alternatehistory.com

Some time ago, I was prompted by this video to think about the role of pikemen in Renaissance and Early Modern armies, and specifically about how often they were expected to fight hand-to-hand with other blocks of pikemen. I've written on another forum that they probably didn't fight that often, but recently I've been wondering whether a more offensively-minded pike doctrine might have delayed the weapon's obsolescence. I suspect that, if used more aggressively, the pike could have been a viable weapon into the 19th century and beyond. At any rate, a regiment of pikemen would have no difficulty rolling over a regiment of musketeers in hand-to-hand combat, so I could imagine pikes being effective as part of a Napoleonic-style infantry column.

The real difficulty, I would imagine, would be getting your pikes to actually close with the enemy in the first place: whilst the inaccuracy of smoothbore muskets meant that it was usually possible for a determined attack to close with the enemy, the psychological impact of facing a musket volley often prevented soldiers from closing, even if rationally speaking they'd have been far safer charging home. That said, I don't think it would be impossible to get soldiers to close, and a combination of skirmishers out front to help screen you from enemy fire, good training and discipline, and pistol-wielding officers at the back could potentially be enough.

So, what do you gentlemen think? Could the pike have been made to work, or would the lost firepower of equipping some of your men with pikes have outweighed the extra shock ability?
Top