Why the Swiss went for pikes

[Hakonarson]

Mot ppl think it was because the halberds they were using weren't so good agaisnt cavalry, but it might not've ben.

Instead it is suggested in Armies of the Middle Ages that they adopted pikes because the halberds were not good enough vs DISMOUNTED men at armes who were using their lances as spears - they were longer than the halberds!

This was done by 1400 maa under Duke Leoppold at Sempach in 1386 - they inflicted heavy casualties on one Swiss division before being defeated (there were 2000-2500 Swiss) - the Swiss were all halberdiers at this tiume.

At Arbedo in 1422 the Italian Condotierri chargged and were repulsed with heavy losses, then dismounted and fought on foot - the Swiss were defeated but the Milanese didn't follow up. The Swiss were approx 1/3 pike and 2/3rd halberd here.

[Stefan the Berserker]

Simple: How is the Terrain in Switzerland? Can you ride there with ease? Not really the best terrain for mounted Troops... And anyway: Swiss are an alliance of independent Kantons! They only have Lords but no Kings or important aristocraths. All their Armys are nothing more than an extended Province Miltia. This is that way even today! So, they got stronger Militia Troops...

[Hakonarson]

Stefan what is your point?

I know that the Swiss didn't have a lot of cavalry, and that they were and are a confederation of cantons.......but I fail to see why that's important to them adopting pike.

My point is that most ppl think the Swis adopted pike because they needed the longer weapons to fight against cavalry.

This evidence suggests that the driving force was actually that the halberds were too short against spears used by men on foot.

[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 11-05-2002).]

[deejayvee]

Quote This was done by 1400 maa under Duke Leoppold at Sempach in 1386 - they inflicted heavy casualties on one Swiss division before being defeated (there were 2000-2500 Swiss) - the Swiss were all halberdiers at this tiume.

At Arbedo in 1422 the Italian Condotierri chargged and were repulsed with heavy losses, then dismounted and fought on foot - the Swiss were defeated but the Milanese didn't follow up. The Swiss were approx 1/3 pike and 2/3rd halberd here.
[/QUOTE]
Quote This evidence suggests that the driving force was actually that the halberds were too short against spears used by men on foot.[/QUOTE]

Interesting idea. However, your evidence doesn't seem to back it up.
At Sempach where there was all Halberdiers, the Swiss won.
At Arbedo where there was 1/3 pike, the Swiss lost.

[Hakonarson]

Quote Originally posted by deejayvee:
Interesting idea. However, your evidence doesn't seem to back it up.
At Sempach where there was all Halberdiers, the Swiss won.
At Arbedo where there was 1/3 pike, the Swiss lost.[/QUOTE]

The Swiss vanguard (the Luvernese) were initially pushed back by the 1st battle of the Germans until a contingent of the main army arived (men from Uri).

The Swiss then attacked the Austrians in the flank as well as breaking through their spears fom the front.

Leopold dismounted his 2nd battle at this point, but it advanced in some disorder and was pushed back and routed after a "stubborn fight".

the 3rd battle broke and fled without a fight, sweeping away the horses.

The Lucerne contingent in the Swiss vanguard took heavy casualties - maybe half teh 120-200 total the Swiss suffered killed - weapon effectiveness is not necessarily only about winning battles.

This was already partly recognised by the time of Arbedo - hence the 1/3rd pike. The numbers of pike took off after that defeat.

[deejayvee]

Quote weapon effectiveness is not necessarily only about winning battles.[/QUOTE]
True, but you said at Sempach Leopold's men inflicted heavy casualties on the Swiss but didn't mention anything about Swiss casualties at Arbedo, only that they lost.

My main point is that if they introduced pikes at Arbedo and they still lost, what made them then decide that pikes were the way to go? I guess that it's probably something like the pikes held but the halberdiers didn't.

[Jagger]

Did the Swiss have much armor?

The less the armor, the more I would want a long weapon to keep my enemies far away whether infantry or cavalry. I would like the capability to reach out and touch them without them touching back-especially if they have good armor and I don't.

[This message has been edited by Jagger (edited 11-06-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Jagger (edited 11-06-2002).]

[BlackWatch McKenna]

Maybe pikes were cheaper, too.

More wood and less iron?

[Hakonarson]

Originally posted by Deejayvee: Quote My main point is that if they introduced pikes at Arbedo and they still lost, what made them then decide that pikes were the way to go? I guess that it's probably something like the pikes held but the halberdiers didn't.[/QUOTE]

Dunno sorry - there isn't that much information in teh battle descriptions.

Jagger at teh start the Swiss wore almost no armour - either for pike and halverd.

And yes pikes are almost certainlycheaper than halberds - teh driving cost in those times was the amount of iron required - it was extremely expensive and the cost of making pike poles instead of shorter halberd ones would ahve been negligible compared to the difference in costs of the weapon heads IMO.

[Stefan the Berserker]

Maybe, but as I said: Most Swiss Armies are made of Province Militia, Mercenaries and the low Knighthood that existed there...

This is why they prefered Pikes or Halbards. The Answer why the prefered these and not swords is a diffrent thing... Maybe beacause Swiss Armored Pikemen are better to fight against Cavallary?