[Jaroslav Jakubov]

Is there any study available regarding how much more powerful Pike thrust was vs Spear thrust? It is obvious that pike due to being held in both arms will deal more damage than spear held underarm in one hand, but i'm interested in finding out how much more it actually was.

[Tom King]

Considering F=MA, a 20ft ash hafted pike would weight twice(ish) as much as a 10ft spear, so if accelerated at the same rate it would have twice the force. Pike heads were also very spikelike in comparison to earlier spear heads, so they would be better at penetration to begin with.

short answer physics wise would be twice as many newtons of force per thrust if accelerated at the same rate.

this would (could) translate into higher effectiveness against armor, but I've yet to see a truly scientific study of period correct case hardened iron armor being tested scientifically against period correct arms reproductions.

[William P]

on that topic of spear vs pike... at what point does a spear become a pike... there are 2 handed spears after all

[Harri Kyllönen]

You can use a spear 2 handed. And apparently the power of the thrust wasn't that relevant when used in mass formations.
Hoplites used spears overhand to stab over shields and the Swiss used pikes at head level to stab at unarmored faces.
Against cavalry it was sufficient to brace the pike/spear so that the horse would impale itself with its momentum.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Various sources indicate the power the pike thrust. In the fifteenth century, Jean de Waurin specifically wrote that Flemish pikes could pierce through any armor. Some fifteenth century depictions show pikes penetrating both mail and plate. Di Grassi noted the widespread option that the pike hit harder than shorter piercing staff weights and attributed this to geometry. However, in the middle of the sixteenth century, Fourquevoux wrote that plate harness protected against all manner of weapons except for arquebuses and artillery. He explicitly mentioned pikes. Most of his discussion on armor came in relation to men-at-arms and thus may well have envision quality harness. Though as a generalization he mentioned crossbows as one of the weapons harness offers protection against, he also wrote that lower-quality harness might fail against a close-range barrage of bolts and/or arrows. Writing in the late sixteenth century, Sir John Smythe assumed pikes could not reliably pierce steel and instructed pikers (and halberdiers) to thrust for the face. Around the same time, Humphrey Barwick apparently thought pikers had a significant chance of penetrating equine plate armor, but that probably comes mostly from the horse's own force. More recently, a tested late-sixteenth-century or earlier-seventeenth-century halberd managed shallow penetration of sixteenth-century munitions-grade breastplate.

The following numbers from Alan Williams's The Knight and the Blast Furnace show how much kinetic energy it takes for an arrowhead to penetrate plate at four different grades of quality:

1mm = 28/41/61/83 J
2mm = 88/131/193/263 J
3mm = 150/225/330/450 J

Fairly thick padding adds 50 J, though I'm somewhat skeptical folks wearing cheap iron armor would necessarily have this level of padding. We have no good numbers of how much kinetic energy a pike thrust deliver. Knives can deliver up to at least 64 J with an underarm thrust and 115 J with an overarm thrust; I'm guessing pikes would manage much more in strong arms, but we don't really know. A 2mm iron breastplate with thinner padding would only require about 100 J to defeat; this strikes me as thoroughly likely. A higher-quality 2mm breastplate with robust padding, on the other hand, would require 250-300+ J to defeat; I suspect few if any historical (or present) warriors could deliver so much with a two-handed thrust.

[Harri Kyllönen]

There are some videos on the subject where people test spears or pikes against different types of armor.

This guy here is testing a spear against mail with and without padding. The padding makes all the difference even though it's just a layer of leather and clothing. Mail alone is pierced relatively easily. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4bpb4eTI

Here are powerful two handed sword thrusts against mail with thick leather (?) underneath. Again little effect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM

I don't think any pike or spear could pierce plate with gambeson or other padding underneath. I suspect even mail + gambeson combo would be a tough nut to crack for pikes.

[Spasimir Ivanov]

I guess to calculate how powerful the different blows will be, physics will do the job best. So using F=ma is most appropriate in my opinion. However, there are a couple of other things to consider. First, the speed of the lighter weapon - in this case the spear, will be greater. Second, the longer pike will flex more on impact, thus taking away some of the force. Using a weapon two hand will give you greater accuracy with it. To make a fair comparison you'll have to make the tips of the weapons the same too.
Regarding against armor - the pike was of such great military importance not because of a power to penetrate mail or plate, but because of its power to brake enemy formations. Once you do that you can throw in your met-at-arms or whatever to finish off the opponent, but you are already on your way to victory.

[Dan Howard]

[Harri Kyllönen]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

The pollaxe in this famous test devasted mail. Pike points varied, but most were narrow like the tested pollaxe's point. No manual I know of assigns mail to frontline pikemen.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Mark Moore]

Having actually worn maille in a live-fighting match, I can tell you that a well placed strike from either can be devastating. If your opponent is bent on putting you down, it's gonna hurt...reenactment or not. Even a cheapie Windlass Viking spear can penetrate the best riveted maille, I've seen it done. .............McM

[Mark Moore]

Addendum: ----Not on a live human, mind you. ............McM

[P. Schontzler]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Historical military manuals, however, do at least indirectly shed light on the performance of historical weapons and armor. As I mentioned above, I don't know of any sixteenth-century text that recommends mail torso defenses for pikemen. Fourquevaux assigned plate torso defenses to pikemen - including extraordinary pikemen - and halberdiers. Gunners, crossbowmen, and archers got mail shirts and sleeves. This indicates that Fourquevaux considered mail insufficient for troops likely to fight up close with heavy staff weapons. Sir John Smythe assigned similar armors to the different battlefield roles. While some pikemen certainly wore mail, sixteenth-century manuals suggest it was an uncertain and inferior defense. (Humphrey Barwick mocked Smythe for recommending brigandines, jacks of mail, and eyelet-holed doublets for mounted archers/crossbowers, writing that these armors - if they would defend against anything at all - were best suited to defend against arrows. Smythe specifically rejected even sleeves of mail for the pikemen in the foremost ranks, writing that they needed pauldrons, vambraces, and gauntlets.)

[Ahmad Tabari]

[Bjorn Hagstrom]

Guess the Spear is the winner here.



..This joke will never get old

[Philip Dyer]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Ahmad Tabari]