Slitherine

Hello Everyone,

Does anyone know how swiss/landsknecht pikemen were able to defeat dismounted men-at-arms IRL so frequently? I can imagine how the long pikes of the formation would prevent the men-at-arms from being able to engage with their shorter polearms/broken lances, but how were the men-at-arms actually injured in their heavy armor? Did pike blocks overrun dismounted men-at-arms, trip them and finish them off afterwards or did they just run them off the field? I have a hard time seeing how a pike would penetrate plate armor, and I doubt it would be dexterous to aim at individual weak points in a person's armor. This is always something I've wondered and if anyone has insights that would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks!

Off the top of my head, what are the evidence of pikemen easily defeating dismounted men-at-arms? The main three Swiss vs Burgundians battles did not feature set pieces of pikemen against dismounted men-at-arms, if I'm not mistaken. Pikes were primarily an anti-cavalry weapon, which was the main battle threat at the time. We know on the other hand that pikes were badly mauled at Flodden by bills. Of course, there are many other factors in each battle that preclude a simple head-to-head analysis of actual effectiveness.

The billmen included some number of nobles fighting on foot at Flodden, but yeah as fogman said other factors may have mattered as much as armament there - the ground for one, and the Scots' relatively recent adoption of fighting in the continental style, in which they had insufficient training.

For whatever reason, fighting on foot by nobility seemed to decline over the fifteenth century, remaining most prominent in England AFAIK. Yet I can't think of many examples of men at arms on foot confronting large numbers of pikemen - perhaps because the size of armies had grown, so the nobility would have made up a somewhat smaller proportion of armies, and that proportion tended to provide the striking arm in the form of heavy cavalry.

At Stoke Field, there was a substantial German mercenary contingent on the Yorkist side... but I'm not clear if they really confronted the enemy's men at arms on foot, or were simply immobilized by the rout of friendly contingents and then riddled with arrows.

That said, I wouldn't put *too* much emphasis on equipment. Yes, plate armor was very effective, otherwise people wouldn't have gone through the expense and discomfort! Yet the mass, forward momentum, and morale advantage that a relentless advancing pike block could bring could count for more in a contest that was as much if not more psychological than physical. In addition, pike blocks in this period contained proportions of men armed with handier weapons, often polearms, and these were certainly capable against armored infantrymen.

Yes, plate armor was very effective, otherwise people wouldn't have gone through the expense and discomfort!

I get the impression that much of close range melee was about getting the enemy individuals isolated and/or knocked down on the ground in any way possible. At which point, armor is no longer much help. Still very helpful against missiles.

Jagger2002 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 4:04 pm

Yes, plate armor was very effective, otherwise people wouldn't have gone through the expense and discomfort!

I get the impression that much of close range melee was about getting the enemy individuals isolated and/or knocked down on the ground in any way possible. At which point, armor is no longer much help. Still very helpful against missiles.

Which would make pike blocks very effective as men stayed shoulder to shoulder.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Sat Jun 03, 2023 2:04 pm At Stoke Field, there was a substantial German mercenary contingent on the Yorkist side... but I'm not clear if they really confronted the enemy's men at arms on foot, or were simply immobilized by the rout of friendly contingents and then riddled with arrows.

According to Jean Molinet, it's more likely the River Trent blocked their way to retreat in the latter stage of the battle, then they were cut down by the arrows.

Interestingly this noticed me ask Mr.Richard to add some appropriate units to the Yorkist 1486-1497 list. I remember the Margaret of Burgundy provided about two thousand of these men to the Yorkists, Perhaps one Landsknecht keil and some handgunners will be fit.

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:46 pm Interestingly this noticed me ask Mr.Richard to add some appropriate units to the Yorkist 1486-1497 list. I remember the Margaret of Burgundy provided about two thousand of these men to the Yorkists, Perhaps one Landsknecht keil and some handgunners will be fit.

The list already has pikemen and handgunners representing these mercenaries. Even the German Imperialist list does not get actual Landsknecht keils at this date.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 3:45 pm

Dux Limitis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 12:46 pm Interestingly this noticed me ask Mr.Richard to add some appropriate units to the Yorkist 1486-1497 list. I remember the Margaret of Burgundy provided about two thousand of these men to the Yorkists, Perhaps one Landsknecht keil and some handgunners will be fit.

The list already has pikemen and handgunners representing these mercenaries. Even the German Imperialist list does not get actual Landsknecht keils at this date.

Thanks for clarifying mister, I was wondering why the latter Yorkist list has those weird pikemen units before. I don't know those units are representing these mercenaries, because I read they're "Swiss and German" mercenaries so I follow it literally.

Thanks for the great replies everyone! While I can't think of an explicit example of pikemen easily defeating dismounted men-at-arms off the top of my hand; my inspiration for the notion that pikemen performed well against such units would be the Battle of Arbedo where the Swiss saw how Milanese dismounted men-at-arms, fighting on foot with their long lances, outranged and defeated their own halberdiers, while their pikemen fared much better. I believe this battle was what lead to the Swiss abandoning the halberd as the main weapon when fighting in formation to the pike in the first place. Therefore, I assumed that pikemen must have been enable to defeat dismounted men-at-arms consistently otherwise the Swiss would have continued to adapt their tactics, likewise more of their enemies would have used dismounted men-at-arms to fight pike columns if this wasn't the case. I could be mistaken but from my readings of the time, pike columns were mainly defeated by arrow/bolt or cannon fire, not sort of any melee engagement barring another opposing pike column.

I haven't read the sources on Arbedo (yet) but it seems to me that the reason why nobody ever put a line of dismounted men-at-arms vs a pike block is simply because the pike block would enjoy overwhelming numerical superiority in any situation. A pikemen is cheap to arm and to train. The Greeks agreed that the Spartiates were the best fighters but at Leuctra, their thin line was simply overrun by a deep column of less martial men. In other words, it has more to do with mass and momentum rather than weaponry.

cotosmas wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 11:19 pm Thanks for the great replies everyone! While I can't think of an explicit example of pikemen easily defeating dismounted men-at-arms off the top of my hand; my inspiration for the notion that pikemen performed well against such units would be the Battle of Arbedo where the Swiss saw how Milanese dismounted men-at-arms, fighting on foot with their long lances, outranged and defeated their own halberdiers, while their pikemen fared much better. I believe this battle was what lead to the Swiss abandoning the halberd as the main weapon when fighting in formation to the pike in the first place. Therefore, I assumed that pikemen must have been enable to defeat dismounted men-at-arms consistently otherwise the Swiss would have continued to adapt their tactics, likewise more of their enemies would have used dismounted men-at-arms to fight pike columns if this wasn't the case. I could be mistaken but from my readings of the time, pike columns were mainly defeated by arrow/bolt or cannon fire, not sort of any melee engagement barring another opposing pike column.

There are a couple of curiosities in this conventional wisdom, namely that I cannot see men-at-arms fighting on foot with cavalry lances owing to their bulk, as contemporary men-at-arms in France and England did not do so; and that in Machiavelli's account, below, more pikes would not have helped as they are cited as the reason for the defeat. I will need in due time to look at the other, and especially Swiss sources but I think there are serious questions to be raised against the common narrative.

------------------------------------
BOOK II, Art of War, Niccolo Macchiavelli

"When Filippo Visconti, Duke of Milan, was assaulted by eighteen thousand Swiss, he sent against them Count Carmingnuola, who was his Captain at that time. This man with six thousand cavalry and a few infantry went to encounter them, and, coming hand to hand with them, was repulsed with very great damage. Whence Carmingnuola as a prudent man quickly recognized the power of the enemy arms, and how much they prevailed against cavalry, and the weakness of cavalry against those on foot so organized; and regrouping his forces, again went to meet the Swiss, and as they came near he made his men-at-arms descend from their horses, and in that manner fought with them, and killed all but three thousand, who, seeing themselves consumed without having any remedy, threw their arms on the ground and surrendered.

COSIMO: Whence arises such a disadvantage?

FABRIZIO: I have told you a little while ago, but since you have not understood it, I will repeat it to you. The German infantry ((as was said a little while ago)) has almost no armor in defending itself, and use pikes and swords for offense. They come with these arms and order of battle to meet the enemy, who ((if he is well equipped with armor to defend himself, as were the men-at-arms of Carmingnuola who made them descend to their feet)) comes with his sword and order of battle to meet him, and he has no other difficulty than to come near the Swiss until he makes contact with them with the sword; for as soon as he makes contact with them, he combats them safely, for the German cannot use the pike against the enemy who is next to him because of the length of the staff, so he must use the sword, which is useless to him, as he has no armor and has to meet an enemy that is (protected) fully by armor. Whence, whoever considers the advantages and disadvantages of one and the other, will see that the one without armor has no remedy, but the one well armored will have no difficulty in overcoming the first blow and the first passes of the pike: for in battles, as you will understand better when I have demonstrated how they are put together, the men go so that of necessity they accost each other in a way that they are attacked on the breast, and if one is killed or thrown to the ground by the pike, those on foot who remain are so numerous that they are sufficient for victory. From this there resulted that Carmingnuola won with such a massacre of the Swiss, and with little loss to himself."
--------------------------------------

I came across this while researching Cerignola, another pivotal battle in military historiography with some entrenched conclusions regarding arquebusiers, Gonzalo Fernandez de Cordoba, and the infancy of pike and shot tactics.

https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/ ... e-medieval