How did pikes and other long pole arms protect from arrows when held vertically?

Griffith

Banned
I remember reading in The Western Way of War by Hanson stating that part of the reason why Arrows were ineffective against the Greek Phalanx and later Macedonian Pikemen was that in addition to the shield Wall and Bronze Armor, the long spears hoplites and Macedonian phalangites typically held vertically before the clash protected him from arrows or at least dulled it before it actually hits him.

I am curious how does long Pole-Arm Weapons protect its wielder from Arrows?

Also I am curious-The Scots used the Schiltron, a long formation in which they were wielded long pole arms (pikes) and part of the formation included men behind wielding their pikes vertically. In this case however I read the Schiltron was vulnerable to archery barrages and that it was arrows that broke through William Wallace's formation at Falkirk.

In this case why didn't the long pole arms held vertically protect Wallace's pikemen as opposed to the Greek Hoplites?

Does holding spears vertically provide protection against arrow barrages?

Hanson's claims is inconsistent.

The Yari Ashigaru and Yari Samurais and to a much leser extent Roman legionnaires were known to suffer casualties despite being in spear walls.

However Macedonians historical texts describes the same thing about the long Sarissas protecting the Macedonian Phalanx from arrows and the Swiss Pikeman despite lacking shields in their formations also suffered minimal casualties from arrows in their squares.

I am curious why this inconsistencies in account?
 
They don't. The Thessalian cavalry protected the pike blocks from archers. There might be something to be said about the power of medieval and renaissance crossbows compared to Persian bows, but the Macedonian pikemen fought mostly unarmoured.

There are sources that say that the Macedonians advanced in open formation and only formed phalanx before contact, which would mean the phalanx itself does not start to take casualties until very late in the advance, even if individual soldiers had been hit during the approach march.
 
Presumably the spears would "funnel" the arrows downwards, so they would fall on your troops' helmets, rather than hitting from the side. Only an educated guess, though.
 
I've seen reenactment experiments which seem to suggest that the defensive effect vs. arrows was negligible, though I suppose the idea being present might discourage archery to a degree.
 
They would block only 10%, if that, of the arrows.

The Scots used the Schiltron, a long formation in which they were wielded long pole arms (pikes) and part of the formation included men behind wielding their pikes vertically. In this case however I read the Schiltron was vulnerable to archery barrages and that it was arrows that broke through William Wallace's formation at Falkirk.
The long bow was able to penetrate the Armour the scots were wearing as long as they were close enough. Once Wallace's cavalry ditched him, they were able to get as close as the wanted.

In this case why didn't the long pole arms held vertically protect Wallace's pikemen as opposed to the Greek Hoplites?
The Greek Hoplites had Leather Armour that was able to stop most arrows. They also had support from their own skirmishers to help keep enemy archers at bay.

The Yari Ashigaru and Yari Samurais and to a much leser extent Roman legionnaires were known to suffer casualties despite being in spear walls.
Not very knowledgeable on Japanese warfare but I do know that the Yari Ashigaru were very lightly armoured and were very vulnerable to arrow fire. It sounds like the Japanese were inefficient at supporting and protecting their infantry from bow fire if their spears had high casualty rates.

What era were these Legionnaires? it sounds odd that they would be in a spear wall since Classical Roman legionnaires had Pila and short swords as their main weapon.
However Macedonians historical texts describes the same thing about the long Sarissas protecting the Macedonian Phalanx from arrows and the Swiss Pikeman despite lacking shields in their formations also suffered minimal casualties from arrows in their squares.
Macedonians had similar armour to the Greeks, but also had plenty of Cavalry support to keep Archers at distance. I'm also assuming Swiss Pikemen had really good armour.


The thing you have to remember about archers, is that in a proper battle, their main purpose is to deny an area to the enemy and to thin out the ranks before a proper engagement. A hail of really pointy and deadly sticks was a great way to discourage an opponent from taking a flanking position.
 
They would block only 10%, if that, of the arrows.


The long bow was able to penetrate the Armour the scots were wearing as long as they were close enough. Once Wallace's cavalry ditched him, they were able to get as close as the wanted.


The Greek Hoplites had Leather Armour that was able to stop most arrows. They also had support from their own skirmishers to help keep enemy archers at bay.

.
I think the massive Hoplite shields and the tendency to charge down enemy archers rather than sitting there and taking it like the Scots did had more to do with it than hoplite armour.
 
I think the massive Hoplite shields and the tendency to charge down enemy archers rather than sitting there and taking it like the Scots did had more to do with it than hoplite armour.
Like I said in one of these threads, it's mostly about tactics.
 
I've seen reenactment experiments which seem to suggest that the defensive effect vs. arrows was negligible, though I suppose the idea being present might discourage archery to a degree.

The idea could simply be for morale, make the soldiers feel like they are doing something instead of being meat shields while another portion of the army made headway.
 
Regrettably, a fantasy...

...Unless weak (e.g. short bows drawn to the chest, not long or compound bows drawn to the chin) archery fire would massacre unarmed pike/spear men. You need long shields or a Roman-style testudo. Vertical pikes were effectively useless - pikes relied on muscle power, so the men behind the front pike-bearers anchored them, or actually pushed them forwards. It was Swiss farmers' muscles that brought down the Burgundian army. The fashion for slashed doublets apparently originated in these muscular farmers slashing captured doublets so they could put them on.
 
Regrettably, a fantasy...

...Unless weak (e.g. short bows drawn to the chest, not long or compound bows drawn to the chin) archery fire would massacre unarmed pike/spear men. You need long shields or a Roman-style testudo. Vertical pikes were effectively useless - pikes relied on muscle power, so the men behind the front pike-bearers anchored them, or actually pushed them forwards. It was Swiss farmers' muscles that brought down the Burgundian army. The fashion for slashed doublets apparently originated in these muscular farmers slashing captured doublets so they could put them on.
The Burgundian armies were defeated due to cowardice(at Granson), being overrun before they could deploy properly(at Morat) and by massively overwhelming numbers(at Nancy), not by winning a biceps flexing content.
Sheer mass and aggression(NOT muscle power) was very important for "steamroller" pike tactics like the Swiss used, but not for pike armies like the Landsknecht-who were noted to be very skilled fencers with their pikes, even if they lacked the ferocity of the Swiss.
The idea of slashed doublets originating from Swiss muscles is questionable-why would farmers with dodgy nutrition, or at best well fed townsmen be more muscular than people who were well fed semi-professional athletes and soldiers? The real origin seems to be them patching their ragged clothes with pieces of brightly coloured looted cloth.
 
Top