I think it would in large part depend on terrain and leadership.... you have to pick your battles based on the troops you have. Leadership and quality matters too- good pikemen under a good leader might win in a situation where you would expect the archers to prevail. Lousy archers under a lousy leader could probably lose on a winning hand.
In an open field with clear shooting and no way to outflank the archers-- say like Agincourt-- the English would certainly inflict severe losses on the Swiss, but it's an open question on whether that would actually stop the Swiss like it did the French, who were less mobile, less organized, and poorly-led. After all, the Swiss plowed right through a lot of Burgundian firepower (archers, crossbows and artillery) at Morat and went on to rout the Burgundian army. EVen when heavily outnumbered and under heavy missile fire, like Arbedo and St. Jacob an der Birs, the Swiss took a lot of work to kill.
In different terrain and a different tactical environment-- for example, Formigny, Castillion, or Laupen. Agincourt, Crecy, etc. were pretty much perfect tactical situations from an archer's point of view-- not much to do but shoot straight from prepared positions. If you ask archers to attack an enemy's prepared position (e.g. Castillion, which the English lost), or expect them to react to a surprise attack while on the move or fight in hilly terrain (Laupen, where the Swiss ambushed the Habsburgs), you get different results.
At Grandson, for example, Charles the Bold was trying much what the English managed against the Scots at Falkirk and Pinkie-- use charging horsemen to keep the pikemen in a static defensive position while the missile troops got in their shooting at a stationary target. The difference is, the Burgundians couldn't pull it off.
The other thing is, most of the 'vs' examples here are pitched battles-- consider also how the same troops would have performed in chevauchees, skirmishes, or sieges. The Swiss troops weren't just pikemen-- they included lots of archers, crossbowmen, handgunners, etc.
On a man-for-man basis, the Swiss were probably more of a bargain-- easier to train, equip, and so on.
FWIW, Oman's stuff is quite outdated by now. Check out Kelly DeVries' "Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century" or John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" for something more recent.
Also, I think the whole pikes-and-bows-destroyed-cavalry thing is a bit exaggerated. The first major victory with longbows was in the late 1200s. The first big victory involving pikes was in 1302 (Courtrai). Two hundred years after Courtrai, armored horsemen were still the most important part of an army.
In an open field with clear shooting and no way to outflank the archers-- say like Agincourt-- the English would certainly inflict severe losses on the Swiss, but it's an open question on whether that would actually stop the Swiss like it did the French, who were less mobile, less organized, and poorly-led. After all, the Swiss plowed right through a lot of Burgundian firepower (archers, crossbows and artillery) at Morat and went on to rout the Burgundian army. EVen when heavily outnumbered and under heavy missile fire, like Arbedo and St. Jacob an der Birs, the Swiss took a lot of work to kill.
In different terrain and a different tactical environment-- for example, Formigny, Castillion, or Laupen. Agincourt, Crecy, etc. were pretty much perfect tactical situations from an archer's point of view-- not much to do but shoot straight from prepared positions. If you ask archers to attack an enemy's prepared position (e.g. Castillion, which the English lost), or expect them to react to a surprise attack while on the move or fight in hilly terrain (Laupen, where the Swiss ambushed the Habsburgs), you get different results.
At Grandson, for example, Charles the Bold was trying much what the English managed against the Scots at Falkirk and Pinkie-- use charging horsemen to keep the pikemen in a static defensive position while the missile troops got in their shooting at a stationary target. The difference is, the Burgundians couldn't pull it off.
The other thing is, most of the 'vs' examples here are pitched battles-- consider also how the same troops would have performed in chevauchees, skirmishes, or sieges. The Swiss troops weren't just pikemen-- they included lots of archers, crossbowmen, handgunners, etc.
On a man-for-man basis, the Swiss were probably more of a bargain-- easier to train, equip, and so on.
FWIW, Oman's stuff is quite outdated by now. Check out Kelly DeVries' "Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century" or John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" for something more recent.
Also, I think the whole pikes-and-bows-destroyed-cavalry thing is a bit exaggerated. The first major victory with longbows was in the late 1200s. The first big victory involving pikes was in 1302 (Courtrai). Two hundred years after Courtrai, armored horsemen were still the most important part of an army.