The quality of the various elite troops in history

[Spoonist]

Although later on the phalanx became pretty much the mainstream, with Alexander conquering half the world with it, and then pike and shot becoming the dominant formation during the reneissance...

Heck, pike and shot was still used "effectively" in the great northern war. Although it had added grenades and the pikes had smallish axeheads, and there were cannons and pistols and... *hrm*
But basically 1/3 pikes 2/3 shots in the infantry formations.

Doesn't help much against fortified cannons though (nor russian winter), hence their decline after the battle of poltava.

[Simon_Jester]

You're right.

I'm sorry, I haven't had as much time to think when at my best as I used to.

[Zinegata]

Pikes during the Thirty Years War / Great Northern War / Swiss Pikemen period were mainly employed as a counter against cavalry though; which is quite different from the traditional Greek Phalanx which was really meant to go head to head with another Phalanx.

Exceptions exist of course (English Pikemen for instance assaulted a hill held by a Spanish Tercio during the Battle of the Dunes) but their tactical employment really differed from the Phalanx model.

Which is why the Pikemen get dropped once people figured out that you can do the whole "pike wall" thing against cavalry using muskets and bayonets.

[Thanas]

No, pikemen were also employed to counter other pikemen during the thirty years war. The reason they got dropped was also not only bayonets, but the increased rate of fire possible in the 18th century.

[Simon_Jester]

Hm.

Would it be fair to say that this increased rate of fire allowed musketry to break a pike phalanx before it reached the point of contact, whereas before this was only possible using artillery under favorable conditions?

[Thanas]

Yes - but another fact was that it just was not worth training pikemen anymore as the increased musket fire was just more worth it in general. Musketry was just more versatile in general. Pike formation is good vs pike and cavalry. Musketry is good against everything.

[PeZook]

Yes - but another fact was that it just was not worth training pikemen anymore as the increased musket fire was just more worth it in general. Musketry was just more versatile in general. Pike formation is good vs pike and cavalry. Musketry is good against everything.

Yeah, and every pikeman you had was one musket you didn't (he ate just as much, after all, so you generally couldn't just raise both) ; A bayonetted musket is a crappy spear, but good enough to deal with the threats that do manage to get close enough that you'd need it.

Of course, the funny thing about bayonets is that they were actually not used all that often, even in bayonet charges ; Soldiers would tend to use their weapons as clubs anyways, if the charge even got to the point of contact.

[Zinegata]

Hm.

Would it be fair to say that this increased rate of fire allowed musketry to break a pike phalanx before it reached the point of contact, whereas before this was only possible using artillery under favorable conditions?

Increased rate of fire and increased proportion of gunners. The Swiss Pike formations originally only had 1/10 of their soldiers deployed as Arquebusiers, mainly as skirmishers. Gonzalo Cordoba in the Italian Wars beat them at Cerignola by increasing the proportion of gunners in the Spanish Army (about 1,000 out of the 6,000) plus heavy use of entrenchments.

By the time of the Thirty Years War the Swedes tended to have closer to 2/3s musketeers and 1/3 pikemen; plus highly mobile regimental cannons to provide heavier fire. The New Model Army had a similar ratio (albeit if I recall correctly no similar light field guns).

Of course, the funny thing about bayonets is that they were actually not used all that often, even in bayonet charges ; Soldiers would tend to use their weapons as clubs anyways, if the charge even got to the point of contact.

It's less about using it as a weapon and more of a deterrence tool against cavalry, or more specifically their horses. Horses cannot be cajoled into running into a wall of spears. This is also why they formed squares - so that the entire formation is projecting this wall of spears so the cavalry can't flank it. This forces to cavalry to heplessly lap around the squares while the soldiers within the square shot at them with near impunity (as long as the infantry held their nerve).

Before the introduction of large numbers of muskets / Arquebusiers though, aggressive charges with pikes could sweep aside infantry or pikemen of lesser quality. The Swiss were particularly known for this, and it was their defeats in the face of musket-armed enemies that really convinced many European states that it was time to adopt firearms.

But in other instances pikemen were mainly fighting as regular melee infantry too. In the Battle of the Dunes for instance the English Pikemen were assaulting a dune and couldn't attack in a closed pike formation - they basically had to climb up the hill and attack hand-to-hand while relying on their musketeers to provide covering fire.

[Thanas]

^what defeats are you talking about?

[Spoonist]

Funfact - you almost had pikemen in the american civil war...
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... last-pike/

Pikes during the Thirty Years War / Great Northern War / Swiss Pikemen period were mainly employed as a counter against cavalry though; which is quite different from the traditional Greek Phalanx which was really meant to go head to head with another Phalanx.

Exceptions exist of course (English Pikemen for instance assaulted a hill held by a Spanish Tercio during the Battle of the Dunes) but their tactical employment really differed from the Phalanx model.

Which is why the Pikemen get dropped once people figured out that you can do the whole "pike wall" thing against cavalry using muskets and bayonets.

To add to what Thanas said.

In the Great Northern war the swedes didn't use bayonets but it was a tactical choice to do so. The tactics was basic shock tactics with the intent of fast aggressive attack that will break the other side. Since bayonets was crap in meele vs pikes they were never an option. The guns used by the opposition at the time was simply not accurate nor reloaded as fast as necessary for continued exchange of fire.
So instead the swedish tactic was use their cavalry+cannons to maximum effect, then charge with the infantry, usually letting the other side shoot first then shoot at point blank and then let the pikes (and axes, clubs, rapiers etc) charge into the still reloading and already disheartened enemy. Then when they broke you continue the charge with inf+cav.
Having such a tactic you could exploit any suprise or chance happening or change in the movements on the other side. The armies of the day wasn't usually prepared for a suprise full frontal like that.
Check out the battle of Narva in 1700 or Holowczyn in 1708 for the success of that tactic.
It relied on your troops being of a higher quality and disregarding losses in the advance, ie if you stop you are dead. Also you needed very high discipline in the movements so that you could sneak up and come at direction not expected etc. (Very much the ideal of an elite force trusting in god).

This is also why the very same tactic didn't work at Poltava. Without suprise and without a clear troop to attack, with several gun bastions and with a lower discipline and moral due to winter and starvation it was a disaster.

So no, pikes were not mainly used to counter cavalry although they were good for that as well. Instead they were very much used to charge head-to-head into the defending line and to be used in meele. The swiss had similar ideas depending on which era you are refering to. The thirty years war saw a lot of pike action. Heck you saw pike action at waterloo.

And no the pike was not dropped because you could defend against cav with bayonets. It was dropped because the accuracy increased and like you yourself pointed out that the reloading time decreased on the firearms. And the most important factor - factories. ie mass production in large scale of firearms made it faster and less costly to produce the once so expensive firearms. See Peter's reform of Russia where the most important was huge factories churning out massive amounts of weaponry.
So more and better guns let you arm less and less trained men faster. This saw the decline in the smaller well trained units vs the mass infantry. (Until Napoleon who showed that you could do both).

[Spoonist]

Horses cannot be cajoled into running into a wall of spears. This is also why they formed squares - so that the entire formation is projecting this wall of spears so the cavalry can't flank it. This forces to cavalry to heplessly lap around the squares while the soldiers within the square shot at them with near impunity (as long as the infantry held their nerve).

Funnily enough, you can train almost any horse to run into a wall of spears.
Its only when the density of men & spears are several lines thick so that the horse can't imagine itself jumping over the obstactle that they outright refuse. This was used several times in recorded history. Where you tightened the unit before the charging cav to make it turn.
But even then by employing 'blinders' you can train horses to run straight into shrubberies, trees and spearlines - but it got to trust you a great deal... And the human rider on top has to want it to...

[Zinegata]

^what defeats are you talking about?

Cerignola was the first, which confirmed the increased ratio of Arquebusiers (introduced by Cordoba) as a war-winning combination. Garigliano was another, although that "battle" caught the Swiss by surprise so they didn't even get to form up into formation.

There were several more battles after that where the Swiss mercenaries only had mixed successes. But the real big defeat was Bicocca (though I think there was a lack of pay issue there).

[Zinegata]

So no, pikes were not mainly used to counter cavalry although they were good for that as well. Instead they were very much used to charge head-to-head into the defending line and to be used in meele. The swiss had similar ideas depending on which era you are refering to. The thirty years war saw a lot of pike action. Heck you saw pike action at waterloo.

My general impression (although this may be limited mainly to the Spanish Tercio) was that the pikes were mainly used as a defensive block to protect the musketeers, who were vulnerable to melee.

But you and Thanas right - looking back using pikes to attack HTH was more than just isolated cases like my example of the New Model Army at the Dunes. The Swedes and Swiss used their pikemen very aggressively on the attack too. With some digging one could probably find samples of Tercios doing it too.

[PainRack]

What I would give to read Mandarin or get my hands on these records, if only to see where interwar German military thought was headed, given the the chance to apply its principles to a substantially sized army. Right now I'm stuck with Matthias Strohn beating up on Robert Citino.

Why would you say that?

[Thanas]

^what defeats are you talking about?

Cerignola was the first, which confirmed the increased ratio of Arquebusiers (introduced by Cordoba) as a war-winning combination. Garigliano was another, although that "battle" caught the Swiss by surprise so they didn't even get to form up into formation.

There were several more battles after that where the Swiss mercenaries only had mixed successes. But the real big defeat was Bicocca (though I think there was a lack of pay issue there).

But that only resulted in the tercio formation, which was an improvement of the Gewalthaufen. The use of pike and shot and melee was still very much emphasized there, especially considering the spanish took care to introduce a whole class of specialized melee fighters which required elite training and status (rodoleros).

My general impression (although this may be limited mainly to the Spanish Tercio) was that the pikes were mainly used as a defensive block to protect the musketeers, who were vulnerable to melee.

No, actually the tercio formation was set up so that they could both cover and defend themselves very well, but still move to attack. Heck, even in the thirty years war we have them (and other Imperial infantry) still using massive pike attacks to break enemy lines. See for example the battle of Nördlingen.

But you and Thanas right - looking back using pikes to attack HTH was more than just isolated cases like my example of the New Model Army at the Dunes. The Swedes and Swiss used their pikemen very aggressively on the attack too. With some digging one could probably find samples of Tercios doing it too.

Sure, just look at the wars fought against the Ottomans or the battles in Italy - Pavia is but one such example.

[Zinegata]

But that only resulted in the tercio formation, which was an improvement of the Gewalthaufen. The use of pike and shot and melee was still very much emphasized there, especially considering the spanish took care to introduce a whole class of specialized melee fighters which required elite training and status (rodoleros).

Uh, yes? My point isn't that the Swiss were defeated by enemies using exclusively muskets. My point is that the Swiss were beaten by formations that had much greater proportion of muskets; and these victories validated the mass use of muskets.

Swiss Pikemen only had about 1/10 of their men serving as Arquebusiers; primarily as skirmishers. The tercios by contrast had much larger proportions of Arquebusiers; 1/6th at Cerignola and increasing to something like 1/3 or better.

I'm not familiar with what exactly you refer to as Gewalthaufen; the wiki just says they're pike squares:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square

But if you're referring to Landsknecht, I'm vaguely familiar that they initially only had small numbers of Arquebusiers but the proportion increased gradually.

[Thanas]

Uh, yes? My point isn't that the Swiss were defeated by enemies using exclusively muskets. My point is that the Swiss were beaten by formations that had much greater proportion of muskets; and these victories validated the mass use of muskets.

Sure, but the musket was still secondary to the melee when it came down to it.

I'm not familiar with what exactly you refer to as Gewalthaufen; the wiki just says they're pike squares:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square

But if you're referring to Landsknecht, I'm vaguely familiar that they initially only had small numbers of Arquebusiers but the proportion increased gradually.

Gewalthaufen can refer to different things - the formation (tactically), the unit itself and the political phenomenon occurring in crisis when bands would band together. Here I was referring to the specific formation of pike and shot squares.

[Falkenhayn]

Why would you say that?

Strohn's monograph is the most recent work in the field, and his chapter on 1933-1936 makes no mention of the military missions to China. For him, the Reichswehr's debates over likely threats and the forces needed to neutralize them are sufficient. But at the same time Germany is planning to help China construct a 60 division army.

Germany had only just begun rearming during this period, but my thinking is that it helps to have already done some staff work on what a mass army would look like when built according the Reischswehr's doctrines. Also with the more practical questions of training, equipping and maintaining these units, and finding the right sort of manpower

Since no-one cites these records (at least Strohn hasn't, and he spent quite a lot of time at BA/MA Freiburg), they must have gone up with Potsdam. So if there's material, the most likely place for it is China, and it ought to be scrutinized (should it exist, something that ought to be established itself), even if present scholars go on to find it irrelevant.

[Zinegata]

Hmmm, quick question while we're on the musket and pike tangent:

Did the Swedes still use matchlock muskets during the Great Northern War and Thirty Years War? I know the Tercios were mostly using Arquebus which were matchlocks, but I was wondering if part of the reason of the Swede's general fire superiority (aside from having field guns with primitive catridges and having more musketeers) was also due to using a better musket.

[Spoonist]

Nope the russkies guns were better.During the march to poltava russkies harassead by sniping and withdraw, repeat...

Did you get that cite?

[Zinegata]

It was a question, not a citation. And I was asking for a comparison of the Swedish guns to the Arquebus used by the Tercios specifically, not the Russians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus

That being said, what muskets did the Ruskies use? Early Flintlocks?

[Greger the second]

Hi new guy here, kinda. Lost my previous password. This is however a short explanation of the swedish army during the great northern war as I have learnt it.

The carolean army of the great northern war where reliant on highly agressive tactics and mobility to overcome nearly always numerically superior foes. The infantry where much less reliant of firepower than the common continental armies, tactical doctrine dictating the use of one or two mass volleys at extremely short range to sow confusion before following up with pikes, rapiers and bayonettes (swedish troops where all issued with bayonetes as they became available, this being around the time when the bayonet came into usage).*
The success of these tactics where reliant on close cooperation with the cavalry, which where a proportionally larger arm numerically in the swedish army than on the continent, and a strict moral an disciplinary system that infused the soldier with the belief that he was on a holy mission for god, the king and sweden. This worked very well for a long time during the war, until Poltava broke the back of the army and essentially annihalated its core units of veterans.
The defeat itself was actually due to the general failure to coordinate the cavalry and infantry arms during the attacks on the russian field fortifications, the cavalry charging off and leaving the greater part of the swedish infantry trying to slugg through the russians lines. When the army finally broke, the aggresion inherent in the swedish tactics actually worked to there detriment as there had been little to no emphasis on the eventuality of a retreat and the amry simply disintegrated into an mass of desperate men. There was at least a small posibilty of saving parts of the army, as the cavalry was mostly intact and there still remained large numbers of infantry, both from the reserves and stragglers returning from broken units. There was however no coherent command structure left, the generals themselves broken by the defeat, and the bulk of the army later surrendered with only a handfull of troops escaping with the king into ottoman lands.
*A thing here is also a general lack of field artillery with the swedish army on the continent. Cannon was seen as slowing the troops down during the attack and there was therefore little emphasis on there use. It is only later that the cannon achieved a higher technical standard.

[Spoonist]

It was a question, not a citation.

The cite was the one I asked for a couple of pages ago. I'm genuinly curious about that one because it goes counter to much of the testimonies I've read.

And I was asking for a comparison of the Swedish guns to the Arquebus used by the Tercios specifically, not the Russians:

If so, why didn't you say so? And I'm a bit curious what you'd get from asking that instead of what I thought you were asking. Tercios are 16th cen. Great Northern War is the very start of the 18th. That's 50-150 years depending, of course the guns were better, all categories.
However what you asked was about "Swede's general fire superiority" so of course one would assume that it must be versus one of their opponents. And the answer to that is that they didn't have one. They had equal or worse guns than their opponents (unless we are talking naval guns suddenly). And definately worse if compared to western armies of france etc. Their tactics and army was built for aggressive mobility. Also Carolus Rex was a bit of a hothead so he opposed stuff that he saw as "unmanly" to the point of disliking certain new innovations of the day. There is one unconfirmed rumor of him refusing to buy faster loading infantry firearms for the reason that they didn't fit into the vision of fast agressive attack.
What you might be thinking about was their use of light cannons which they employed on the battle field. If so that would be the 3-pounder. http://galleri.norrtaljekaroliner.se/#0.3 However again, all their opponents had similar stuff. Not utilized with the same tactics though.
FunFact - that 3 pounder reloaded faster than the muskets used by the infantry.
These are the swedish muskets:
http://www.janmilld.se/historia/3/bilder/karo10.jpg
The old was wheel-lock, the new was flintlock.

That being said, what muskets did the Ruskies use? Early Flintlocks?

Yes.

[Spoonist]

Uhm, Greger, at the start of the war and for battles like Narva it was only the grenadiers (grenadjärer) that had bayonets. This because they didn't have the standard sabre because it interfered with the pouch for the grenades. Everyone else in the infantry got the m/1685 sabre to use in close melee, even the pikes got those.
Its a common mistake that because the m/1696 musket had fittings for bayonettes, that they would come equipped with them.
http://www.digitaltmuseum.se/things/gev ... /AM.023490

Its only the new recruits in "livgardet" from 1704 onwards that usually get a bayonet, and its only from 1708 that the production is ramped up so much that they can be issued to the new armies they tried to create after Poltava.
http://www.nad.riksarkivet.se/sbl/Prese ... x?id=16695

Also worth noting is that the two volleys of the muskets that you mention was done by different "lines", first line fires a volley, stops, 2nd line move forward & fire, pikes and grenadiers charge (they got armor), grenades thrown, pikes first + everyone else charge into the melee.
It takes a loooooong time to reload a m/1696 - you should try it sometime. Its fun.

Finally the defeat was attacking russia/ukraine in winter. Everything else is secondary. Carolus Rex thought the cossacks would come to his side and provide provisions etc. But Ivan Mazepa didn't have the following he thought he would have after the other crushed cossack rebellion: Bulavin something something I think.

[Greger the second]

Uhm, Greger, at the start of the war and for battles like Narva it was only the grenadiers (grenadjärer) that had bayonets. This because they didn't have the standard sabre because it interfered with the pouch for the grenades. Everyone else in the infantry got the m/1685 sabre to use in close melee, even the pikes got those.
Its a common mistake that because the m/1696 musket had fittings for bayonettes, that they would come equipped with them.

Well then it was not a tactical choice not to utilize the bayonet but rather the unavailability of the weapon;).

Also worth noting is that the two volleys of the muskets that you mention was done by different "lines", first line fires a volley, stops, 2nd line move forward & fire, pikes and grenadiers charge (they got armor), grenades thrown, pikes first + everyone else charge into the melee.
It takes a loooooong time to reload a m/1696 - you should try it sometime. Its fun.

The swedish tactical utilization of the muskets where not due to the long loading time (probably not much greater than any other comparable musket in use at the time), but rather by choice. Swedish armies could simply not rely on firepower to win, due to the numerical superiority of almost all the enemies fought in this period.

And swedish carolean grenadiers and pikemen never wore armour

Finally the defeat was attacking russia/ukraine in winter. Everything else is secondary. Carolus Rex thought the cossacks would come to his side and provide provisions etc. But Ivan Mazepa didn't have the following he thought he would have after the other crushed cossack rebellion: Bulavin something something I think

It is true that the battle was forced by the supply problems, brought on by the destruction of a swedish supply column under general Lewenhaupt at the battle of Lesna. But the outcome of the battle totally changed the military situation of sweden and Charles XII, and it was from then on that Sweden essentially where forced on the defensive.