| A. Gallo wrote: |
| Could it be that "breaking" the pikes was occasionally an allusion to knocking them out of the pikeman's hands with a downward blow? |
Breaking the pikes might mean disordering the pike formation as in get them all tangled up ?
Breaking the pikes might mean disordering the pike formation as in get them all tangled up ?
AFAIK several masters used this allusion in technique descriptions, I'm absolutely sure in Ringeck, and a bit less sure about others, and those techniques didn't have broken swords in them only "broken" attacks. So unless a source specifically mentions a pike head cut off (in the original language), I'd think that "breaking pikes" is more like "breaking a person".
or perhaps a term that is still used, "breaking ranks"?
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | ||
Breaking the pikes might mean disordering the pike formation as in get them all tangled up ? |
I feel that this is likely the case. Given that pikes were really only effective in formation, if you're able to "break" that formation you're able to create a a weak point where a breach can be forced. I've always taken the use of two-handers to "break pikes" to mean this.
| Joel Minturn wrote: | ||
Its not the pike in front of you that kills you. It the one from 3 people over. |
but considering the great mass of pikes in a formation facing forward., to shift your pike even the angle to reach someone 3 people to your left, then start thrusting, wouldnt that potentially serve to maybe even tangle up your pike line by bumping your pike into the shafts of the pikes of your comrades. potentially pulling them out of alignment.
and as pointed out, a pike has alot of inertia so such a maneuver might be difficult to do.
in shield walls and hoplite phalanxes with shorter spears however its a whole different story.
as abit of an aside when it comes to pike warfare, considering that people must have known what happens if gunpowder blows up a barrel either wooden, or that of a cannon, and knowing at least partially, of all the devestation that ensues as a result of the shards of metal flying everywhere. im surprised that people didnt come up with the idea of packing a clay pot with gunpowder and bits of metal scrap, and smalls stones etc , fitting a match or something, and throwing it at the other line of pikes, the result there would have been devestating.
| William P wrote: |
| as abit of an aside when it comes to pike warfare, considering that people must have known what happens if gunpowder blows up a barrel either wooden, or that of a cannon, and knowing at least partially, of all the devestation that ensues as a result of the shards of metal flying everywhere. im surprised that people didnt come up with the idea of packing a clay pot with gunpowder and bits of metal scrap, and smalls stones etc , fitting a match or something, and throwing it at the other line of pikes, the result there would have been devestating. |
In the middle of the sixteenth century, Fourquevaux suggested using men armed with swords, shields, and grenades to disrupt the opposing pike formation. I don't know whether this actually saw use in the field.
| William P wrote: |
| as abit of an aside when it comes to pike warfare, considering that people must have known what happens if gunpowder blows up a barrel either wooden, or that of a cannon, and knowing at least partially, of all the devestation that ensues as a result of the shards of metal flying everywhere. im surprised that people didnt come up with the idea of packing a clay pot with gunpowder and bits of metal scrap, and smalls stones etc , fitting a match or something, and throwing it at the other line of pikes, the result there would have been devestating. |
They did. Song dynasty in China, so in use by the 13th century at the latest, perhaps a couple of centuries earlier. There's a classic painting showing a very surprised samurai with a grenade exploding at his feet during the Mongol invasions (not a contemporary painting, perhaps Edo period).
Used in Europe in the 16th century, perhaps in the 15th.
The trick is to make a grenade that you can light reliably and safely, throw far enough (at least from out of pike range!), and do enough damage with. Not the easiest of things to do, if it will be hand thrown. So one can throw by catapult (as done by the Chinese), or by cannon/mortar (as also done by the Chinese, and Europeans in due course).
The staff-sling has value as a grenade launcher.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: | ||
They did. Song dynasty in China, so in use by the 13th century at the latest, perhaps a couple of centuries earlier. There's a classic painting showing a very surprised samurai with a grenade exploding at his feet during the Mongol invasions (not a contemporary painting, perhaps Edo period). Used in Europe in the 16th century, perhaps in the 15th. The trick is to make a grenade that you can light reliably and safely, throw far enough (at least from out of pike range!), and do enough damage with. Not the easiest of things to do, if it will be hand thrown. So one can throw by catapult (as done by the Chinese), or by cannon/mortar (as also done by the Chinese, and Europeans in due course). The staff-sling has value as a grenade launcher. |
i was referring purely to the europeans of the 16th century era of large pike formations with the the simple idea that, when the pike blocks meet, a few men in the second line, either arquebusiers or pikemen, quickly pull out the pot, light a match and toss it at the other square. even a few small explosions down the line would do wonders for creating exploitable gaps
(another example could also simply be to use a thin walled jar of pitch and oils like a medieval firepot thats so often used during medieval sieges, a bit like a molotov)
precisely what one could plausibly make the fuse out of im admittedly not sure. especially if its improvised..
im suggesting these ideas since because of the tight nature of a pike square the ability to have something like a blunderbuss, or a hand thrown bomb would be absolutely lethal during that scrum like push of pikes to suddenly have explosions erupt, even in the ranks behind the immediate frontline pikemen.
a modern hand grenade at least would, considering the tight, shoulder to shoulder spacing of the men, if it were to land maybe in the third or 4th row, would tear a gigantic hole in the formation, and badly disrupting the men around them. i realize that im talking about a modern frag grenade, but you get what im suggesting.
the japanese experience with gunpowder via the mongols on the other hand is something im acutely aware of.
it still puzzles me to this day why, despite also using soft clay projectiles filled with iron fragments and gunpowder thrown from catapaults, they never thought to adopt the mongol idea.
| William P wrote: |
|
i was referring purely to the europeans of the 16th century era of large pike formations with the the simple idea that, when the pike blocks meet, a few men in the second line, either arquebusiers or pikemen, quickly pull out the pot, light a match and toss it at the other square. even a few small explosions down the line would do wonders for creating exploitable gaps |
As mentioned, they did use them in Europe at that time. Seem to be much more used in the 17th century, but certainly used in the 16th, and maybe earlier.
They weren't superweapons. Effective enough to keep using them (specialist grenadier units appear in the 17th century), but they didn't dominate the battlefield. Muskets and cannon can also make significant gaps in the line.
| William P wrote: |
|
the japanese experience with gunpowder via the mongols on the other hand is something im acutely aware of. it still puzzles me to this day why, despite also using soft clay projectiles filled with iron fragments and gunpowder thrown from catapaults, they never thought to adopt the mongol idea. |
Given that they used Chinese-style cannon, Chinese-style handguns, and Chinese-style catapult thrown grenades (all before the Portuguese musket arrived), not using the hand grenade more won't be because they didn't think of it. A large catapult thrown grenade can be a lot more effective than a hand grenade, and can be delivered from far enough away to avoid being turned into a pincushion by enemy archers.
The hand grenade (many kinds of them) does appear in Japan as a supposed ninja weapon. So at least the idea was there, even if widespread use was not.
| Quote: |
| I believe the rodeleros did enjoy some success against pikeman most notably against the French employed landsknechts at the battle of Ravenn. The rodeleros apparently used the tactic of ducking/rolling under the sea of pikes to engage in close quarter combat and in this battle at least they were able to inflict considerable casualties this way. It does seem though in more cases than not the pikeman mercenaries tended to roll over the Spanish rodeleros. |
It seems in many ways similar to the Romans vs the Hellenic kindoms centuries prior.
While the Romans won most of these battles, it seems the only time they had sucess vs pikes from the front is when the Pikes became disordered due to bad terrain, puruit of fleeing Romans, or both.
We can also look at Rome's conflict with King Pyrrhus, whom was able to defeat the Romans on a regular basis, but was unable to win the war due more to logisistics and manpower then anything else, he would beat one Roman army and another would take it's place.
I can't do it every time, but if I eat my wheaties and have a couple guys hold it, I can fairly often snap a 1.25 inch diameter ash pole with my two hander.
My brother, who was a linebacker in college, makes the task look easy.
My halberd doesn't work as well since the smaller cutting area combined with a wide swing leads to more misses. It takes more concentration. The long blade on the two hander is more forgiving. Halberds are nice for steadying a pole so the two hander can break them though.
Without one or two guys to grab and hold the pike head steady, I don't believe a two hander could just slice a pike shaft in half no matter how big of an ogre is swinging it. We've tried.
My brother, who was a linebacker in college, makes the task look easy.
My halberd doesn't work as well since the smaller cutting area combined with a wide swing leads to more misses. It takes more concentration. The long blade on the two hander is more forgiving. Halberds are nice for steadying a pole so the two hander can break them though.
Without one or two guys to grab and hold the pike head steady, I don't believe a two hander could just slice a pike shaft in half no matter how big of an ogre is swinging it. We've tried.
Last weekend was our WMA school winter training weekend. We tried breaking pike formations and it works surprisingly well. We had a 8 wide, 3 deep pike block armed with 3 meter pikes (a bit short, I know) being attacked by two guys with two-handed swords and three guys armed with halberds. They made minced meat out of the pike block.
The two-hander guys wielded the swords almost like a chainsaw, one hand on the end of the handle and the other hand on one of the side rings of the guard. Using large, sweeping arc strokes it's pretty easy to get into the pikes and push a whole bunch of them down with a two-handed swords. One swordsman pushing left and one pushing right. After that it's easy for the halberds to get into the gap and start killing people with downward strokes. There's very little the pikemen can do. All the pikes going down effectively locks you up, making it almost impossible to move and draw e.g. a sword or other backup weapon.
I don't know if anyone's made pictures, but if I find them, I will post them here.
The two-hander guys wielded the swords almost like a chainsaw, one hand on the end of the handle and the other hand on one of the side rings of the guard. Using large, sweeping arc strokes it's pretty easy to get into the pikes and push a whole bunch of them down with a two-handed swords. One swordsman pushing left and one pushing right. After that it's easy for the halberds to get into the gap and start killing people with downward strokes. There's very little the pikemen can do. All the pikes going down effectively locks you up, making it almost impossible to move and draw e.g. a sword or other backup weapon.
I don't know if anyone's made pictures, but if I find them, I will post them here.
| Sander Marechal wrote: |
| Last weekend was our WMA school winter training weekend. We tried breaking pike formations and it works surprisingly well. We had a 8 wide, 3 deep pike block armed with 3 meter pikes (a bit short, I know) being attacked by two guys with two-handed swords and three guys armed with halberds. They made minced meat out of the pike block.
The two-hander guys wielded the swords almost like a chainsaw, one hand on the end of the handle and the other hand on one of the side rings of the guard. Using large, sweeping arc strokes it's pretty easy to get into the pikes and push a whole bunch of them down with a two-handed swords. One swordsman pushing left and one pushing right. After that it's easy for the halberds to get into the gap and start killing people with downward strokes. There's very little the pikemen can do. All the pikes going down effectively locks you up, making it almost impossible to move and draw e.g. a sword or other backup weapon. I don't know if anyone's made pictures, but if I find them, I will post them here. |
sounds alot like what some guys did during a reenactment of the battle of pavia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN6OLApKSmk at around 1:25 you see people, using 2 handed swords2 handed swords, showes them creating a gap in the pike wall by planting their swords point first into the ground and crowbaring a whole heap of pikes left and right, similar to what sander suggested, then you see the whole formation rushing into the gap, literally bisecting the enemy block.
but ill agree that a 10ft pike is definately a factor that would need to be improved upon if one were to practice that experiment again. since the macedonians, and i think the renaissance pikemen as well, with the pikes as long as they were, about 16 feet if i remember correctly. which is about 4.8 metres, if i remember my ancient macedonian armies correctly this allowed about 5 rows of spearpoints to protrude in front of the first line.
this is crucial for dealing with men with 2 handed swords and halberds, if you have only 3 or 4 rows of points in front of you instead of 5, theres alot less points to knock away. and you have to pass a smaller distance to reach the front line
with a 10 foot pike waving at you, and you having a 5 foot sword, thats alot less disadvantage of reach compared to a 14-16 foot pike.
in fact having such a long pike was crucial to resisting cavalry, since a shortened, 10 foot foot pike, held with hands shoulder width apart, near the butt, means you have only maybe 7 to 8 foot in front of you i the first rank. this is trouble since the lancers had 10 foot lances, this made it so that they had an extra foot or two of reach compared to the 'pike'
allowing them to hit and kill the front rankers before the pikes could kill them.
this is why the byzantines and the renaissance armies went to great lengths to make sure men didnt cut down the length of their pikes to make them easier to carry.
despite all those reservations though, i still think youve demonstrated a good 'proof of concept' as to how one could use the 2 handed sword to create gaps for halberds and 2 handed swords to exploit a block of pikes, add in musket fire and maybe even a supporting ribauldequen
| William P wrote: |
| [ since the macedonians, and i think the renaissance pikemen as well, with the pikes as long as they were, about 16 feet if i remember correctly. which is about 4.8 metres, if i remember my ancient macedonian armies correctly this allowed about 5 rows of spearpoints to protrude in front of the first line.
this is crucial for dealing with men with 2 handed swords and halberds, if you have only 3 or 4 rows of points in front of you instead of 5, theres alot less points to knock away. and you have to pass a smaller distance to reach the front line with a 10 foot pike waving at you, and you having a 5 foot sword, thats alot less disadvantage of reach compared to a 14-16 foot pike. despite all those reservations though, i still think youve demonstrated a good 'proof of concept' as to how one could use the 2 handed sword to create gaps for halberds and 2 handed swords to exploit a block of pikes, add in musket fire and maybe even a supporting ribauldequen |
I could see this working in teams as a pair of two handed swordsmen open up and clear the first few rows of point, another pair enters the gap and does the same to the next few rows of points before those can get to the first pair.
Halberds and/or rotella armed swordsmen rushing into the gap before deeper in pikemen can lower their pikes.
All this has to be well coordinated and the main idea is to tangle up the pike as one could disorder oars of a galley by ramming into the oars.
Aggressive and well timed counter action by the pikemen might be able to kill off the swordsmen before they succeeded in breaking up the order of the formation.
Maybe something not used, but I would think that weighted steel nets throw onto the pikes could also make them useless. ;)
| William P wrote: |
| but considering the great mass of pikes in a formation facing forward., to shift your pike even the angle to reach someone 3 people to your left, then start thrusting, wouldnt that potentially serve to maybe even tangle up your pike line by bumping your pike into the shafts of the pikes of your comrades. potentially pulling them out of alignment.
and as pointed out, a pike has alot of inertia so such a maneuver might be difficult to do. |
Okay, I know it's not a historical source, but from doing pike work in some pretty big SCA wars (and our pikes are even more likely to get tangled up having big foam heads and being made of rattan), I can tell you that it's not as big of a deal as you may think. You work over or under the ones facing forwards basically and let the once facing forwards contine to do so and threaten.
| P. Cha wrote: |
| Okay, I know it's not a historical source, but from doing pike work in some pretty big SCA wars (and our pikes are even more likely to get tangled up having big foam heads and being made of rattan), I can tell you that it's not as big of a deal as you may think. |
I don't think SCA pikes are 4-6 meters long. From what I've seen from the SCA I'd say it's more a spear than a pike.
The formation that we experimented with was really densly packed. Shoulder-to-shoulder with maybe 40cm between each line. When the pikes go down there's a wall of wood on your left and right, and you lean against the man in front of you. There's no room to move.
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | ||
I could see this working in teams as a pair of two handed swordsmen open up and clear the first few rows of point, another pair enters the gap and does the same to the next few rows of points before those can get to the first pair. Halberds and/or rotella armed swordsmen rushing into the gap before deeper in pikemen can lower their pikes. All this has to be well coordinated and the main idea is to tangle up the pike as one could disorder oars of a galley by ramming into the oars. Aggressive and well timed counter action by the pikemen might be able to kill off the swordsmen before they succeeded in breaking up the order of the formation. Maybe something not used, but I would think that weighted steel nets throw onto the pikes could also make them useless. ;) |
i had thought that as well, or quite simply that the dopplehanders will just be held out to your side vertically, and, as you run down the line of men, simply running down the pike and progressively pushing them aside.
i should also remind people that the people in the front lines had some level of armour, so a pike wont as easily skewer you when rushing in.
as well all know, a pike formations advantage is their ability to present as many spear points as possible.
although we wouldnt really see rotella wieldes alongside zwihanders, although we would see rodelros alongside users of the montante in spanish and portuguse armies at least.
The perennial problem with grenades was safety. There was no way to guarantee that the fuse wouldn't burn too quickly or that there'd be no sparks leaking down into the explosive filling or (cue the sound of the grenade exploding in my hand as I take too much time figuring out all the things that could go wrong with it).
You know, what strikes me about the modern grenades used from World War I onwards is just how safe they are. Their ignition and detonation is so predictable that you could actually train the average soldier to use them. I wish that was also true of their predecessors but, hey, here I am speaking from the grave, and that after I gave my comrades so much trouble over gathering enough pieces of what was left of me after that thing blew up on me. Just don't try that at home, kids.
You know, what strikes me about the modern grenades used from World War I onwards is just how safe they are. Their ignition and detonation is so predictable that you could actually train the average soldier to use them. I wish that was also true of their predecessors but, hey, here I am speaking from the grave, and that after I gave my comrades so much trouble over gathering enough pieces of what was left of me after that thing blew up on me. Just don't try that at home, kids.
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but since Matt Easton put out a video on this topic recently I wanted to comment that there seems to be something very off about the premise in the first place.
Specifically, it's very unlikely that two-handed greatswords ever actually earned a "reputation" for defeating pike formations historically.
For comparison look at the question of pikes vs sword and shield infantry. There is a strong argument to be made that "roman-style" sword&shield troops weren't that great at breaking pike formations either and that the Spanish never really fielded "rodeleros" in large numbers, however we do at least know that it was a very hot topic at the time and that the idea had a number of strong supporters such as Pietro Monte, Machiavelli, and Diego de Salazar. However I have yet to come across a single military treatise author who suggests or even comments on the use of two-handed swords against pike formations.
It's just not something military theorists at the time seem to have been at all interested in. Which means that even if there were occasional instances during this period that two-handed swordsmen managed to break up pike squares, all of the observers and experts at the time still concluded that it wasn't worth attempting to replicate or only happened due to dumb luck or other factors that didn't have anything to do with the actual weapon.
Their current overall reputation as a pike-killer I'm pretty sure is just a modern invention. Maybe it came from Oman or Delbruck, idk.
Specifically, it's very unlikely that two-handed greatswords ever actually earned a "reputation" for defeating pike formations historically.
For comparison look at the question of pikes vs sword and shield infantry. There is a strong argument to be made that "roman-style" sword&shield troops weren't that great at breaking pike formations either and that the Spanish never really fielded "rodeleros" in large numbers, however we do at least know that it was a very hot topic at the time and that the idea had a number of strong supporters such as Pietro Monte, Machiavelli, and Diego de Salazar. However I have yet to come across a single military treatise author who suggests or even comments on the use of two-handed swords against pike formations.
It's just not something military theorists at the time seem to have been at all interested in. Which means that even if there were occasional instances during this period that two-handed swordsmen managed to break up pike squares, all of the observers and experts at the time still concluded that it wasn't worth attempting to replicate or only happened due to dumb luck or other factors that didn't have anything to do with the actual weapon.
Their current overall reputation as a pike-killer I'm pretty sure is just a modern invention. Maybe it came from Oman or Delbruck, idk.
Giacomo di Grassi wrote about two-handed swords & about cutting pikes with a partisan or other polearm, but didn't mention the two-handed sword in this context.
Overall, there's amusingly ample evidence for cutting/breaking pikes with single-handed swords & polearms but not that much for doing so with two-handed swords.
Di Grassi wrote of two-handed swords as primarily for facing multiple opponents, which is consistent with Iberian montante manuals. Montanteros (for lack of a convenient English word for troops equipped with two-handed swords) did see significant amounts of service in pike-dominant armies, often to defend the ensigns & so on.
Overall, there's amusingly ample evidence for cutting/breaking pikes with single-handed swords & polearms but not that much for doing so with two-handed swords.
Di Grassi wrote of two-handed swords as primarily for facing multiple opponents, which is consistent with Iberian montante manuals. Montanteros (for lack of a convenient English word for troops equipped with two-handed swords) did see significant amounts of service in pike-dominant armies, often to defend the ensigns & so on.
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou 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
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum