-
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.
The only large battlefield clash between Swedish and Spanish troops during the Thirty Years War was at Nordlingen in 1634. Now admittedly they were at a disadvantage in numbers, but there's no indication that their fighting performance was superior to that of actual Spanish tercios. Certainly the series of attacks that were launched by the Swedish forces on the Spanish failed, and it was shifting forces from the other wing to reinforce those that led to that flank being defeated by the Catholic German infantry.
Nördlingen also shows the importance of field fortifications (as did the battle of Chemnitz later on) as even pretty hastily thrown up improvised fortifications could have a significant effect.
Sorry for the dumb question but why pikes and not swords ? Aren't swords much better at close-range combat ?
They sure are, but pikes are longer than swords, and are useful in formations, while swords are only useful if you have space all around you. If your side has pikes and the other side only has swords, the guys with the swords will all be dead before they can get close enough to you, because your pikes are longer than their swords. If/when you get to the point where swords are drawn the formations have broken down, and you are stuck fighting at close(r) range with personal weapons (like swords and hand axes) instead of formation weapons like pikes. It was that way at least since the ancient greek hoplites.
With the proper armor and shields a formation can still use close range weapons like swords. Pikes especially are bad against formations due to the unwieldyness of the weapon.
Pikes are great against cavalry and defending a position though, which is where they really shine.
What gagenater said.
No, Pikes are excellent on the attack too, the pike charge made any non pike formation obsolete. Thats why most weapons dissapeared from the battlefield as a main weapon.
It was one of the design decisions behind the AK47. By the late XIX century guns offered enough stopping power and rapid rate of fire to significantly limit the chances of melee combat, and as Easy-Kill, with modern weapons dual use as a club is no longer a concern at all.
Pikes excel in static defensive formations. It's edge over alternatives are price and lesser personal skill requirements (pikemen are drilled mainly for formations, while sword fighting was always considered an individual art). They become a main weapon of choice due to filling the right combat necessities (first to pin heavy cavalry and later to protect reloading gunmen), not due to being all round superior. The Highland charge stopped being a viable tactic due to muskets, not due to pikes.
Pikes are highly difficult to "get right", but when they are, they're not only pretty much invulnerable defensively but also very strong on the offense. Until the advent of gunpowder pike-blocks were all but invulnerable unless somehow disorganized.
The romans became very good at disorganizing the phalanx, but there aren't actually many examples of them taking it on head-on and winning. (Cynosphelae was a classic pincer manuever, at Pydna they retreated onto broken ground where the formation could no longer be held, etc.)
When confronted with a pike formation you could basically A) kill it from range or B) disorganize it until it could no longer function as a formation.
Note that keeping up a pike formation was tricky as hell, and required a lot of training.
My understanding is that formations of Spanish mercenaries featured very strongly in the armies of the Catholic League. Furthermore the Spanish Terico system was used extensively within the catholic league throughout the 30 years war and in the earlier stages, with great success. It was the Swedish (and Dutch) who sought to use more linear formations and used them with great success against the Terico formations (including Spanish Mercernaries) at the battles of Breitenfield, Lützen and Lech. The ultimate result was that following the 30 years war, battle formations moved towards more linear formations and highlighted the growing obsolescence of the Terico.
However, my interest in this area is relatively new, so if you are able to expand on this and correct me, please do.
Why did crossbows decline before the rise of gunpowder ? Couldn't pike formations be decimated using "crossbow formations" ?
One more silly question as i don't really have any warfare knowledge about pre-1850s. Did musketeers fight in tight formations as featured in the movie The Patriot ?
Crossbows declined before guns? News to me. Crossbows were used on the battlefield extensively before guns came out. They aren't as good though. They are shorter ranged and shoot slower. In the field they are very volnurable to cavalry. They were more useful in fortifications or broken terrain where cavalry couldn't defeat them so easily.
More or less yes. Muskets aren't terribly accurate and have a low rate of fire compared to later firearms. By grouping musketeers together in a close formation you get lots of bullets/balls on a target at once so hopefully some of them hit. You also usually only have a portion (1/2 to 1/4) of your soldiers shoot at one time. That way at least some of your musketeers are loaded and ready to fire in case the unexpected shows up. None of these things work well in a loose formation. To add to that you can't realistically command troops in detail any further away than you can shout, so the more guys you have in range of your voice the more effective you will be. Also close formations offer protection from cavalry.
- There were no pike formations when there were crossbow formations.
- Most of the musketeers fought in formations but there were also "skirmishers"' who fought in the "no man's land" between the two opposing forces. They fought in loose formations, used terrain as cover and chose individual targets. They were the first forces to be issued early rifles when those became available.
- Most of the musketeers fought in formations but there were also "skirmishers"' who fought in the "no man's land" between the two opposing forces. They fought in loose formations, used terrain as cover and chose individual targets. They were the first forces to be issued early rifles when those became available.
But isnt't it very hard to keep morale of soldiers ( especially the ones in the front rows ) high ? In medieval warfare, your life depended upon more or less your skill. But muskeeter formations shooting each other from couple of hundreds of meters, you are almost guaranteed to die. From tactical point of view, why does weaker side opt to use the same tactic with stronger side ? I mean, that tight muskeeter formations doesn't seem to include any strategy, just ranks being decimated at a similar rate.
One more thing, wouldn't it be better to lay down while reloading ?
Crossbow is older so my question was why they didn't use crossbows against pike formations. I asked this because they said rise of gunpowder caused decline of pike formations.
This is what military drill is about.
Not really, it was difficult to hit someone with a musket except at really close range. Smoke obscured the battefield, and in fact there weren't that many shots fired. Perhaps about 10 volleys over a battle which was several hours long.
Pitched battles were about manoeuver rather than firepower really. Nobody expected to win purely by firing at the enemy with muskets. This was simply not effective enough at killing enemies. Unless there were particular circumstances and really massive superiority, like 1:10.
Crossbow disappeared before pikes became widespread.