-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Personally I think the bayonet has been overvalued as a weapon. If melee weapons were still a valid infantry weapon, why were no pikes used? In the 16th and 17th century, a large percentage of soldiers carried pike while the rest carried musket. After more technical and tactical improvements of the musket, all European armies replaced their pikemen with musketmen. To me this indicates that melee was far inferior to the musket by that time.
Because pikes can't fire bullets.
Melee wasn't especially inferior to firepower in the 18th century; but armies now had a weapon that could perform both functions. Why go back to a weapon that only does one job when you have one that does both?
Because a pike:
Can't shoot bullets
Is longer and more unwieldy than a musket
Holds less value as a melee weapon without formation
Requires the carrying of a sword for closer work
Provides little extra use against cavalry, as the longer range of the pike is negated by the benefit provided by the defensive volley muskets can deliver
Once you get the widespread introduction of socket bayonets, there's really no point employing pikes in a formation as the only benefit is cost. There's no real reason to go with the pike over the musket, as its own job is done in many ways better by the musket and bayonet.
The theory also proves false in the field. Battles of the Napoleonic Wars often came down to bayonets (not necessarily bayonet fights but rather bayonet charges) to break the enemy.
And perhaps most critically - while in melee a pike is still marginally more useful than a musket with a bayonet, you can't shoot a pike at all, and you can only cary one or the other - they are too bulky and take up your hands, so you have to pick only one. The Musket (with bayonet) can do more jobs.
Pikes however are far longer, as long the flanks are covered muskets can do little in melee against pikes.
Bayonets allowed musketeers a better fighting chance against cavalry because it could be used effectivly in formations which was important.
Now musketeers could very well defeat a cavalry charge without any pike cover, and a musketeers only group have more firepower than any kind of pike mix.
Bayonets allowed musketeers a better fighting chance against cavalry because it could be used effectivly in formations which was important.
Now musketeers could very well defeat a cavalry charge without any pike cover, and a musketeers only group have more firepower than any kind of pike mix.
If the chips are down, a musket can become a rather nice club even without a bayonet. And while a bayonet charge may not do well against pikes in formation, it does not have to. The pike simply had nothing to offer in comparison to the added firepower. As rate of fire and price came down, the musketeers become more effective and cheaper in comparison to pikemen. IIRC it was the medieval warfare thread that someone posted about a conflict in which equipping a musketeer was actually cheaper.
Last edited:
But isn't part of the advantage of muskets is that you can go with a two-deep formation to maximize firepower, while pikes tend towards squares? For an equal size force this is generally going to give a big advantage to the musket armed.
AFAIK squares were aimed against cavalry, which being more agile could flank a shallow formation. Pikes would be just as effective with depth of 2/3 soldiers when the chance of flanking was low. The pikemen would still have no way of dealing with musket volleys though.
What are muskets doing in melee with pikes? Not only that, the effective range of a musket is a lot longer than a pike..
It happens, on a messy battlefield. It probably ends in the musketeers breaking and running rather than actually being hit with pikes, but it doesn't always have to be a proper slow retreat to a new vantage point
No. Four to six at an absolute minimum, preferably ten deep (which was the depth used by Swiss pikemen and Maurice of Nassau's Dutch). A Spanish tercio was 22 men deep, but they were designed to face in any direction.
Don't forget that a pike is a heavy, clumsy, unbalanced weapon. Someone with a sword and buckler facing a single pikeman can easily parry or dodge past the point, or even grab the pike in his hand, step past it, and cut down the helpless pikeman with his sword. The way to prevent that is to have multiple layers of pikes, one behind the other, so while the swordsman is dodging one the one behind can stab him. Four ranks was normal.
However, when pikes are on the attack you also need weight of numbers. Two or three men with pikes per defender running towards you are a joke. Ten men with pikes are an onrushing wall of spiky death. It's like a rugby scrum, you need the guys behind powering it forwards as well as the ones in the front row actually in contact with the opposition.
As far as I understood joak's premise, the pikemen would have to deal with musketeers sans armour, potentially charging the pikes, not heavy close quarters infantry or cavalry forces. The momentum and weight of the musketeers will not be comparable to the traditional opponents of pike walls.
Importantly the effect of a bayonet charge is more about the shock value rather than the actual melee, faced with a wall of bayonets/pikes all but the most well drilled formation are liable to break since the chance of death in such a combat is huge relative to the preceding firefight. From what I am aware there is even quite a lot of debate on how pike on pike combat worked ,if it at all ever happened very often, since simple simulations seem to imply the first 2 ranks would die with about a minute if the two pike formations held,as such it seems unlikely that such a situation would not arise very often if we assume these are men and not robots, this is what created the need for sword and buckler units etc.
I am currently reading a lot about the 30 years war and its influence on the battle tactics of the English Civil War. In both 'Cromwell's War Machine' and 'The Army of Gustavus Adolphus', the Swedish squadrons (same size as contemporary battalions approx 504 men); one third of a Swedish brigade had:
A formation of pike at the front which was 36 men abreast and 6 men deep. (216 men)
A formation of shot at the rear which was 32 men abreast, 6 rows deep. (192 men)
Two 'floating shot' formations of 8 men abreast, 6 rows deep (48 men each).
It was these formations that beat the Spanish veteran tercio formations on a number of engagements.
Are there any thoughts on the implications to morale of not being able to return fire in a pike formation? The more far reaching effects such as unwillingness to fight amongst the troops?
I would say that the most deadliest phases in most melee combats would be the charge and the pursue phase.
One important thing would be kinetic energy, because kinetic energy is (m*v^2)/2, a charge of heavily armored soldiers could be devestating, not to talk about cavalry.
If enemy formation try to hold they would feel most of the energy from the attacker which likley would have killed or incapacitated large number of soldiers if not also breaking the formation.
After that if the formations hold the continued combat would likley not be that bloody because only a few soldiers can fight at the same time, compared to the charge in which everyone contribute and the soldiers who do the fighting can not get the energy from swinging their weapons as they could do then they charge, however as soldiers tire and can not longer defend themself the battle likley become deadlier.
Pike combat would likley have been rather deadly at the charge but then not so much and other units would have to flank or the pikemen would somehow try to back out and then charge again.
However best of all would have been if the charge made the enemy retreat or atleast break their formation because then they would be extreamly vulnerable, bayonet charges maybe killed more soldiers from other sources that the charge made the enemy vurnable to than the bayonets themself.
Pikemen tended to have musket and cavalry cover, it is the same as saying that musket would not be able to do much against pikes in melee, even with bayonets
One problem I can find with the pike is that it took alot of training and disipline to use effectively, the whole formation would have to be drilled, but well drilled pike formations was maybe the most effective effective melee formation for a very long time.
I would expect musket formations was cheaper to train for their effectivness, artillery may had something to do in the disappearance of the pike to.
Last edited:
Premise is a charitable description of my post, as I'm speculating based on connecting fragments I've read in ways the authors haven't. But actually StephenT captures about what I thought would happen. I get what you're saying but I don't think the pikemen get enough momentum to win if that are trying to match the length of the enemy line.
Basically, it seems like pikemen lined up two deep, charging an equal number of early 18th century musketeers, are going to get enough casualties from fire that they don't arrive in formation and won't do that well in the chaotic melee. Then I start picturing ranks six deep, with pretty wide gaps between them. It still doesn't seem that good for the pikemen, as they take fire that blunts the charge and the musketeers can probably still induce that chaos that give them an advantage in close quarters.
All this of course assumes an across the line charge; I can certainly imagine scenarios where the pikemen punch through a thin line and win a battle. But it just seems like, with equal generalship and reasonable terrain, the ability of the musketeers to cover a wider front is a huge advantage.
This
Even in the Army when you do "bayonet training" most of what you are trained to do is use your rifle as a blunt instrument most of the time. Quicker and easier to hit that way and far harder to block than a straight forward bayonet thrust.
No you do not (unless you are a chad reenactor). A rifle (particularly modern rifles) are designed to fire very fast very dangerous little bits of metal from the front. The biggest no-no is pointing the weapon in a dangerous direction (i.e. towards yourself if you use it as a club). The weapon either points towards the enemy, towards the floor if you are stationary or in the air if you are moving. If you try to batter someone with the barrel end they will call you a mong and laugh at you. Your mucka's will then proceed to beat the crap out of you for being a dangerous twit. The RSM will then fine you 1 months pay, take away your op-tour bonus and send you home early.
Furhermore, most modern weapon systems like the c8,m4,m16 have plastic butt-stock. This means that the weight is principally focussed in the middle of the weapon, meaning that it makes a really crappy club and will more likely break (particularly with the extendible C8/M4). Not to mention that when you are out in the hoolies, your weapon is generally attached to your body by means of a sling, with most body armour now incorporating a clip on the shoulders to enable the easy attachment/removal.
This shows a video of the modern(ish) British Army doing some bayonet training.
[video=youtube;_Op1zjd7KKE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Op1zjd7KKE[/video]
It looks to be at least 5 years old and the mongs are still wearing tape on their helmet, but no matter how aggressive they are being, their rifle is still under quite strong control.