[Bob Case]

Hey - I had a question about Tercio tactics that I haven't been able to find a good answer for anywhere. There's plenty of information out there about Tercios (and other pike-and-shot formations) were initially placed in the battlefield, and about what the distribution of different troop types (pikeman, arquebusiers, musketeers) were at various battles and periods, but I've found myself unable to make a clear picture of how these formations engaged in battle on a nuts-and-bolts level.

I've formed some of my questions using info I've found here: http://forum.milua.org/archive/TactiqueUk.htm

Here's one example of a formation:



I'm told that one advantage of pikeman was their ability to defend against cavalry. But in this formation as it's pictured it looks as though the most obvious targets for cavalry were the mangas. What exactly happened if one or more mangas was charged by cavalry? Whoever wrote the text in the link has this section: "On a battlefield the Infantry would be deployed in one or several squadrons. Each squadron would have the pikemen in the centre and the gunmen on the wings. Like that, the gunmen could harass the enemy infantry, before the assault from the block of pikemen and the pikemen could create a fortress to protect the gunmen from the cavalry.."

Is this what actually happened? It seems like a very complicated maneuver to pull off while you have pistol or lance cavalry charging towards you, especially given the size of the formation. And once you've performed it, are the firearms still used? You would have to fire over or between the soldiers in front of you, which might be dangerous.

Another possibility is in this picture: http://crossfireamersfoort.files.wordpress.co...rralto.jpg (I just used the url because it's very big and I'm not sure how to resize pictures on this forum). One or more ranks of pikeman brace their pikes on the ground and the arquebusiers/musketeers stand behind them. But most tercios I've heard described used roughly a 50/50 split between soldiers with and without firearms. Seems like there wouldn't be enough room in this mehod.

Finally, did the pikemen ever fight in melee, or were they only there to defend against cavalry?

These seem like such simple questions, but I haven't been able to find good answers anywhere. There's a ton of information on this battle or that battle, or about what the soldiers wore, but almost none about what actually happened when a tercios actually engaged the enemy. I also have this problem with other pike-and-shot formations.

If anyone knows the answer to these questions or where I can find it I would be grateful...

[Elling Polden]

In brief and grossly simplified:
It a common assumtion these days that pikes where a defensive weapon, as they performed in that role just before they became obsolete.

Initially, however, renaisance pike warfare was extremely agressive, relying on the momentum, range and striking power of what is essentially a 4-5m long spear to break enemy formations.
On the renaisance battlefiled, the pikemen where the hammer, and the guns support. The harquebusiers would soften up the target with volleys at point blank before the the pikemen crashed into them.
In this scenario, the musketeers are the actuall cavalry defence, as their high powered "anti-tank" weapons could pierce the armour of period heavy cavalry.

As the period progresses, focus shifts gradually from extremely bloody pike assaults to firefights, and the pike/shot ratio changes, until the pikes are merely present to prevent the enemy from charging the shot. Which rarely happens, as the oponents have generally adopted the same focus themselves.
By this time, however, cavalrymen are largely unarmoured, and pikemen can deterr them from charging quite efficently. But with the introduction of the bayonet and light flintlock muskets an extra musketeer becomes preferable to a pikeman.

[Radovan Geist]

I would second what Mr. Polden wrote, adding one thing: pikemen started to become largely obsolete on the European battlefields already during the 30-yrs war, with introduction of lighter muskets that allowed more efficient firing. together with a better use of light field artillery, it provided better protection from the cavalry attacks. That was reflected in changes of the composition of regiments during the 30-yrs war: by its end, musketeers were in much greater numbers.

[Radovan Geist]

as for the original question on tercio: check Osprey book Pike and Shot Tactics 1590 - 1660. It has a chapter on the Spanish army. With all the reservations one might sometimes have to the historic accuracy of Osprey books, this one seems OK.
And here is a part of what is says about the tactics of tercio:

"When attacked by cavalry, the intention was for the shot to be protected by the length of the pikes, and 'the right and natural girdelinge of shott indeede ought to be no more shott in ranke, then that the pike may well cover and defende', this being 'three or four shott at the most'. Where the number of shot was greater than could easily be protected by the pike the tactic was to form a hollow square or oblong, with three or four ranks of shot outside and protected by the pike and the surplus shot brought inside the square." (p. 29)

[Daniel Staberg]

[Daniel Staberg]

[D. Graemer]

[Guy Bayes]

if i were guessing i would say the arquebusiers could pass through the outer ranks of the pikeman and either embed within the pike formation or go entirely through and out the other side of the formation. That has been a pretty common maneuver for skirmishers of various kinds throughout history and does not need to demoralize anyone. There would be room since I would guess the pikes don't march in dense ranks but probably close ranks immediately prior to engaging

Also as long as the Mangas stay relatively close to the pikeman the pikeman can still serve as a deterrent. Remember a cavalry charge has a lot of momentum and generally is going to pass through the target and out the other side, where the pikes are waiting.

I am totally guessing though, interesting question for sure

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Jaroslav Kravcak]

[quote="D. Graemer"]