Spit 'em!

The Chinese did this with crossbowmen. It was highly effective against heavy cavalry. However, the crossbow/polearm combination was dropped in favor of the musket and bayonet.

Well, against cavalry, I don't think there'd be much difference between the two: a musket and bayonet can keep them from charging you just as well as a pike can, and that's what's really important. In hand-to-hand combat against infantry, OTOH, having a weapon four times as long as that of your unarmoured, unshielded enemy would be a definite advantage.

Also, the reason why China and India never adopted the pike is because missiles played an extensive role in warfare in those two places. You can't hold a shield if you're holding a pike. Pikemen are rather vulnerable to massed foot and horse archery due to their lack of a shield. They could wear heavier armor, but that would further reduce their already poor mobility.

OTOH, Alexander's pikemen performed well against the missile-heavy infantry formations of Achaemenid Persia.


Secondly, musketeers can still fight effectively even if their formation is broken up by rough terrain, whereas pikemen need to maintain a cohesive formation at all times.

True, although generals of the period normally preferred to fight on open ground, so this wouldn't make much difference in practice.


Lastly, a line of musketeers is 3 deep, while pikemen are usually 10-16 men deep. In a world with artillery, a cannonball will plow through 3 men in a line of muskets or a dozen in a pike block. If you were a commander, which would you choose?

Actually that depends on who/what period you're talking about. Some commanders preferred to draw up their infantry in deeper formations to increase their staying power in hand-to-hand combat (Maurice de Saxe in his "Reveries" says that five is the minimum depth, IIRC), and of course Napoleonic commanders often moved their men around in deep columns.
 
So basically, you have pike and shot.

A musket (such as the Brown Bess) was about 1.6m in length and the bayonet was about .5m in length. That gives you a weapon about 2.1m in length. This is a good length for a short spear. Non-lancer cavalrymen aren't going to break your line and a 2.1m weapon is much more maneuverable in combat than a 5-6m long pike. The effective reach of the musket is much longer (50m), because you can fire it at people too. It's also useful if the terrain is broken up, possibly more useful because then the terrain can be used for cover against projectiles. Pikes cannot do this. On the offense, a musketeer formation moves much more quickly than a pike block, especially when turning or moving laterally. A musketeer formation can spread out in the face of a pike charge and fire at a pike block's flanks.

As for lancers, a lance is a specialist item and not as versatile as swords or pistols are. Lance equipped cavalry are therefore going to be comparatively rare on the battlefield. While pikes are better at stopping lancers than musketeers, that's the only situation they're better in, which means the pike block will die along with the armored cavalier.
 
Well, against cavalry, I don't think there'd be much difference between the two: a musket and bayonet can keep them from charging you just as well as a pike can, and that's what's really important. In hand-to-hand combat against infantry, OTOH, having a weapon four times as long as that of your unarmoured, unshielded enemy would be a definite advantage.

In hand to hand combat, a musket has 10 times the reach of a pike because chances are, the musket formation is going to unload on you at least once or twice before your pike block closes in. Also, musketeer blocks can get on a pike block's flanks and unload on them easily. Vs. Cavalry, pike blocks are vulnerable to being taken in the flank and rear.

OTOH, Alexander's pikemen performed well against the missile-heavy infantry formations of Achaemenid Persia.

They did, but it was Alexander's cavalry that carried the day most of the time.

True, although generals of the period normally preferred to fight on open ground, so this wouldn't make much difference in practice.

You don't always get what you want. Also, there are a lot of minor duties like skirmishing and raiding that pikemen aren't really capable of executing as well as a musketeer.

Actually that depends on who/what period you're talking about. Some commanders preferred to draw up their infantry in deeper formations to increase their staying power in hand-to-hand combat (Maurice de Saxe in his "Reveries" says that five is the minimum depth, IIRC), and of course Napoleonic commanders often moved their men around in deep columns.

Unlike pikemen though, musketeers can scatter or spread out under artillery fire and still retain some level of effectiveness. They become more effective in fact, if spread out in a line.
 
In hand to hand combat, a musket has 10 times the reach of a pike because chances are, the musket formation is going to unload on you at least once or twice before your pike block closes in.

I think you're over-estimating the effectiveness of musketry here. It's been estimated (by officers during the period, who would have been able to see for themselves) that only around one bullet in 300 actually hit somebody, and there are examples of infantry regiments lining up and exchanging fire for considerable periods of time. One or two musket volleys aren't going to stop a determined charge.


They did, but it was Alexander's cavalry that carried the day most of the time.

Yes, the phalanx wasn't supposed to gain victory on its own. The point is that they weren't stopped by the Persian army's vast number of archers.



Unlike pikemen though, musketeers can scatter or spread out under artillery fire and still retain some level of effectiveness. They become more effective in fact, if spread out in a line.

They can, but commanders of this era were usually reluctant to do this because it made the army harder to control. Against artillery, the usual tactics were to stand and take it or lie down, both of which can be done by pikemen. So in practical terms this advantage would be irrelevant during the period in question.
 
Oh, and also:

Vs. Cavalry, pike blocks are vulnerable to being taken in the flank and rear.

Actually pike blocks were generally less vulnerable to flanking attacks than musketeers, who if outflanked would be unable to bring much firepower to bear and would almost always be swept away without much trouble.

On the offense, a musketeer formation moves much more quickly than a pike block, especially when turning or moving laterally

Not really true: the Swiss were famous for the speed of their charges (supposedly they could advance through the effective range of a cannon in less time than it took to actually load it, which, whilst it may be an exaggeration, indicates that they were seen as very quick-moving), and the Swedes likewise could advance quickly. Plus, line infantry had to move slowly anyway to maintain cohesion. Again, then, this advantage wouldn't have had any practical effect.
 
I had a long post written up but it boils down to this:

A pike block would have the same strengths and weaknesses as a Napoleonic assault column but in an exaggerated fashion.

This means that although they would be very strong in close combat, they can't shoot back and are vulnerable to attack from artillery. Also, they can't be formed back into a line like musketeers. Since pikemen depend on weight and depth for their strength, they can't be deployed in thin lines as needed. As for flanking, I do note that Gustavus Adolphus' more shallow formations managed to quickly turn around to meet Tilly's forces at Breitenfeld.

In a strategic sense though, pikemen are a bad investment. They aren't very useful in sieges, they can't be detached as skirmishers, they aren't very useful for foraging or defending rough terrain. A musketeer is basically what a Roman legionary was to a Macedonian phalangite.

Lastly, the Swiss could charge at a run because they were unusually well drilled. Napoleonic French troops have been recorded redeploying at a run as well.
 
In a strategic sense though, pikemen are a bad investment. They aren't very useful in sieges, they can't be detached as skirmishers, they aren't very useful for foraging or defending rough terrain.

True, but then again plenty of armies have deployed specialist units. In fact, it's often the case that an army with certain units which specialise in certain things will beat one which tries to turn its soldiers into jacks-of-all-trades. E.g., heavy cavalry aren't generally very good for scouting, foraging and skirmishing, but an army which includes heavy cavalry will ceteris paribus beat one which doesn't, even though other types of cavalry might be useful in a wider variety of situations.

Lastly, the Swiss could charge at a run because they were unusually well drilled. Napoleonic French troops have been recorded redeploying at a run as well.

Indeed. It's the level of training and frontage of unit which determine manoeuvrability, not whether they're carrying guns or pointy sticks.
 
As for flanking, I do note that Gustavus Adolphus' more shallow formations managed to quickly turn around to meet Tilly's forces at Breitenfeld.

Of course there are examples of units in lines surviving being outflanked (although note that even Gustavus' formations were deeper than the average 18th-century general's), but there are far more of units being outflanked and destroyed. That's why 18th-century generals would put most of their cavalry on the flanks: because they knew that whoever won the cavalry battle would usually be able to sweep down on the enemy's flanks and drive them from the battlefield.

Plus of course, men in a square unit can in a pinch just change direction to change their formation's direction. Men in a shallow line can't really.
 
Of course there are examples of units in lines surviving being outflanked (although note that even Gustavus' formations were deeper than the average 18th-century general's), but there are far more of units being outflanked and destroyed. That's why 18th-century generals would put most of their cavalry on the flanks: because they knew that whoever won the cavalry battle would usually be able to sweep down on the enemy's flanks and drive them from the battlefield.

Plus of course, men in a square unit can in a pinch just change direction to change their formation's direction. Men in a shallow line can't really.

You can segment shallow lines into battalions, companies and platoons. Musketeers don't need as much "weight" as pikes do, making them strategically more maneuverable.

Your cavalry example is largely true for pikes as well. There's a difference between tactically outflanked and strategically outflanked.
 
Top