Different Pike Question: What's the Counter?

[BOTP]

Originally Posted by pcasey Before reliable firearms became available, how did medieval armies counter dense pike formations? Or did everyone just make their own pike phalanxes and slam into each other?

Shock cavalry seems unlikely to work, at least frontally although maneuvering to flank ought to.A well trained pike formation can turn to either flank or the rear very quickly without becoming disorganised so a move to the flanks wouldn't be the answer in most cases. However just the sight of cavalry could be enough to slow if not stop a pike block as they would be forced to adopt a defensive posture. Before guns were around, I would suspect that archers/crossbows followed by an assault by heavy infantry would be the best defense against pikes.

With less disiplined pikesmen, I assume that after taking some casualties from ranged fire, the pikesmen might be vulnerable to sword carrying infantry which would get in close through the gaps in the line, or even to a calvary charge at the right point. Light Calvary with ranged weapons was also highly effective against heavy infantry, but this didn't become common in Europe until after the widespread appearance of pistols. You can find it in just about any account of any battle in the period, up until the Napoleonic Era. Cannon shot and massed missile fire (either bows/xbows or arquebus) were used to slaughter densely packed pike formations. But the only historacle example dating back to 15th-16th century of such a case is at Battle of Arbedo (June 30 1422) Milanese under famous captain Carmagnola defeat Swiss phalanx. Details:

"One of the few defeats suffered by the Swiss in the fifteenth century. The Swiss Confederation was raiding south over the Alps, and gaining territory in the northern Po Valley. Their actions provoked Filipppo Maria Visconti, who sent his best generals against the invading Swiss. The Swiss were outnumbered two to one, and despite initial successes against an Italian cavalry charge, they were soon put under serious pressure by a combination of crossbow fire on the flanks, and columns of dismounted men at arms in the centre. The larger Milanese force began to push back the Swiss, who were only saved from total disaster by the appearance of a band of foragers, who the Milanese were convinced represented a major new force. When the Milanese force pulled back to reform, the Swiss fled the battlefield, having taken heavy casualties."

The Swiss apparently were defeated using a combined arms approach. Armored Milanese men-at-arms assaulted the Swiss, forcing them to stand in packed formations. The Milanese then had crossbowmen pour quarrels into the dense formation, wreaking havoc. (Think of it as the medieval equivalent to a Napoleonic cavalry charge forcing an infantry regiment into square; followup horse artillery then blasts the square with grapeshot).

The Swiss refused to break, however, and when the Milanese eased the pressure the Swiss withdrew in good order. Strategically, this defeat caused the Swiss to evacuate the lands they'd siezed from Milan. This defeat marked the end of major efforts by Switzerland to expand into Italian territory.

Tactically, it marked the limits of the traditional solid Swiss phalanx. Had the Swiss possessed some light cavalry or infantry, such troops could have chased off the Milanese crossbowmen. However, the rarity of such defeats shows how formidable the Swiss formation was, even unsupported.

[CBR]

Pikes really only became the dominant weapon in the second half of the 15th century. The Swiis and the Landsknechts were the most famous and widely used as mercs but other nations started traning their own in late 15th/early 16th century.

The Swiss had already gained fame back in the 14th century but that was with at least 2/3 of the infantry being halberdiers. Even the pikemen at that time had shorter pikes compared to later on.

At Arbedo the Swiss initially repulsed the Milanese mounted attacks and in the proces undoubtly had some pikemen killed and pikes broken. When faced with the dismounted men-at-arms using lances the Swiss halberdiers were pressed hard (the numbers of men-at-arm as well as their armour must have helped too)

After that battle the Swiss tried to change their army and aimed for 2/3 pikes instead of 1/3 of the infantry as well as increasing the number crossbow armed skirmishers. But that was a long process that took several decades.

The long and unwieldy pikes were not easy weapons to use and required good unit training and the halberd had been used with succes for many years, so I guess that was the main reason for why it took so long to change.

So to give a short answer: All armies went for the pike in the early Renaissance as that proved to be the best main weapon for infantry armies.

Heavy cavalry could actually be very dangerous if the pike units were not ready for them in a square formation. But missile weapons was of course an option if the pike unit was in the defensive so the missile weapons had the time to use all the ammo to inflict some losses.

Earlier on we have examples of English longbows that were used with sucess against defending Scotish and Flemish armies (thats 14th century) although they might not be the same as the later pike armies as they had shorter weapons as well as axes and polearms too.

And of course the men-at-arms could dismount and turn into semi-pikemen using their lances as they did at Arbedo and Sempach 1386 against the Swiss.


CBR

[Watchman]

Until Thirty Years' War pikemen by default marched and fought in huge squares (or, so I've read, sometimes triangles) so catching them "off guard" with flanking moves wasn't really an option - those huge formations can at least in principle fight in all directions simultaneously.

Shooting the whole densely packed buch to bits is an option, and a good one, especially if you have decent field artillery available (the dreadful carnage Swedish guns wrought on the Imperial tercios at Breitenfelt was one of the more sobering object lessons to the deep formations' vulnerability). Gaining an upper hand in a regular missile fight, that is to say one fought with bows, handguns and crossbows, would have been dependent on the number and quality of missile troops each side could field. AFAIK the Swiss made a point of having around a third of their field armies made up of skirmishers...

The sad fate of the Scottish spear-hedges stemmed mostly from the fact that they were static formations - they lacked the drill required to maneuver without losing cohesion and breaking ranks, which the English exploited by threatening them with cavalry and thus forcing them to stay put and sending the longbowmen in to do the killing. The Swiss didn't have this weakness - indeed, their tactics emphasized aggressive maneuver, speed and shock impact.

Aside from pikemen of your own any solid heavy infantry seems to have done at least passably against the Swiss at least. They could pretty much brush off mounted men-at-arms with impunity, but if these elite troops left their horses aside (as was almost the norm by the later half of Hundred Years' War already) and fought on foot they could cause the lightly equipped pikemen some serious trouble. Odds are they didn't use their lances overmuch for this kind of combat - in a push of pikes the massive pikeman formation would have the advantage of weight and ranks. AFAIK they just took up their swords, axes and polearms and hacked their way through the pike-shafts, relying on their shields, armor and sheer skill for protection.