I enjoyed this overview. Hope at some stage you can do a piece on the bow-pike-man system developed by Edmond Felton. The near-misses are often a lot of fun, and I expect they were often more commonly used than is assumed, because they didn’t end up being the dominant model. I’d like to put in a similar request for a post on so-called leather cannon.
How many people would you think were in each like square and shot and pike formation? Did the manpower needed for an effective formation change with the developments?
The original pike squares were much bigger with thousands of pikemen. But as guns and artillery got better, smaller pike squares needed to be introduced and ultimately the Dutch developed a system of smaller and more mobile units. I will speak about numbers and tactical details in future posts, but from the top of my mind, at Kircholm the Swedes, following the Dutch model, divided their infantry in 13 squares, each one having only about 300 pikemen.
Smaller formations were used to provide more mobility to infantry when dealing with larger blocks of pikemen. But against cavalry they weren't as effective.
I think pikes may have continued a little longer in Austrian armies too, when facing the Ottomans. They were certainly still using lobster pot type helmets in those conflicts into the 18th century.
The last European pike and shot battle is probably Vinegar Hill in 1798 where the majority of the Irish rebels were armed with pike. It did not go well for them.
Could you explain what the "counter march" tactic was?
I think the best way to explain it is to use images like this one I posted on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/LandsknechtPike/status/1679980238435143680
The soldiers in front lines fire then retreat back and reload. The Dutch drilled this a lot.
Ah OK I'm familiar with that technique just not it being described with the term "counter march". Thank you.
Fascinating article. Thank you for this.
I enjoyed this overview. Hope at some stage you can do a piece on the bow-pike-man system developed by Edmond Felton. The near-misses are often a lot of fun, and I expect they were often more commonly used than is assumed, because they didn’t end up being the dominant model. I’d like to put in a similar request for a post on so-called leather cannon.
Really interesting stuff, love it.
How many people would you think were in each like square and shot and pike formation? Did the manpower needed for an effective formation change with the developments?
Yes!
The original pike squares were much bigger with thousands of pikemen. But as guns and artillery got better, smaller pike squares needed to be introduced and ultimately the Dutch developed a system of smaller and more mobile units. I will speak about numbers and tactical details in future posts, but from the top of my mind, at Kircholm the Swedes, following the Dutch model, divided their infantry in 13 squares, each one having only about 300 pikemen.
Can we say to what degree casualties and recruiting challenges contributed to smaller formations?
Smaller formations were used to provide more mobility to infantry when dealing with larger blocks of pikemen. But against cavalry they weren't as effective.
I think pikes may have continued a little longer in Austrian armies too, when facing the Ottomans. They were certainly still using lobster pot type helmets in those conflicts into the 18th century.
The last European pike and shot battle is probably Vinegar Hill in 1798 where the majority of the Irish rebels were armed with pike. It did not go well for them.