← Home ← Back to /his/

Thread 18073107

42 posts 16 images /his/
Anonymous No.18073107 >>18073126 >>18073139 >>18073200 >>18073222 >>18073260 >>18073313 >>18073709 >>18074683 >>18076147 >>18076264 >>18076318 >>18076655 >>18077868 >>18078182
How did people break pike squares before the proliferation of shot/gun powder? did they just stand there in a stalemate?
Anonymous No.18073126 >>18073222 >>18074680 >>18074751 >>18076245
>>18073107 (OP)
Whole point of pikes is to just stick things in the ground and poke whoever is there. It's a childish "weapon system" and comparable to fortifications or something that is bypassed rather than directly attacked.
Point of pikes is to deny territory and useless as a mobile weapon. They would be engaged with other pikes, archers or other avoidant weapons.
Anonymous No.18073139 >>18073155 >>18077874
>>18073107 (OP)
The pike was rarely used before the invention of the Arquebus.
Anonymous No.18073155 >>18077874
>>18073139
There's very few battles pikes were used it was mostly a "u mad" weapon against horses before they understood how guns worked. It really is a stupid weapon and guns became available soon after.
Anonymous No.18073200
>>18073107 (OP)
Same way the phalanx was broken. Flanking maneuvers and terrain. Can't hold the formation well on hilly/uneven terrain or loose ground. Can't readjust quickly either.
Anonymous No.18073222
>>18073107 (OP)
Those pike formations you think of coincide with the proliferation of the firearm. By 1507 the Landsknechte totally abandoned their crossbows in favor of the arquebus for example.
For the very early iterations of the pike square (namely the swiss Gewaltshaufen) specialists armed with halberds or two handed battleswords were employed to potentially break the deadlock - but more so as flanking forces.
And of course, archers, crossbowmen and early field artillery played a role against those pike formations as well. But the catch was that said pike formations could either move very fast (the swiss often outmaneuvered their burgundian foes and quickly took their field artillery) or be very well armored (the armored scottish pikemen were unharmed by the fire of the english longbowmen at the Battle of Flodden).
But at the end of the day, the late medieval european pike formations developed side by side with firearms.
>>18073126
In the mind of 16th century generals the pike was there to take and hold ground while the shot was only there to take ground - and when assaulted the shot was expected to disperse and seek refuge behind their pikes or any hedges or groves possible.
Anonymous No.18073260
>>18073107 (OP)
LEEEEEEEEROOOOOOY JEEEEENKINGS!
Anonymous No.18073313
>>18073107 (OP)
Read about the Battle of Pydna. Pike squares were very good at fixing an enemy in place, but they required mobile elements to actually break the enemy if they were well armed, otherwise you'd just get this horrible grinding attritional push of pike until one side finally gave up.

But when the Romans fought them, they were able to turn the tables a few times by outflanking them because their units were more flexible, they could break off components and have them run around to attack and opening and such and still be effective. At Pydna they skullfucked pikes so hard that they basically ended Macedon permanently.

You see similar discussions in other time periods too. People often misunderstand stuff about Zweihander greatsword types and Rodeleros as being "anti-pike" troops to mean that they would run straight at them and like, baseball slide under the spears or something. That wasn't it, they were troops who didn't need to be in a tight formation to be effective, so if/when an opening presented itself they could rush out to exploit it, which pikemen could not do themselves.
Anonymous No.18073709
>>18073107 (OP)
rondeleros(sword&shield) for the spanish, halberd for the swiss and german.
Anonymous No.18074680
>>18073126
Nah the 17th century was kino. Cope and seethe as you'd like.
Solitaire No.18074683
>>18073107 (OP)
there were projectile weapons before the widespread proliferation of handguns.
Anonymous No.18074751 >>18075914
>>18073126
Swiss were well noted for being very offensive with pikes
Ancient hoplites also had offensive techniques/charges
Anonymous No.18075914 >>18076139
>>18074751
Only at pavia and only because their opponent didn't have any weapons.
Hoplites often fought mythical battles that didn't happen or were against weak enemies.
Anonymous No.18076139 >>18076141
>>18075914
Are you saying that the french army at the Battle of Pavia (1525) wasn't armed?
Anonymous No.18076141 >>18076161
>>18076139
Their forces didn't show up and they abandoned a betrayed king to be killed and his forces corralled.
Anonymous No.18076147
>>18073107 (OP)
>How did people break pike squares before the proliferation of shot/gun powder?
defeat their cavalry and then walk around them and burn their camp
Anonymous No.18076161
>>18076141
French forces were absolutely present at the battle. And Francis I. was captured not killed.
Anonymous No.18076245 >>18077274
>>18073126
Bronze is superior to iron
Anonymous No.18076264
>>18073107 (OP)
>How did people break pike squares before the proliferation of shot/gun powder
They armored themselves and pushed in. Pikes are excellent against cavalry and lightly armored infantry, but you can't really expect them to stop anything that doesn't die off in quick order, which is why pike formations were peppered with soldiers using halberds, shields, greatswords, etc. to push back whoever managed to cross the pike wall.
Anonymous No.18076318
>>18073107 (OP)
one way was to pay a bunch of poorfags with small shields to crawl under the pikes with stabby things like daggers and rappiers and stabb the enemy in the dick

there were other ways off course
Anonymous No.18076655 >>18077909
>>18073107 (OP)
they used even longer sticks carried by dudes on horses
Anonymous No.18077274 >>18077327 >>18078602
>>18076245
no it isn't
Anonymous No.18077327
>>18077274
Early iron was worse than bronze.
Anonymous No.18077510 >>18077515 >>18077787 >>18077789 >>18077797 >>18077909
Why didn't people use a shitton of Javelins during the 16th century and the "peak" of pike square formations? Yeah gunpowder weapons exist but it's a lot cheaper to arm a bunch of poor ass peasants with spears and give them rudimentary training on how to hurl them. Just hurl spears nonstop until the pike formation breaks up instead of sending people to dive under the pikes or getting stuck in the push of pike attrition slog. Just use javelins.
Anonymous No.18077515 >>18077572 >>18077797
>>18077510
Because people aren't Jews and that isn't how you do warfare and that's the point of the thread. Whoever has the bigger thing is supposed to win and not the nerd that runs away and throws things.
Anonymous No.18077572 >>18077797
>>18077515
it would of worked if they had vagons full of javelins, even just cartwheels
Anonymous No.18077787
>>18077510
they probably didn't want to have to manufacture them or something retarded
Anonymous No.18077789 >>18077797
>>18077510
You get a bunch of peasants in skirmish position, they are way more likely to rout. Give them all sticks and pack them close together, they're more likely to stand their ground.
When you got OP heavily armoured knights prowling around, the bread-fed peasants with javelins are free kill (and liabilities)
Anonymous No.18077797
>>18077572
>>18077515
>>18077510
it's probably >>18077789
weren't most of those battles like notoriously bloodless where you go read the reports and it's like 3 people died and everyone else ran away and like 90% of casualties were from starvation or disease and the other 10% were from cavalry running down and stabbing routing infantry in the back?
Anonymous No.18077868
>>18073107 (OP)
Arrows bruh
Anonymous No.18077874
>>18073155
>>18073139
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonian_phalanx
Anonymous No.18077909 >>18078562
>>18076655
Ironic that you used an excerpt from the painting about the Battle of Klushino (1610) as here the Winged Hussars were unable to break the mercenary pike formation in russian service. Only when the polish artillery arrived to this battle, did the pikemen abandon the field but they did so in good order and again repelled several charges by the Winged Hussars until they reached their fortified camp.
>>18077510
Same reason why bows weren't used. You can simply armor the pikemen. I've already mentioned the Battle of Flodden (1513), where the armored scottish pikemen were largely unaffected by the english longbowmen.
Anonymous No.18077941 >>18077951 >>18077995 >>18078027
I need some book recs. I want to learn about the weapons/tactics/strategy and historical battles in this era. I find too much information is broad strokes, talking about a faction led by such and such leader, "battles here, wins"...I need more detail. I am a modern war autist. But I need to research some battles for a Metal EP I am writing. for example, some song ideas I need research material for:
01. (Battle of St. Jakob, 1444)
02. (Sack of Rome, 1527)
03. (Swabian War, 1499)
04. (Siege of Vienna, 1529)
Anonymous No.18077951 >>18077957
>>18077941
There's definitely no pike books as they were barely used and were just a gap until they understood guns. You could instead just study infantry in general.
Anonymous No.18077957 >>18077993
>>18077951
are you saying there are no original source documents about battles involving pike formations? or pike tactics? I find that hard to believe.
Anonymous No.18077993
>>18077957
Go poke people with shovels and write a book about it.
Anonymous No.18077995
>>18077941
There aren't many sources about tactics and armaments from those time periods - simply because the "scientification" wasn't really applied to the military. That began to change at the end of the 16th century and only really by the 18th century were there plentiful manuals. But one can sift through the accounts of battles and inventory lists to piece together 15th & 16th century warfare to understand it. And luckily some autists have already done so.
The Osprey series gives brief overwies into those topics and most importantly, they list their primary and secondary sources so one can do further reading.
I would suggest that you start with pic rel, as this gives a broad overwiev of the evolution of pike and shot tactics employed by various european states. Then you can look further into specific states like Spain, the Dutch and the HRE, etc.
If you want to directly go to a primary source then I too have a few examples for you:
1) Wapenhandelinghe van Roers Musquetten ende Spiessen (Handling of the Calivers, Muskets and Pikes) is a 1607 drill manuel illustrated by Jacob de Gehyn II. Those are *the* illustrations when one talks about pike and shot and you should find full texts rather easily. Mind you that this piece isn't as exhaustive as later drill manuels and it primarily shows how to handle the weapons and the associated stances.
Here is one example of a full text: https://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Wapenhandelinghe_van_Roers_Musquetten_ende_Spiessen_(Jacob_de_Gheyn_II)
2) Kriegskunst zu Pferdt (Art of War on Horse), Kriegskunt zu Fuß (Art of War on Foot), Archiley-Kriegskunst (Artillery Art of War) by Johann Jacobi von Wallhausen. All three from 1615/16/17. Finding full texts is a bit more challanging - I found scans of the german original but am not sure if english translations are available.
Anonymous No.18078027
>>18077941
I just remembered another good source from the early 17th century: John Cruso who mainly translated existed non-english military treaties but also wrote some of his own.
Here is one about cavalry: https://archive.org/details/militarie-instructions-for-the-cavallrie-1632
Anonymous No.18078182 >>18078663
>>18073107 (OP)
Just... Move? Anything that breaks their formation immediately makes them vulnerable as a block, after that its free for all
Anonymous No.18078562 >>18078663
>>18077909
>Only when the polish artillery arrived to this battle, did the pikemen abandon the field but they did so in good order and again repelled several charges by the Winged Hussars until they reached their fortified camp.
they had 2 (two) small cannons and the opposing infantry was sitting inside a fenced area. I'm not saying hussars and their long sticks are some kind of a hard counter to pikemen, I'm just saying you didn't need artillery or muskets to defeat pikemen in open field battles.
Anonymous No.18078602
>>18077274
midwit post
Anonymous No.18078663
>>18078182
Easier said than done.
>>18078562
Anything can defeat anything. And since Winged Hussars get glazed very hard it is only correct to show how they actually overcame their foes in spite of the usual depiction of them just charging home and getting stuck in.