![]() Smythe considered the cautious approach laughable. In the aggressive approach, the first rank would then immediately resort to swords and daggers if the thrusts from the first five ranks failed to break the opposing pike formation. The cautious approach involved fencing at the length of the pike, while the aggressive approach involved quickly closing distance, with each of the first five ranks giving a single powerful thrust. Īccording to Sir John Smythe, there were two ways for two opposing pike formations to confront one another: cautious or aggressive. There was also the risk that the formation would become disordered, leading to a confused melee in which pikemen had the vulnerabilities mentioned above. Īs a result, such mobile pike formations sought to have supporting troops protect their flanks or would maneuver to smash the enemy before they could be outflanked themselves. The huge block of men carrying such unwieldy spears could be difficult to maneuver in any way other than straightforward movement. Nor could they maintain cohesion over uneven ground, as the Scots discovered to their cost at the Battle of Flodden. The men were all moving forward facing in a single direction and could not turn quickly or efficiently to protect the vulnerable flanks or rear of the formation. ![]() ![]() Īs long as it kept good order, such a formation could roll right over enemy infantry, but it did have weaknesses. However, better-trained troops were capable of using the pike in an aggressive attack with each rank of pikemen being trained to hold their pikes so that they presented enemy infantry with four or five layers of spearheads bristling from the front of the formation. The pike, being unwieldy, was typically used in a deliberate, defensive manner, often alongside other missile and melee weapons. In real action first 3 – 4 ranks will hold their pikes at "charge" (their points projecting forward from the formation front), and those behind will hold weapons at "port" (to avoid injuring front rank friendlies with their points). To compound their difficulties in a melee, the pikeman often did not have a shield, or had only a small shield which would be of limited use in close-quarters fighting.įirst rank with pikes at "charge", second rank holding pikes at "port". In general, however, pikemen attempted to avoid such disorganized combat, in which they were at a disadvantage. This meant that pikemen had to be equipped with an additional, shorter weapon such as a dagger or sword in order to defend themselves should the fighting degenerate into a melee. The great length of the pikes allowed a great concentration of spearheads to be presented to the enemy, with their wielders at a greater distance, but also made pikes unwieldy in close combat. It is a common mistake to refer to a bladed polearm as a pike such weapons are more generally halberds, glaives or voulges. The extreme length of such weapons required a strong wood such as well-seasoned ash for the pole, which was tapered towards the point to prevent the pike from sagging on the ends, although drooping or slight flection of the shaft was always a problem in pike handling. ![]() When the troops of opposing armies both carried the pike, it often grew in a sort of arms race, getting longer in both shaft and head length to give one side's pikemen an edge in combat. The shaft near the head was often reinforced with metal strips called "cheeks" or langets. It had a wooden shaft with an iron or steel spearhead affixed. It was approximately 2.5–6 kg (5.5–13.2 lb) in weight, with the 16th-century military writer Sir John Smythe recommending lighter rather than heavier pikes. Generally, a spear becomes a pike when it is too long to be wielded with one hand in combat. The pike was a long weapon, varying considerably in size, from 3 to 7.5 metres (10 to 25 feet) long. Re-enactment during the 2009 Escalade in Geneva. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |