[William P]

so, one thing that gets brought up when theres wild anachronisms in films such as braveharts greatsword and later kilts, with wild statements like "its like giving washingtons army m16's and tanks"

and, yeah it showcases the wild difference the stuff is out of date...

but those lines usually talk about people of the medieval period or early modern owning modern advanced tech...

the issue i, in a sense have is that... for much of our history, say in western europe, things didnt change much really...

and, to my eyes, the difference in technology between a regiment sized group of decently well off gallic warriors vs, say, english billmen and infantry of the wars of the roses.


or is it?


so, we have two forces, groups of pikemen,
Group 1: maccedonian pikemen of the hellenistic period
with sarissa, the pelta on thier shoulder, a combination of linothorax, spolas, whole scale armours, the occasional muscled cuirass

the other are a group of pikemen from the italian wars,be it landsknechts, spaniards, etc
these landsknechts are similarly well armoured for pikemen of the era, breastplates, mail standards, mail shirts, front ranks having half or 3/4 harness.

both troops are about similar in number of men, theyre both not the best of the best in terms of veterancy, but not completely green either.


those two groups go head to head.. what happens?

outcome 1, its largely a stalemate, both forces armour and weapons are about as sharp, and tough as each other, neither can REALLY pierce the body armour so its attacking the other parts, exposed legs, arms, faces etc, swords getting drawn when needed etc. it becomes a push of pike and is won by the skill, training, discipline etc of the men.

outcome 2. the small advantages add up, a landsknechts pike is likely made of decently hardened steel points, the macedonian is likely made of lower carbon steel/ iron, its softer,

>the greeks would struggle to pierce the iron or steel breastplates of the landsknechts, and their sarissa heads are broader, more slicing than pointed for punching.
>the bronze scales of greek armour are fairly thin, usually 1mm or less would fare a lot less well and be compromised more easily.

if it were to come to swords, messers, katzbalgers, etc would be comparabble arms to a xiphos and kopis.. but the medieval steel is likely to be sharp good steel,
the greek swords , some may be steel, many iron
in that case the landsknecht swords may more easily sunder and even pierce some of the greek armour.

and many of the landsknechts have arm protection, and dont need a shield to keep part of their arms safe, and tasselts under the breastplate some of the time.
greeks have the pelta protecting part of their body, plus greaves on the lower leg,
thin in areas , albeit likely work hardened bronze helmets vs decently reinforced iron and steel helmets .

any one of these differences would be small on their own, but i can see them potentially adding up and resulting in much higher attritional loss for the greeks. and thus, other elements being equal, the landsknechts win every time.


and thats not even counting the fact that renaissance formations have halberdiers and men with big two handed swords.
halberds striking power would be hell for the armour of the greeks, given its really not designed to take those sorts of blows


its not a watertight experiment... its really, as the name implies,a thought experiment to showcase where we see the biggest differences in weapons tech for comparative units of troops.. to see how 'improvements' in weapon design and armour material and design will make a difference.

especially given battles in the hellenistic era and in the renaissance were actually not that different to one another in terms of number of men

[Matthew Amt]

I wouldn't worry too much about the metallurgy. Later pike armor is going to be largely iron, unless it's a pistol-proof breastplate. And good bronze will be the equal of that. Same with scale armor, don't underestimate it! Likewise, I doubt there will be a significant difference in the effectiveness of the pike points, particularly since I doubt many men actually tried to penetrate armor.

As for your Gauls vs. billmen, the problem is that by the 14th century there is a *lot* more armor due to greater production methods, hence the trading of shields for 2-handed weapons. Which can pack a lot of punch! But yes, if you go back a few hundred years, I've always said that a Viking would be right at home in a Greek phalanx (though he may not appreciate the way he gets invited to parties...). Lines of guys with round shields, spears, sidearms, some armor. Most of the differences are fashion, not function.

Couldn't tell you who will win, though! I suspect that by the Renaissance there is just a little too much progress in armor and weapons to ignore it all, tactically. Of course, bring in the heavy cavalry and it's all over, though it will still be a *fight* and not a walkover!

Matthew

[Dan Howard]

[William P]

[William P]

[Anthony Clipsom]

[William P]

[Sean Manning]

[Ryan S.]

I think as far as materials go, it would make a difference, especially over time. I am not sure about the variable durability of the materials, but my guess is that the Hellenistic kit would break more often and go duller faster.

I think a big difference might be with the distance weapons. I don't think much is known about the bows Alexanders´ troops used, but I do think their armour would be vulnerable to crossbows and firearms of the landsknechts.

[Matthew Amt]

[William P]

[Ryan S.]

[Graham Shearlaw]

Assuming that on the flat featureless plains of planet bowling ball, two forces of equal size and stupidity decide to charge at each other head on.

The landsknechts have the major advantage here as there better armoured on average, and have a better supply of short swords.
Once we look at the formations we can see how Guns are a massive improvement, the peltast with javelins, has to get much closer then a musketeer.
They can not fight from behind cover, or while crouching or lieing down.

Bows and javelins are weak relative to the armours of the italian wars, so a troop of Cuirassiers could ride up to 10-20 meters and fire while being safe from return fire in there armour.

[Sean Manning]

[Sean Manning]

[William P]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Notably, various military Renaissance writers considered their pikers similar to those of antiquity. A number, like Machiavelli, argued that the Roman armament of shield & sword was superior to the pike. I suspect these scholars would have agreed with the notion that infantry equipment & overall quality hadn't improved much (if any) apart from firearms.

I tend to disagree, though I acknowledge it's no more than informed speculation. I know more about the Italians Wars than the Hellenistic period, which perhaps biased me toward the Renaissance. I suspect the average quality of armor & weapons was significantly better in the 16th century. It's true that some Renaissance swords weren't that great & much of the munitions-grade armor was low-carbon steel. However, there were at least a few large sets of fully hardened infantry armor in the Renaissance. It's entirely possible some percentage of a force in the Italian Wars would have top-of-line armor &/or swords. I wouldn't be at all shocked if pikes actually could pierce the torso defenses of the Macedonians. Certain sources from both that time & from the 15th/16th century claim that pike thrusts defeated armor at least on occasion.

I'm not aware of similarly detailed metallurgical studies for antiquity. The ones I've seen for the medieval era indicate that average quality did meaningfully improve in the 14th century. Similarly, though the figures remain uncertain, 16th-century Europe appears to have been rather wealthy per capita—especially Italy & the Low Countries—compared with most anywhere earlier & many places later. I don't know of estimates for ancient Greece, but I'd be very surprised if they're as high. The weight of evidence suggests better gear for the Renaissance pikers.

I additionally guess that 16th-century pike formations tended to more mobile, flexible, & effective than their counterparts in the Hellenistic period. The best Renaissance pikers moved remarkably quickly, could maneuver through difficult terrain, & might endure even if attacked from all sides. We likewise know that 16th-century pikers often trained to fight individually with the pike & had a range of techniques they used depending on the situation. Various accounts of the Macedonian phalanx highlight how unwieldy it could be.

As mentioned in the original post, the presence of halberdiers & the like in Renaissance pike formations would be difficult for ancient pikers to deal with in an extended melee. Assuming it's strictly Macedonian pikers against their counterparts from the Italian Wars, I imagine the latter would have a moderate advantage in both equipment & organization. As with any contest between heavy infantry, morale & leadership would be key.

Another factor is that the Italian Wars lasted for over sixty years & the Hellenistic period for around three hundred. Exactly when each force in question comes from matters. For instance, Spanish armies had no pikers at all initially & it took them a while develop potent pike formations. Cuirassiers only came around during the late Italian Wars. At first, France fielded mounted crossbowers & archers who seem to have shot their weapons from saddle sometimes.

Regarding javelins or thrown spears, it's true that they theoretically should have enough energy to pierce much plate armor when thrown by someone strong & skilled with a running start. I know of only a single account of a thrown spear penetrating plate armor off the top of my head. Except by Irish soldiers, such weapons saw little in the 16th century as far as I'm aware.

[Sean Manning]

[Ryan S.]

[Graham Shearlaw]