Why is Swordsman with Shield the Weakness of Spearmen/Pikemen/Other long pole arm?

Chop a polearm with a sword is not feasible, in reality the idea was to push aside the pikes and not to cut them. Cut a movable piece of wood would be hard even with a chainsaw.



Another common myth, if pikes could deflected things thrown at them the scottish would have won Falkirk. I have already heard the same myth with Alexander and Spanish Tercios, but it is a myth.
A primary source, showing that pikes without langets were vulnerable to single handed infantry swords(!) from Lord Orrery in 1677:
The Pikes arm'd at the Points with Lozange heads, if the cheeks, or sides of the Pikes are not armed with thin Plates of Iron four Foot deep, are very apt to be broken off near the Heads, if the Push be vigorous, and the Resistance consi∣derable: Nor is this all; for unless the Pikes be armed with those thin Iron Plates, they are easily cut off with sharp Swords, for the Pike, especially toward the end, is carried ta∣pering, to poise it the better, and thereby renders it the more flippent for those who use it; so that the slenderer part of the Pike, if unarm'd, is the more liable to be cut off, it being there nearest the Enemy; whereas if the Pikes were armed with those thin Plates, and four Foot deep, no cutting Swords (which are alwayes of the shortest) could destroy the Pikes, since that part of the Staff of the Pike which is unarmed, would be out of the reach of the Horsemans sharp cutting Sword: I remember we once carried a Fort by storm, because the Enemies Pikes had not those Plates, whereby the Heads of them were cut off.
 
The fact that significantly increasing the weight and cost of pikes by sticking Langets-metal shaft reinforcements-on them suggests that preventing an attacker from chopping through the shaft was a realistic concern. Period pikes were quite thin and light, and you don't need to fully cut through it-just hit it hard enough that it breaks. The fact that the tactic wasn't used beyond the early 16th century does suggest that it wasn't all that effective once people knew what to expect.

You are more correct than me, I went to my "sources" to discover that my memory failed me, it is in fact possible to cut and even break the spears, but it can be hard to deal with just one, to cause damage to many of them at the same time is the thing that is almost impossible. But in fact you are right.
 
Sorry for the double post:

I did say in the post that I don't quite get how it works. My best guess is that the longer shafts of pila made them more likely to hit something and get knocked off line. Having a flying piece of wood hit you isn't good but it's better than getting impaled.

But the few modern test that I saw show the sarissas deflecting almost none of the projectiles, the better explanation that I could find was that with your spear up you can raise your shield, auxiliaries, ranged troops and cavalry are still necessary to deal with enemy ranged troops.
 
Sorry for the double post:



But the few modern test that I saw show the sarissas deflecting almost none of the projectiles, the better explanation that I could find was that with your spear up you can raise your shield, auxiliaries, ranged troops and cavalry are still necessary to deal with enemy ranged troops.
That and I doubt sitting there and taking the enemy fire is going to help.
 
I reread some things and found that we discuss something that might not be accurate. My source states that the Sword and Shield tactic was NOT used against UNBROKEN Pike Formations - Swordsmen wer usually kept behind (at the flanks) of pike formations and used AFTER the pikes of both sided had clashed. THEy were also not used for a long time - they fell out of mode when muskets were reloaded faster.
 
Top