That's a good general principle, yes.

For the specifics, note that Lord Orrery claimed it was easy for cavalry to cut pikes without langets and impossible for them to cut pikes with langets. (He apparently didn't consider a sword cleaving through the langets to be a thing.)

I'm not sure langets were in common use on pikes in the middle of the 16th century when Fourquevaux was writing, though I suspect they were based on extant pikes. In any case, thanks to their shields, targetiers could potentially get past the 3-4ft of langets to strike bare wood.

I bet the pikes Lupton was talking about, assuming his story is true, lacked langets.

FWIW When Gustavus Adolphus laid down new specifications for the design of Swedish pikes about 1616-1620 the langets were made longer to give better protection against the Polish cavalry cutting off the heads of the pikes. Clearly there was a risk that was worth the money to protect against although battle accounts show that even with the shorter langets Swedish pikemen could hold of the Polish cavalry.

Anyone who has sawed a plank knows wood is very tough. A thick pole would indeed last a very large amount of hits.

Matthew wrote,

"Well, okay, but isn't most of that "extended abuse" due to weapon cuts? Sure, there'd be a certain amount of shafts wacking against each other, and a few klutzes who can't keep their points from hitting the ground. But with that many experts talking about the hazard of points being *cut off*, it seems to me that THEY felt that was a significant factor.

I certainly agree that one ninja with a katana couldn't run down the line sweeping off all the pike ends! I know how you feel about ninjas, eh?"


YES!!! That's what Matthew and I are saying! A swordsman cannot expect to cut through a fresh spear or pike shaft with one blow but multiple strikes with a sharp object will cut through wood over a period of time therefore langets are put on polearms to protect the pole from being cut.

Just as a modern soldier is expected to maintain his weapon I'm hard pressed to imagine that spearmen or pikemen would choose to go into battle with a damaged polearm if they could help it.

Just a speculation as I have never tried reenactment:

But if you have pikemen in very close formation then the overlapping pikes could sometimes cause individual pikes to become "fixed" and so make it possible to chop at them. (Probably with more unskilled groups not holding their structure - for instance following specific opponents, instead of keeping pikes in parallel lines?)

Chopping at an individual spear/pike being held by a single opponent sounds almost impossible; but a pike "caught & stabilized" by the mass of other pikes around it could perhaps make chops much more likely to cause breakage??

Getting away from the Renaissance for a bit. I seem to remember an account from Polybius where Roman soldiers were trying to force their way into a pike phalanx and he mentions that when the Romans did manage to break a spear head off they were still held at bay by the sharp, wooden shaft. Does anyone know which book this is from or am I confused?

Polybius said nothing of that sort. The closest thing I can find is a couple of instances where he said that an enemy who could cut or beat aside the head of a front-ranker's pike would still have had to deal with those wielded by the rear ranks.

How strong were the nails used back then? If you have two opposed iron nails in the tapered end of the shaft of the spear head, could they rust during the campaign and cause that area to weaken? Did they swell the wood or glue on spearheads to help them stay, or just pressure fit and nail them? I only have considered modern spear head attachment using epoxy. "Cutting off a spear head" might not always indicate a clean cut through a haft.

My thought being that langets also spread out the work of nails across a larger area.

I am in Timo's camp with the "didn't happen often" concept, but this conversation made me realize I lack knowledge regarding historical spear assembly.