Earlier Pike and Shot with Crossbows?

[Tyg]

Would it have been feasible for a Late Medieval army to develop a 'pike and shot' style system with crossbowmen in place of arquebusiers? It seems theoretically it could be developed earlier, at least as early as the pike square. But would it be feasible to use given the state of artillery at the time?

I suppose a further issue is whether such a formation would require or be best suited to professional/mercenary soldiers. The Swiss and Italians might be most likely to develop it for the same historical reasons for the pike square.

Thoughts?

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

It seems feasible to me but you'd need some mechanical changes to the crossbows to make it work. They could achive somthing like 2 shots per minute but couldn't be reloaded while maneuvering at all which arquebusiers could do better. The result is that the crossbows had to stop dead to fire and rewind which resulted in the use of pavise which made them even less maneuverable.

If someone designs a crossbow that could be rewound while marching I think it would be possible.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Would it have been feasible for a Late Medieval army to develop a 'pike and shot' style system with crossbowmen in place of arquebusiers? It seems theoretically it could be developed earlier, at least as early as the pike square. But would it be feasible to use given the state of artillery at the time?

I suppose a further issue is whether such a formation would require or be best suited to professional/mercenary soldiers. The Swiss and Italians might be most likely to develop it for the same historical reasons for the pike square.

Thoughts?

Pikes didn't rally get going until the 15th century - although Flemish and Scots spearmen were available earlier

Swiss certainly did - by the time they had switched from halberd to pike they always included some crossbowmen in any Swiss standalone army

Their opponents the Burgundians would have combined longbowmen with Flemish Pikes - mostly unsuccessfully it has to be said but that is probably down to the generals rather than the pikes

 

[Derek Pullem]

It seems feasible to me but you'd need some mechanical changes to the crossbows to make it work. They could achive somthing like 2 shots per minute but couldn't be reloaded while maneuvering at all which arquebusiers could do better. The result is that the crossbows had to stop dead to fire and rewind which resulted in the use of pavise which made them even less maneuverable.

If someone designs a crossbow that could be rewound while marching I think it would be possible.

You do know there were mounted crossbowmen as well - not all crossbows are as heavy and time consuming to reload as you say.

Also arquebusiers were slower than most crossbowmen to fire until quite a long way into the 16th century. The big advantage of an arquebus was that the user doesn't get tired and the stopping power against plate is usually greater.

 

[RGB]

The arquebousse can reliably beat armour and kill heavy horsemen. Crossbows and other bows have a much tougher time of it, so they are less useful on the "horns" of the pike square (the pike square is very vulnerable at the corners and needs protection from horsemen and swordsmen there, that's what the shot is for).

 

[Delvestius]

I would think there were more crossbows than firearms in Western European professional pike units until halfway through the sixteenth century.

EDIT: On Wikipedia, taken from the "Book of the Crossbow" by Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey 1995:

"While the military crossbow had largely been supplanted by firearms on the battlefield by 1525, the sporting crossbow in various forms remained a popular hunting weapon in Europe until the eighteenth century."

 

[RGB]

Crossbowmen stayed relevant into the mid-16th c. and into the 17th on peripheral or specialized battlefields (sieges, ships) but I wouldn't call crossbow screens in front of 15th c. squares "pike and shot". Maybe the prototype that later developed into the real thing, if we're being generous.

 

[Tyg]

The arquebousse can reliably beat armour and kill heavy horsemen. Crossbows and other bows have a much tougher time of it, so they are less useful on the "horns" of the pike square (the pike square is very vulnerable at the corners and needs protection from horsemen and swordsmen there, that's what the shot is for).

It sounds like a pike-and-crossbow formation would be a killer before full plate armor then, or against more lightly-armored horsemen. Perhaps a Byzantine tactic that spreads to Italy and Central-Eastern Europe? Pikes and crossbowmen are much cheaper and easier to raise than trained cavalry.

 

[RGB]

It sounds like a pike-and-crossbow formation would be a killer before full plate armor then, or against more lightly-armored horsemen. Perhaps a Byzantine tactic that spreads to Italy and Central-Eastern Europe? Pikes and crossbowmen are much cheaper and easier to raise than trained cavalry.

Mixed spear and bow formations were the staple of Byzantine armies and I would imagine most armies. In fact professional archers (be they crossbowmen or longbowmen) usually brought their own servant-at-arms with a polearm to fight with them. The English had some successes with massed bowmen backed by men at arms and billmen, too.

Combine it with good leadership, terrain preparation, and a bit of luck, and we're describing the HYW here (coincidentally just before the spread of munitions plate, so there's a good example).

It's just all of this was deployed in lines, not in deep squares, and wasn't as powerful when taking ground as a Swiss battle and later imitators. Not sure why people didn't think of it/think it feasible.

So a very good question.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I could see a pike-and-crossbow formation being developed to combat horse-archer-based armies by someone in Eastern Europe. Then again I think they'd be less useful in the West, because crossbow bolts were less able to penetrate plate armour and so were less useful compared to arquebusiers or musketeers.

 

[Tyg]

It's just all of this was deployed in lines, not in deep squares, and wasn't as powerful when taking ground as a Swiss battle and later imitators. Not sure why people didn't think of it/think it feasible.

So a very good question.

Could it be a command issue? Were lines that much easier to manage without a professional/veteran officer/nco to keep things organized?

 

[Delvestius]

Could it be a command issue? Were lines that much easier to manage without a professional/veteran officer/nco to keep things organized?

It was simply the shape of the formations.

^^^^^^
^^^^^^
^^^^^^
^^^^^^

The corners are the least pointy. Nothing to do with lapse in morale or command.

 

[RGB]

Could it be a command issue? Were lines that much easier to manage without a professional/veteran officer/nco to keep things organized?

There was definitely the rise of the professional NCO around the time of the pike era, and the skilled feldwiebel was key to any landsknecht infantry company.

That said, I think mediaeval armies were simply smaller and may have wanted to maximize their damage output while committing as little of the manpower into danger as possible.

Warfare in the early modern period operated with a completely different philosophy and with completely different scales. It was about decisively closing in and breaking the enemy before cannon could break the morale of your army before any physical contact.

Note that the line came back once cavalry became less well protected and infantry that could fight in lines or squares equally easily appeared.