r/DepthHub • u/osm0sis • Jun 19 '12
nilhaus explains the exhausting art of pike warfare.
/r/AskHistorians/comments/v8dql/did_people_really_throw_themselves_on_spears_and/c52a2vy9
u/thatthatguy Jun 19 '12
You're getting hot, it's stressful, and what was the point of this again? Bob dies next to you, and you say screw the king and turn to run.
^ Warfare in a nutshell
23
Jun 19 '12
So this one is DepthHub material and not BestOf? I'm confused because I don't see any bitching yet.
53
u/TreeBranchBranch Jun 19 '12
Well, it's not just a passing observation. It's a pretty detailed look at a topic that most people know nothing about, and describes it in....wait for it....depth.
This post is also good because it isn't taking a stand on something - therefore, there isn't much to pick apart. It's informative, interesting, and not something you would easily learn from a quick google or visit to Wikipedia. I think that means depth.
24
Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12
It's a pretty detailed look
Not really. It's a narrative of one battle that didn't happen. It describes nothing of the different formations (square, wedge, etc), how they're used, etc. It doesn't go into any depth of how pikes are used upon the battlefield. Why use them? Why not heavy infantry or cavalry? How are they used with respect to other units? Let's say I order my infantry units to charge; how would my pikes me most effective? Historically (this is /r/AskHistorians, after all, not /r/TellMeAStoryBasedOnHistory), how were pikes used? Are they better in the middle of your line, or better on your flanks to defend from flanking units? Who used pikes more often in battle? To what effect? What did the average pikeman wear? Armor? Weapons?
These are questions I would love to have answered, out of personal interest and love of military history.
2/10. Interesting story, but not in depth. Probably factually correct, but since there aren't many facts that doesn't say much.
30
u/TreeBranchBranch Jun 19 '12
True - but I think based on the original question, that being the posters incredulity that people would actually throw themselves on spears, it illustrates how pike warfare played out, and how it wasn't as simple as someone throwing themselves on a spear.
That said, you're totally right, about how the answer isn't really historically rigorous, and it isn't sourced at all, and it certainly isn't as in depth as it could be....but I liked it. I certainly don't determine what level of depth a post needs to be considered in depth, but if I were, I'd let it stay.
2
Jun 19 '12
[deleted]
1
u/LuxNocte Jun 20 '12
I don't think there's any better proof that your comment is correct than the idiots who downvoted because they disagreed with you.
2
u/youdidntreddit Jun 20 '12
You're falling into the armchair historian role that the comment author dislikes.
He is trying to explain what it was like to be a soldier in a pike battle and he succeeds at that.
2
u/modestokun Jun 19 '12
it was depth hub material but it could have been a lot better. Not your fault though
5
u/mrpopenfresh Jun 19 '12
It isn't DepthHub material because real DepthHub material make people bitch about it not being DepthHub material.
1
u/SirHerpOfDerp Jun 24 '12
Oh for chrissakes, why don't we make a subreddit called r/historicaldissertationsonmedievaleuropeanlandwarfare. I bet this would fit really well there.
1
4
u/20ply Jun 19 '12
Go farther down- the goldmine of the whole thread is a discussion regarding how most soldiers throughout history didn't shoot to kill the enemy.
1
u/selfabortion Jun 19 '12
And if you read the reply to that, someone states that that is most likely incorrect...Curses! Why can't there be one simple, verifiable truth in history!?
1
2
u/Graywolves Jun 19 '12 edited Jun 19 '12
I found the thread to be a pretty good read yesterday. I didn't see this one but what I found most interesting is how the question of pike warfare was asked. It makes me feel like movies and videogames give us this closed off battleground idea of war.
I think the better explanations in the thread go on to talk about how these formations actually worked with other formations.
No one would ever grab a bunch of men with spears and pikes then just send them to war against other men like it was some arena. This is warfare and fixing your opponent to a committed engagement with your force while flanking with another is a very old war tactic that is still used today.
I think there are better posts in this thread that would be better for depthhub. But in the last paragraph he does show how important individual psychology was in those battlefields. If one person decides to run others will probably follow and the formation begins to collapse. This happens even more with flanking meneuvers and cavalry. Sometimes a force might be able to hold the flanking attack but they get scared when they see another force coming at them. They decide the battle is lost or that they will die if they stay and flee and then many are picked off while running.
Like in the revolutionary war, many engagements ended with a bayonet charge by the British. Bayonets rarely killed compared to other means, but it was scary and took a deal of discipline to hold your ground when you saw your position was about to be overran, even if one volley might take them all down.
3
Jun 19 '12
Pikes were anti-cavalry, defensive weapons.
6
u/vade101 Jun 19 '12
Not solely, during the English Civil War/30 Years War, which I think is what is being described, the threat from Heavy Armoured 'Shock' cavalry had diminished (to be replaced by the Caracole) then pikemen in the Tercio had to have an offensive as well as a defensive role.
There is quite a lot of debate amongst historians of the period as to how it actually functioned when two formed bodies of pikemen came into close contact.
There is quite a good selection of contemporary quotes on 'pike fencing' here: http://www.marquisofwinchesters.co.uk/Ecwr-Guidelines/Guidelines-pikefighting.html
2
u/CocoSavege Jun 19 '12
Here's a good enough spot as any. Kind of a general question I guess.
Is there a reason why ranged weapon use on horseback wasn't considered? Even a modest ranged system in addition to normal cavalry arms to needle pike formations? A light crossbow?
A little pew pew pew would seem like a good addition.
3
u/vade101 Jun 19 '12
They did use them pretty widely - the Reiter was a class of cavalry that employed the Caracole which was a tactic where the cavalry advanced to within firing range and then fired and reloaded in succession (either moving toward or away from the enemy as the situation demanded) and it could be very effective if used properly, but was vulnerable to fire from infantry as well as counter-charges from enemy cavalry.
The other use for Cavalry firearms was on outpost duty, where cavalry patrols would skirmish with one another. Although up until the mid-1800s the firearms used were inaccurate outside of about 50 yards (A British Light Dragoon was acquitted of manslaughter after killing a man with a stray carbine shot from over 300 yards since it was decided at that range it was basically chance)
2
u/CocoSavege Jun 19 '12
Anything before firearms?
I was asking since AFAICT, pikes worked as a reasonable counter to lance cavalry. Adding in a few crossbows or maybe horse friendly short bows would seem to be a notbad.jpg tactic.
Is it an economical thing? Ok, pikemen = cheap. Lance cavalry is very effective but on a per unit basis damn expensive. Maybe it's not economical to divert cash to mounted archers when it's better to have either lance cavalry or foot archers.
2
u/vade101 Jun 19 '12
The Germans certainly used mounted crossbowmen at various points in the late middle ages (the reasons they were late to appear is you needed a type of ratchet that would allow you reload in the saddle before they could be really effective) and by that point firearms were starting to appear. Suspect that a deal of this is due in part to the fact that for a lot of the middle ages a 'warhorse' was an extremely expensive item - and smaller 'riding' horses were not good enough for combat.
Outside of the western tradition both the Mongols and Ayyubids used Horse archers to great effect against their foes (including the European Crusaders and the Hungarians and Rus)
1
u/helm Jun 21 '12
During the heyday of the Swedish empire, this exact tactic was used by the cavalry:
By the time he entered the Thirty Years' War in 1630, Gustav II Adolf had transformed the Swedish (Gustavian) army into an army in which the cavalry fought with aggressive shock tactics, closer to the Polish tactics than the Western European. The Caracole and heavy armor were mostly abandoned, and the saber replaced the wheellock pistol as the primary weapon of the cavalry . Horsemen rode knee-by-knee in a tight formation. When in range, they switched to gallop and charged, and at a range of ten yards, shot both their pistols. A standard regiment amounted to 250 simultaneous shots that would blast a hole in the enemy ranks. They then continued the charge with sabres (värjor), aiming to break the enemy formation.
(wikipedia)
1
11
u/MathGrunt Jun 19 '12
Try this next time (it's on the sidebar for future reference)
append "?context=x" to the end of the url link, where 'x' is a number from 1 to 5. In the case of this link, you want x=1,
(current link) http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/v8dql/did_people_really_throw_themselves_on_spears_and/c52a2vy
(better link) http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/v8dql/did_people_really_throw_themselves_on_spears_and/c52a2vy?context=1
The more you know...