designed to take those sorts of blows


its not a watertight experiment... its really, as the name implies,a thought experiment to showcase where we see the biggest differences in weapons tech for comparative units of troops.. to see how 'improvements' in weapon design and armour material and design will make a difference.

especially given battles in the hellenistic era and in the renaissance were actually not that different to one another in terms of number of men
I wouldn't worry too much about the metallurgy. Later pike armor is going to be largely iron, unless it's a pistol-proof breastplate. And good bronze will be the equal of that. Same with scale armor, don't underestimate it! Likewise, I doubt there will be a significant difference in the effectiveness of the pike points, particularly since I doubt many men actually tried to penetrate armor.

As for your Gauls vs. billmen, the problem is that by the 14th century there is a *lot* more armor due to greater production methods, hence the trading of shields for 2-handed weapons. Which can pack a lot of punch! But yes, if you go back a few hundred years, I've always said that a Viking would be right at home in a Greek phalanx (though he may not appreciate the way he gets invited to parties...). Lines of guys with round shields, spears, sidearms, some armor. Most of the differences are fashion, not function.

Couldn't tell you who will win, though! I suspect that by the Renaissance there is just a little too much progress in armor and weapons to ignore it all, tactically. Of course, bring in the heavy cavalry and it's all over, though it will still be a *fight* and not a walkover!

Matthew
Matthew Amt wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about the metallurgy. Later pike armor is going to be largely iron, unless it's a pistol-proof breastplate. And good bronze will be the equal of that. Same with scale armor, don't underestimate it! Likewise, I doubt there will be a significant difference in the effectiveness of the pike points, particularly since I doubt many men actually tried to penetrate armor.


The Wisby skeletal analysis tells us that they specifically didn't try to penetrate armour (either that or their body armour was impenetrable). Hundreds of wounds on extremities but not a single injury to the torso, pelvis, or thigh.
Dan Howard wrote:
Matthew Amt wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about the metallurgy. Later pike armor is going to be largely iron, unless it's a pistol-proof breastplate. And good bronze will be the equal of that. Same with scale armor, don't underestimate it! Likewise, I doubt there will be a significant difference in the effectiveness of the pike points, particularly since I doubt many men actually tried to penetrate armor.


The Wisby skeletal analysis tells us that they specifically didn't try to penetrate armour (either that or their body armour was impenetrable). Hundreds of wounds on extremities but not a single injury to the torso, pelvis, or thigh.


we do have various late tudor writers like barwick and co arguing about whether a cuirass can resist a point of a pike.. given its weight and power, puncturing some of the lighter armours of the greeks could be doable,

bronze is no slouch i agree but, it does fail easier than iron and steel which was made thicker in the medieval and renaissance era,

and talking limb attacks.. landsknects are more often to have clothed limbs, which could, with all those woolen layers, foul a cut of a xiphos or kopis, as im unsiure of their general mettalurgy.. but they may struggle more than their opposite number trying to attack the greek limbs which are often naked and late medieval steel is starting to get really good...

also considered a thought, renaissance pikes have langets to help prevent breakage if knocked, or stuck and the shaft is pushed sideways...
Matthew Amt wrote:


Couldn't tell you who will win, though! I suspect that by the Renaissance there is just a little too much progress in armor and weapons to ignore it all, tactically. Of course, bring in the heavy cavalry and it's all over, though it will still be a *fight* and not a walkover!

Matthew


given at least by the elizabethan era front ranker pikemen are in as much as 3/4 harness, so tassets down most of the thighs, arm harness breastplate and burgonet with gorget most likely.

by the english civil war theyve gone back t a level probably much more reminiscent of the level of the greeks , but the roundheads have muskets backing them up and i dont think anything the greeks had could counter that...

but i did wonder, given the reports of them being able to outrange bows, and given a sling glandes CAN approach light firarm velocities... and they load quicker, ancient slingers, COULD.. maybe trade blows with english musketeers.

but even then theres enough accounts of slingers in the late medieval era and the new world getting ruined by gunners so.. the gun probably wins..


as for cavalry, this IS where, i concede you really see the difference in tech.

to quote the inciting incident for my experiment, giving washington m16's or whatever.. is ridiculous,

but there does seem to be some properly big shifts in armoured tech in the middle ages. .. knightly cavalry of the 16th century would probably wipe the floor with knightly cavalry of the 12th century.. 12th century knights would be almost on the same level of armour as light cavalry of the 16th century, things like hussars in a mail shirt and zichagge, kopia lance and sabre,

but i would be curious to see a cataphractarius of the 2nd or 3rd century, or even a parthian cataphract. facing a group of lancers...



...im not even going to bother pitting alexs companions va gothic knights... that would just be embarrasing, i cannot think of a single solitary way that the companion cavalry would have a hope of reliably killing a man in full plate in a head to head cavalry action, xiphos? no, kopis, hah, xyston? MAYBE... but theyve got , what, the throat, maybe, the eyeslots, maybe... the elbow? nah, the pauldrons are in the way. and that knightly lance has a smorgusboard of targets with a much harder hitting lance (and also much better horses)



so, is the pike vs pike comparison even remotely sensible to show the proper levels of military technology development...
Dan Howard wrote:


The Wisby skeletal analysis tells us that they specifically didn't try to penetrate armour (either that or their body armour was impenetrable). Hundreds of wounds on extremities but not a single injury to the torso, pelvis, or thigh.


The Wisby example is complicated by the likely presence of shields, which would naturally cover the body and upper leg. It's also true that soft tissue wounds wouldn't be picked up in skeletal remains, so lethal injury to major organs in this area may not be evidenced. Doesn't mean that the armour wasn't effective, just that the prevelance of wounds in other areas may have more complex explanations.
Anthony Clipsom wrote:
Dan Howard wrote:


The Wisby skeletal analysis tells us that they specifically didn't try to penetrate armour (either that or their body armour was impenetrable). Hundreds of wounds on extremities but not a single injury to the torso, pelvis, or thigh.


The Wisby example is complicated by the likely presence of shields, which would naturally cover the body and upper leg. It's also true that soft tissue wounds wouldn't be picked up in skeletal remains, so lethal injury to major organs in this area may not be evidenced. Doesn't mean that the armour wasn't effective, just that the prevelance of wounds in other areas may have more complex explanations.


i also suspect that the armour we DO have, doesnt seem to have signs of being punctured
William P wrote:
...im not even going to bother pitting alexs companions va gothic knights... that would just be embarrasing, i cannot think of a single solitary way that the companion cavalry would have a hope of reliably killing a man in full plate in a head to head cavalry action

That one is easy! About a week after they encounter fully armoured cavalry, all of the companions will have the axes with a narrow spike instead of a broad blade which Scythians used! Or the long swords with a thick diamond-shaped cross section which some Greeks had used since the Early Iron Age! Light lancers against men-at-arms is a tough fight but there are ways to make it work. The men-at-arms are slower and less flexible, so they win if they can mass up knee-to-knee and slam into the enemy, but they have trouble in a wheeling turning fight where enemies can get to their quarters. Arrian literally has Alexander's Thessalian cavalry use these tactics against Persian cataphracts at the battle of Issus.
I think as far as materials go, it would make a difference, especially over time. I am not sure about the variable durability of the materials, but my guess is that the Hellenistic kit would break more often and go duller faster.

I think a big difference might be with the distance weapons. I don't think much is known about the bows Alexanders´ troops used, but I do think their armour would be vulnerable to crossbows and firearms of the landsknechts.
Ryan S. wrote:
I think as far as materials go, it would make a difference, especially over time. I am not sure about the variable durability of the materials, but my guess is that the Hellenistic kit would break more often and go duller faster.


Break? Go dull? How? Everything they had was perfectly functional for the appropriate use. Sure, if you franticly hack away at an armored man, *any* edged weapon is going to suffer, but Hellenistic soldiers already knew that. Their pike points won't be dulled by stabbing through clothing and flesh. They were iron and steel, after all, in many cases equivalent to what the later troops are using. Their pikeshafts were functionally identical, with the possible exception of langets (lack thereof).

Quote:
I think a big difference might be with the distance weapons. I don't think much is known about the bows Alexanders´ troops used, but I do think their armour would be vulnerable to crossbows and firearms of the landsknechts.


Sure, crossbows were nasty, but again, the Hellenistic front-rankers *are* armored, and they all have shields. Might not all be proof, but they will certainly help. Firearms, on the other hand, are a big game-changer! Even Renaissance pikemen figured that out, eventually.

Matthew
Matthew Amt wrote:
Ryan S. wrote:
I think as far as materials go, it would make a difference, especially over time. I am not sure about the variable durability of the materials, but my guess is that the Hellenistic kit would break more often and go duller faster.


Break? Go dull? How? Everything they had was perfectly functional for the appropriate use. Sure, if you franticly hack away at an armored man, *any* edged weapon is going to suffer, but Hellenistic soldiers already knew that. Their pike points won't be dulled by stabbing through clothing and flesh. They were iron and steel, after all, in many cases equivalent to what the later troops are using. Their pikeshafts were functionally identical, with the possible exception of langets (lack thereof).

Quote:
I think a big difference might be with the distance weapons. I don't think much is known about the bows Alexanders´ troops used, but I do think their armour would be vulnerable to crossbows and firearms of the landsknechts.


Sure, crossbows were nasty, but again, the Hellenistic front-rankers *are* armored, and they all have shields. Might not all be proof, but they will certainly help. Firearms, on the other hand, are a big game-changer! Even Renaissance pikemen figured that out, eventually.

Matthew

firearms had also been shown in period accounts time and time again to outshoot archers in terms of effective range, notably japanese gunners parking themselves outside korean fortresses and the archers completely unable to land shots on the japanese men shooting up at them , my soucrce being this blog who outlines period accounts https://bowvsmusket.com/2017/05/13/bows-didnt-outrange-muskets/

hell, during a skirmish either side of a river, a officer pulled out a dart shooter, the kanujan/solenarion etc, and shot said dart across the river, didnt hit or injure anyone, but the japanese were surprised the dart even reached them, which , considering the insane level of skill the korean archers had then as now, and how good their bows are, that surprises me..

now, during the imjin war the koreans were in bad shape for quality troops but still, with arcing shots you can goa LONG way, and the language suggests the arrows, didnt just land amongst them innacurately in plunging shots, but fell completely short.

we see this in the 16th century when italian arquebusiers were faced with a group of english longbowmen, the italians said to not waste their shot firing as soon as they could hit.. and instead wait until the englishh reached their own effective range, and stopped to shoot range, and THEN the italians fired off a volley, followed by drawing their swords and running the archers off the field.

theres a chinese c1400 troop formation involving 30 archers and 10 handgunners of a pipe on a stick variety,
the handgunners open up at 100 paces the bows start shooting at 50..

so, firearms are a completely different ballgame

but again id be curious to see rhodian, or baleric slingers facing against arquebusiers, since slingers were ALSO known to outrange archers.
Matthew Amt wrote:
Ryan S. wrote:
I think as far as materials go, it would make a difference, especially over time. I am not sure about the variable durability of the materials, but my guess is that the Hellenistic kit would break more often and go duller faster.


Break? Go dull? How? Everything they had was perfectly functional for the appropriate use. Sure, if you franticly hack away at an armored man, *any* edged weapon is going to suffer, but Hellenistic soldiers already knew that. Their pike points won't be dulled by stabbing through clothing and flesh. They were iron and steel, after all, in many cases equivalent to what the later troops are using. Their pikeshafts were functionally identical, with the possible exception of langets (lack thereof).

Quote:
I think a big difference might be with the distance weapons. I don't think much is known about the bows Alexanders´ troops used, but I do think their armour would be vulnerable to crossbows and firearms of the landsknechts.


Sure, crossbows were nasty, but again, the Hellenistic front-rankers *are* armored, and they all have shields. Might not all be proof, but they will certainly help. Firearms, on the other hand, are a big game-changer! Even Renaissance pikemen figured that out, eventually.

Matthew


Of course, the Macedonians wouldn’t try to stick their pikes into armour, but that might be hard against the well armoured pikemen. I am not sure how precise they can be trying to thrust someone in the face from one end of such a long pole. The effect would only be noticeable due to the large numbers, and like I said only over time. I also don’t think the extent to which swords dull over the course of a battle has really been studied. It is always assumed some spears break, but at what rate, I haven’t read any estimates.

It does seem though that the main weapons are the biggest points of similarity and the most change over time being the armour, and the ranged weapons. I know that there were some tests on linothorax replicas done by the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. I haven’t been able to find out the power of their bow. I suspect that even medieval crossbows and war bows would do well against linothorax.

The shields are interesting, because the modern pikemen don´t have them. I have heard they were mainly for protection against arrows, but maybe they would help in pike vs. pike warfare. They could also be a disadvantage.
Assuming that on the flat featureless plains of planet bowling ball, two forces of equal size and stupidity decide to charge at each other head on.

The landsknechts have the major advantage here as there better armoured on average, and have a better supply of short swords.
Once we look at the formations we can see how Guns are a massive improvement, the peltast with javelins, has to get much closer then a musketeer.
They can not fight from behind cover, or while crouching or lieing down.

Bows and javelins are weak relative to the armours of the italian wars, so a troop of Cuirassiers could ride up to 10-20 meters and fire while being safe from return fire in there armour.

William P wrote:


but i did wonder, given the reports of them being able to outrange bows, and given a sling glandes CAN approach light firarm velocities... and they load quicker, ancient slingers, COULD.. maybe trade blows with english musketeers.

but even then there's enough accounts of slingers in the late medieval era and the new world getting ruined by gunners so.. the gun probably wins..


While takeing a lead sling shot to your zichagge is not great in terms of avoiding a concussion its unlikely to be fatale.

Slings really struggle with solid armour and already having limited effect on most of the body.
Also as a technicology there development was finished, the lead glandes is the best shape and made from the heaviest stuff you can afford to throw away.
While you can still get a bigger rock or make the glandes bigger, its at the cost of range and projectile speed.
Graham Shearlaw wrote:
Bows and javelins are weak relative to the armours of the italian wars, so a troop of Cuirassiers could ride up to 10-20 meters and fire while being safe from return fire in there armour.

Thrown spears were one of the few weapons which soldiers in the 15th century thought had a chance of penetrating plate armour! And more importantly, the thread was about pike block versus pike block (and circa 1500, so well before caracole tactics with self-igniting handguns become common). An army with firearms had a big advantage over an army without, but its much harder to say that different kinds of sword, spear, or helmet gave a similar advantage.

And very early in the 16th century, that army will not have many arquebuses or crossbows.

Wargamers and military theorists tend to be much more sure that small differences in low-tech kit can give a huge advantage than the people who actually fought battles with edged weapons.
Ryan S. wrote:
It does seem though that the main weapons are the biggest points of similarity and the most change over time being the armour, and the ranged weapons. I know that there were some tests on linothorax replicas done by the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay. I haven’t been able to find out the power of their bow. I suspect that even medieval crossbows and war bows would do well against linothorax.

The shields are interesting, because the modern pikemen don´t have them. I have heard they were mainly for protection against arrows, but maybe they would help in pike vs. pike warfare. They could also be a disadvantage.

The ancients used shields because they did not have much armour or as strong armour as some later warriors. As early as circa 1320, the Modus Armandi Milites says that knights rarely carry their shields in war because they hinder more than they help. And some of the first fairly complete suits of armour were for warriors who fought from chariots and could not carry a shield.
Sean Manning wrote:
Graham Shearlaw wrote:
Bows and javelins are weak relative to the armours of the italian wars, so a troop of Cuirassiers could ride up to 10-20 meters and fire while being safe from return fire in there armour.

Thrown spears were one of the few weapons which soldiers in the 15th century thought had a chance of penetrating plate armour! And more importantly, the thread was about pike block versus pike block (and circa 1500, so well before caracole tactics with self-igniting handguns become common). An army with firearms had a big advantage over an army without, but its much harder to say that different kinds of sword, spear, or helmet gave a similar advantage.

And very early in the 16th century, that army will not have many arquebuses or crossbows.

Wargamers and military theorists tend to be much more sure that small differences in low-tech kit can give a huge advantage than the people who actually fought battles with edged weapons.


i imagine some people have yeeted a javelin at a cuirass and found it to not do much... even cheaper repros that don't have the curve or thickness in key areas that the originals had

so, one has to ask, what are we missing...is it the size of the spears we're meant to throw, the throw strength and technique? metallurgical issues with the armour?
Notably, various military Renaissance writers considered their pikers similar to those of antiquity. A number, like Machiavelli, argued that the Roman armament of shield & sword was superior to the pike. I suspect these scholars would have agreed with the notion that infantry equipment & overall quality hadn't improved much (if any) apart from firearms.

I tend to disagree, though I acknowledge it's no more than informed speculation. I know more about the Italians Wars than the Hellenistic period, which perhaps biased me toward the Renaissance. I suspect the average quality of armor & weapons was significantly better in the 16th century. It's true that some Renaissance swords weren't that great & much of the munitions-grade armor was low-carbon steel. However, there were at least a few large sets of fully hardened infantry armor in the Renaissance. It's entirely possible some percentage of a force in the Italian Wars would have top-of-line armor &/or swords. I wouldn't be at all shocked if pikes actually could pierce the torso defenses of the Macedonians. Certain sources from both that time & from the 15th/16th century claim that pike thrusts defeated armor at least on occasion.

I'm not aware of similarly detailed metallurgical studies for antiquity. The ones I've seen for the medieval era indicate that average quality did meaningfully improve in the 14th century. Similarly, though the figures remain uncertain, 16th-century Europe appears to have been rather wealthy per capita—especially Italy & the Low Countries—compared with most anywhere earlier & many places later. I don't know of estimates for ancient Greece, but I'd be very surprised if they're as high. The weight of evidence suggests better gear for the Renaissance pikers.

I additionally guess that 16th-century pike formations tended to more mobile, flexible, & effective than their counterparts in the Hellenistic period. The best Renaissance pikers moved remarkably quickly, could maneuver through difficult terrain, & might endure even if attacked from all sides. We likewise know that 16th-century pikers often trained to fight individually with the pike & had a range of techniques they used depending on the situation. Various accounts of the Macedonian phalanx highlight how unwieldy it could be.

As mentioned in the original post, the presence of halberdiers & the like in Renaissance pike formations would be difficult for ancient pikers to deal with in an extended melee. Assuming it's strictly Macedonian pikers against their counterparts from the Italian Wars, I imagine the latter would have a moderate advantage in both equipment & organization. As with any contest between heavy infantry, morale & leadership would be key.

Another factor is that the Italian Wars lasted for over sixty years & the Hellenistic period for around three hundred. Exactly when each force in question comes from matters. For instance, Spanish armies had no pikers at all initially & it took them a while develop potent pike formations. Cuirassiers only came around during the late Italian Wars. At first, France fielded mounted crossbowers & archers who seem to have shot their weapons from saddle sometimes.

Regarding javelins or thrown spears, it's true that they theoretically should have enough energy to pierce much plate armor when thrown by someone strong & skilled with a running start. I know of only a single account of a thrown spear penetrating plate armor off the top of my head. Except by Irish soldiers, such weapons saw little in the 16th century as far as I'm aware.
William P wrote:
i imagine some people have yeeted a javelin at a cuirass and found it to not do much... even cheaper repros that don't have the curve or thickness in key areas that the originals had

so, one has to ask, what are we missing...is it the size of the spears we're meant to throw, the throw strength and technique? metallurgical issues with the armour?

I don't know of any tests offhand, but having a random person throw a spear is like having a random person pull a bow or span a crossbow. Unless they have practiced that specific motion many times and built up the specific muscle groups, they won't get a fraction of the range or power that a skilled javelin thrower, archer, or crossbowman can get.

I think some people have looked at this as part of research into 15th century deeds of arms in central Europe but I don't have time to dig through my PDFs and bibliographies. See https://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2007/02/merle-vs-de-chargny-1435-thrown-lance.html and https://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2006/09/swords-and-thrown-spears.html

WillMcLean wrote:
It is perhaps natural for a modern student of medieval combat to assume that a thrown spear would be relatively ineffective against 15th century plate harness. However, when I put the question to a practical test with a reproduction spear, I discovered, somewhat to my surprise, that I consistently got better penetration against sheet steel with a thrown spear than with a two-handed thrust with the same weapon.
William P wrote:


i imagine some people have yeeted a javelin at a cuirass and found it to not do much... even cheaper repros that don't have the curve or thickness in key areas that the originals had

so, one has to ask, what are we missing...is it the size of the spears we're meant to throw, the throw strength and technique? metallurgical issues with the armour?


Tod has done a couple of videos on javelins and darts. His latest was 9 months ago, in which he built a mechanical spear thrower calibrated to match a javelin thrower. He just tested one kind of spear, and only against a shield, mail and plate armour. He did imply he would test other javelins in the future.
Sean Manning wrote:

Wargamers and military theorists tend to be much more sure that small differences in low-tech kit can give a huge advantage than the people who actually fought battles with edged weapons.


Because if we admit that battles are often won by the side that last had hot meal an warm bed, people tune out.
After all most there's a million wargames games about the WW2 Battle of France but do any cover the The Red Ball Express?

They tend to invent differences as a well, if we put a Late Roman ridge helmet next to a 1600's lobster-tailed pot, what the real difference?
Both have a two part bowl, neck, cheek and nose guards.
So what can you use to stat up your war game? make the 1600's lobster-tailed pot better as there's often more of a brow visor? or argue it based on the nose guard often being three bars?
Go to page 1, 2  Next

Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum




All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum