Use of Pike

My understanding is that the way pikes are used in the Medieval period, and how they were used by the Macedonians were very different strategically/tactically (I think this would be under tactics).

Macedonians used them as front-line troops, supported and surrounded by others, whilst my understanding is that later on Pikes were used as a way to create a fortress of spears to control the battlefield.

Now, as to why they fell out of fashion - they didn't, they became TOO fashionable, at the cost of the Mixed-Arms approach that were vital to their success, which mean that the Roman Legionairre, armed as a weird hybrid between swordsman, and dart thrower found themselves able to break through pike lines long enough to be inside their pikes and able to take advantage of their short range. Once that tactic worked, it could be re-used against the Diadochi who weren't as adaptive like Philip and Alexander were, and were too invested in pikemen to adjust their tactics to counter - this gives the Roman Legion a great reputation, and as such, impetus.

But that isn't to say we didn't see spearmen and pikes not make an appearance repeatedly before the Medieval period - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_battle_tactics#Skoutatoi is simply one example. Sure they didn't use the 4-6 metre long Sarissa, but 3 metres is still a damn long spear.

If the Diadochi or Greeks maintained their mixed arms, they'd probably have Legionairre style troops as flanking forces, or 'pike-breakers', but not entire armies of them - and as such use strategies closer to the late Byzantine Skoutatoi than Roman legions.

The main factor I think, in all honestly is fashion. I think you've got a combination of utility, combined with 'Military Fashion' - as in, it worked, and keeps working, so just keep the same idea going. After all, it is why the Romans used Manipular tactics, and why the Diadochi went big on pikes. Who says Militaries can't fall victim to their own fashions? Heck, what do you call the Somme other than "Walking walls of Line Infantry (essentially the ranged equivalent of a pike block) marching at each other always works - oh... Machine Guns".

So yeah, reputation in defeating a supposedly superior foe, and momentum.
 
The roman swordsman/dart thrower hybrid wasn't that weird. Most "swordsmen" also carried javelins, to disrupt the enemy before closing in-for example, the Cimbri, Franks, and Iberians all used that tactic.
Hell, renaissance targeteers often carried a pistol or carbine to use in the same role.
It also wasn't that effective against pikes. The phalanx was sometimes a victim of it's success, doing things like forcing the Romans back onto rough terrain, which then disrupted it and allowed the Romans to turn the tables.
 
The roman swordsman/dart thrower hybrid wasn't that weird. Most "swordsmen" also carried javelins, to disrupt the enemy before closing in-for example, the Cimbri, Franks, and Iberians all used that tactic.
Hell, renaissance targeteers often carried a pistol or carbine to use in the same role.
It also wasn't that effective against pikes. The phalanx was sometimes a victim of it's success, doing things like forcing the Romans back onto rough terrain, which then disrupted it and allowed the Romans to turn the tables.

I meant weird at the time and for place. (At least, I don't know of many swordsmen units who threw ranged weapons before engaging as standard practice in the east. - the nearest I can think of is an Iphicreatean Hoplite/Peltast). Sure, in the west at the time.

But the victim of its own success is certainly true. The fact of the matter is, that the Phalanx only worked when it was cohesive. Taking a number out with ranged weapons, or having them move to rough ground gives a similar effect.
 
They seem like a very good weapon while on defense, useful even in hands of relatively poorly trained troops
That's not how it works. The training and discipline is everything.

Essentially there are two types of pikemen that show up after Alexander's death. Those that actually knew Alexander while he was alive, or the units raised by those who did, were well trained and drilled professionals (even if they didn't want to be, 20 years of military service will do that to you). And then there's what happens when you decide you want to have a phalanx on the cheap, which (as far as the classical era goes) starts becoming increasingly more commonplace the further you get form Alexander.

The late successors were the latter, organized basically along the lines of a traditional feudal army (especially in the Army of Macedonia proper as the Succession Wars must have done a number on their demographics). At the top you had the noble warrior aristocracy forming the cavalry, always the pride and joy of the Macedonians. Followed down the hierarchy by an Agema or Royal Guard of standing professionals acting as the king's household troops, and mercenaries who usually did not fight in the phalanx. Then the pike phalanx itself was made up of soldiers often called reserves or militia, but were actually like feudal levies and conscripted peasants.

The combined arms issue didn't help either since any chance the phalanxes had evaporated because the noble cavalry kept abandoning the peasant infantry, at Pydna because the cavalry retreated, at Magnesia because the cataphracts had shattered the Roman flank and never stopped charging (and cause they didn't use Hannibal). You could have reversed the equipment of both sides, Romans using phalangites against sword and scutum Macedonians/Seleucids and against battletested and well-drilled Romans you would probably get the same outcome.

An ill-trained pike block is at best competent enough to do the job on defense. Its when you have professionals manning your pikes that they become legendary. Alexander became famous, and time and again an opposing force would deploy themselves perfectly along the lines of contemporary military science, with adequate reserves, multiple lines of deployment, fieldworks, and clear lines of fire, only to be utterly routed when a Swiss pikeblock charged head on.

A contemporary military theorist (not a very good one) actually suggested that the Italian city states should form Roman legion-esque units of lightly armored sword and scutum citizen-militia to counter the Swiss pikes. While its a neat idea, to me I don't see any way how that could have possibly gone well for the Italians.

Actually from what I've read Swiss pikemen mostly had quite light armour, although their discipline was, as you say, very high. Supposedly their enemies could only ever get one volley off against them because by the time they'd reloaded the Swiss would already have charged up and skewered them.
The Swiss pikes were active for a period of around 200 years. They've been both lightly and heavily armored, and its probably likely that success in the earlier periods was what allowed them (or their sons, grandsons etc) to buy better armor.
 
Last edited:
The pike suffered for two major reasons: Archers and morale. Archers could pick off soldiers in a pike block, and allow for gaps to form, which could be used to collapse a pike block. Pike blocks also required soldiers to remain in formation, and if morale was low enough, the individual soldiers might separate, destroying a pike block's effectiveness. It seems likely to me that these factors could have been why pikes wavered in popularity as much as they did.
AFAIK, the early medieval miles was more like a skirmisher than what we'd call heavy cavalry (for example, in the Bayeux Tapestry you see the Norman cavalry using spears both over-handed and underhanded, and some of the Saxon troops have spears sticking out of their shields). Having cavalry forces that can throw spears into enemy formations doesn't seem conducive to creating inflexible pike blocs instead of more manageable shield wall formations.
 
AFAIK, the early medieval miles was more like a skirmisher than what we'd call heavy cavalry (for example, in the Bayeux Tapestry you see the Norman cavalry using spears both over-handed and underhanded, and some of the Saxon troops have spears sticking out of their shields). Having cavalry forces that can throw spears into enemy formations doesn't seem conducive to creating inflexible pike blocs instead of more manageable shield wall formations.
Eh, pike blocks seem to have done pretty well against pistol/carbine cavalry, which are basically equivalent to throwing spear cavalry. The trick was combined arms-the shot(there's nothing stopping this being done with crossbows) stopped the cavalry getting in close enough to pick apart the pike with close range gunfire, while the pike stop the cavalry just running over the musketeers.
 

plenka

Banned
What is needed for pike to be even more widespread in Europe, in Antiquity and Early Medieval period?
 
Eh, pike blocks seem to have done pretty well against pistol/carbine cavalry, which are basically equivalent to throwing spear cavalry. The trick was combined arms-the shot(there's nothing stopping this being done with crossbows) stopped the cavalry getting in close enough to pick apart the pike with close range gunfire, while the pike stop the cavalry just running over the musketeers.
Well that's the problem- who is going to pay for the professional troops and equipment necessary for combined-arms tactics?
 
Well that's the problem- who is going to pay for the professional troops and equipment necessary for combined-arms tactics?
Using missile troops and melee troops in close support has been done since time immemorial, including by relatively badly equipped militia and levy troops. There's plenty of variations on it:
Persian Sparabara/archers, Late Roman spearmen/javelinmen, English Longbowmen/dismounted men at arms, Italian Pavissiers/crossbowman, and so on.
 
Using missile troops and melee troops in close support has been done since time immemorial, including by relatively badly equipped militia and levy troops. There's plenty of variations on it:
Persian Sparabara/archers, Late Roman spearmen/javelinmen, English Longbowmen/dismounted men at arms, Italian Pavissiers/crossbowman, and so on.
The problem I'm speaking to is how do you have relatively uniform formations with clearly distinct battlefield roles and standardized equipment when troops were furnished as part of a retinue or vassal levy rather than as part of a centralized army. The individuals going into battle would all have the best gear available to them, and that's the point- they equipped themselves as individuals, and the pike is a terrible weapon for single combat and means they'd have to forgo a shield, which I'd assume most people with the means would want for protection. Ten or twelve retainers training in a pike formation is not going to yield many benefits either, whereas those same guys would be able to more comfortably assemble a shield wall with people they may have no previous training with. Pikes are a specialized weapon that requires large numbers of troops to train together to be effective, and for the early medieval era, that doesn't seem practical (not to mention that warfare during the time shifted from large set-piece battles towards smaller skirmishes and protracted sieges- a pikeman's not really much good in that sort of situation).
 
The problem I'm speaking to is how do you have relatively uniform formations with clearly distinct battlefield roles and standardized equipment when troops were furnished as part of a retinue or vassal levy rather than as part of a centralized army. The individuals going into battle would all have the best gear available to them, and that's the point- they equipped themselves as individuals, and the pike is a terrible weapon for single combat and means they'd have to forgo a shield, which I'd assume most people with the means would want for protection. Ten or twelve retainers training in a pike formation is not going to yield many benefits either, whereas those same guys would be able to more comfortably assemble a shield wall with people they may have no previous training with. Pikes are a specialized weapon that requires large numbers of troops to train together to be effective, and for the early medieval era, that doesn't seem practical (not to mention that warfare during the time shifted from large set-piece battles towards smaller skirmishes and protracted sieges- a pikeman's not really much good in that sort of situation).

Simple. Just say that people with between X and Y income levels should equip themselves with a pike so many feet long or face a fine. Boom, troops with uniform equipment. See the Scottish schiltrons or the early swiss, for example. Those guys weren't professional soldiers/mercenaries, or wealthy burghers-they were peasants and yeoman armed with privately purchased equipment. Hell, they were arguably lower class than the minor nobles that formed the bulk of the Saxon Fyrd.

Large formations of pikemen didn't need to train together to get good-for example, early modern pike and shot units drilled in companies, not in battalions, with the formation wide drill being scaled up for deployment in actual battle. The individual drill-how to use the pikes effectively and how to move as a group-remains the same whether in a 6 deep, 5 wide block or a Swiss Keil.
Besides that, your claim I was responding to was that pikes would be crap against early medieval Miles(unlikely), and that combined arms required professionalism(not true).
 
Simple. Just say that people with between X and Y income levels should equip themselves with a pike so many feet long or face a fine. Boom, troops with uniform equipment. See the Scottish schiltrons or the early swiss, for example.

I think this presumes a level of social organization, managerial knowledge, and centralized control that was difficult to attain in the "early medieval era," which is what I think @Tripledot was referring to. Your examples of "Scottish schiltrons" and the "early Swiss" date (in the former case) to the 13th century at the earliest, well beyond what I think most people would refer to as the early medieval period.

For instance, how are you going to define and discover what "income level" a person has in a non-monetized society in which rents/duties are paid in kind and there exists little or no body of census-takers and scribes to gather and compile this information? If you manage to gain the information, how able are you to enforce the law if the persons in question are not your own tenants, but tenants or dependents of your vassals, or even your vassals' vassals, all of whom may have certain customary rights vis-a-vis the king? Will there be resistance, based on the fact that you are innovating a new duty contrary to custom, and are you capable of overcoming it? Can you determine the identities of those who flout this new law and effectively punish them? Assuming you gain compliance, will you be able to maintain a system of pike-inspectors who can reliably and dutifully make sure all weapons are "up to code?" If you manage all this, will these men actually fight with the pikes you have obligated them to own, or will they simply possess them to comply with the letter of the law and then fight with what they're comfortable with?

And finally, having done all this, are you confident that this effort will substantially change the fact that battles are widely (and correctly) recognized at the time as a massive risk in which things can go horribly wrong for the dumbest reasons, or no reason at all, so much as to justify the time and cost of achieving all of the above?
 
I think this presumes a level of social organization, managerial knowledge, and centralized control that was difficult to attain in the "early medieval era," which is what I think @Tripledot was referring to. Your examples of "Scottish schiltrons" and the "early Swiss" date (in the former case) to the 13th century at the earliest, well beyond what I think most people would refer to as the early medieval period.

For instance, how are you going to define and discover what "income level" a person has in a non-monetized society in which rents/duties are paid in kind and there exists little or no body of census-takers and scribes to gather and compile this information? If you manage to gain the information, how able are you to enforce the law if the persons in question are not your own tenants, but tenants or dependents of your vassals, or even your vassals' vassals, all of whom may have certain customary rights vis-a-vis the king? Will there be resistance, based on the fact that you are innovating a new duty contrary to custom, and are you capable of overcoming it? Can you determine the identities of those who flout this new law and effectively punish them? Assuming you gain compliance, will you be able to maintain a system of pike-inspectors who can reliably and dutifully make sure all weapons are "up to code?" If you manage all this, will these men actually fight with the pikes you have obligated them to own, or will they simply possess them to comply with the letter of the law and then fight with what they're comfortable with?

And finally, having done all this, are you confident that this effort will substantially change the fact that battles are widely (and correctly) recognized at the time as a massive risk in which things can go horribly wrong for the dumbest reasons, or no reason at all, so much as to justify the time and cost of achieving all of the above?

Look at this. Old Frisian law dating from the 12th century and with even older roots(I suspect the reference to a two-handed sword is a dodgy translation).

(Thit is riucht, alder thi fria Fresa thritich punda werth erves heth an sinre were) thet hi horses and wepnes ewarad wesa skel ti ther landwere. Ief him thes berst, so skel hi with sine frana mith twam pundum beta.
Thit is riucht, thi ther tventiga punda werth [erves] an sinre were hath, thet thi skel habba truch lang wepen, iefta mith twam pundum beta.
Thit is riucht, thi ther tolef punda werth heweth erwes, thet hi skel habba spere and skeld ti ther liudwere, iefta mith twam pundum beta.
Thit is riucht, thi ther lessa hath, hi skel habba koker and boga ti ther liudwere ief mith twam pundum beta.

Translation:

This is the law: when the free Frisian has thirty pounds worth of land in his possession, he shall be equipped with force and weapon for the defense of the realm. If he fails in this, he shall pay two pounds for it to the magistrate.
This is the law: he who has twenty pounds’ worth of land in his possession shall have a two-handed sword, or pay for it with two pounds.
This is the law: he who has twelve pounds’ worth of land shall have spear and shield for the defense of the people or pay for it with two pounds.
This is no law: he who has less shall have quiver and bow for the defense of the people, or pay for it with two pounds.

Other early medieval laws like the capitulary of Aachen and the Gutinglaw go into great detail about the exact loadout different incomes should have.

However, the fact that mounted and longship based raiding constituted a large part of early medieval warfare, alongside the crappy armour making soldiers horribly vulnerable without a shield, is a much more convincing argument as to why pikes weren't adopted earlier.
 
As many others have commented Professionalism was definitely an element of this.

The other is Doctrine - militaries tend to get stuck on "whats worked before".

The Romans were kinda freakish in that they rapidly evolved military doctrines from Greek style Hoplite through to Manipular formations.

Their location and who they fought had a lot to do with this.

When fighting the Diadochi states the Romans did comment on running into "imitation Legionaries" because the successor states had evolved troops to that heavily armoured/sword/shield/javelin combo yet lacked the doctrine to use them beyond support/assault for pike based warfare.

Looking at post-rome warfare it becomes mired in Doctrines often related to class - the French at Agincourt where charging heavily armoured footmen & Knights into a confined staked out muddy space against Longbows and agile Footsoldiers is probably the best example of doctrinal failure.

Keep in mind that despite the lessons of the American Civil War & the English Maxim gun conquest of a large chunk of Africa the doctrines at the start of WW1 where almost Napoleonic (which the French doubled down on and went WW1 doctrine into WW2).

The Swiss were so successful because they developed new Doctrines to fight the wars of the times - sheer professionalism can only carry you so far if you don't know how to use that training.

So in order for the Pike to make resurgence it would take not only a change to a state funded professional army but also a change in doctrinal thinking about how to fight wars.
 
Top