Slitherine

Came across this statement whilst looking through a back issue of Arquebusier - it is an explanation of why the Austrians issued chevaux-de-frise to their infantry in their eastern campaigns:

"The Turkish light cavalry (Dellis, Tartars and Tolpatsches) were unimpressed by pikes, going beneath them, cutting the points off or throwing lassoes over them and dragging them off, leaving the infantry unprotected against the Spahis."

Unfortunately no references are given for this, but the author is Robert Hall who seems to be knowledgeable on the period and army.

The Austrians continued to use pikes in their western wars.

Honestly, it's always been my impression that the 17th century pike tends to get overrated as a defensive weapon vs. cavalry and seriously underrated as an offensive weapon vs. infantry, at least in the pre-bayonet era.

Jhykronos wrote:Honestly, it's always been my impression that the 17th century pike tends to get overrated as a defensive weapon vs. cavalry and seriously underrated as an offensive weapon vs. infantry, at least in the pre-bayonet era.

Its an interesting subject, and a difficult one to turn into wargames rules I think.

On the former I'm not so convinced it is over-rated, however, I do wonder if we under-rate the effectiveness of shot to deter mounted a bit - by the late TYW and ECW we have example such as Cheriton where a volley of musketry (multiple ranks firing together I think rather than rank by rank firing) sends perfectly good mounted reeling back. However, as ever it isn't simple if you're trying to cover a large geographical area as FoG:R does - the Austrians found that volley fire whilst good against western mounted was not so useful against the Turks where they found that continuous shooting methods that kept up a steady rate of fire were more effective. (As an aside I'd also note that facing the Turks they also issued chevaux-de-frise to infantry who had the bayonet which implies that they didn't think that was enough either)

As for pike against foot I think that rather depends on when you are talking about. Sticking with the FoG:R period it does appear that by the mid C17th it isn't that effective, but then again formations at that point are relatively thin and the pikemen may not be in very close order - the ECW has examples of pretty ineffective "push of pike" for example, and I think it may all be about aggression rather than the weapon to be honest.

It might have been that standing off cavalry day and night was easier with chevaux de frise than with a pike in hand. Maybe the parallel was to some extent with Roman field fortification? Huddling in a square under outstretched pikes was maybe a less effective way of seeing off the Turks than firing from behind a barrier? All speculation on my part though.

Don't we also have an earlier example at Pavia. Spanish Arquebusiers holding off French Gensdarmes purely by firepower?

Sarmaticus wrote:It might have been that standing off cavalry day and night was easier with chevaux de frise than with a pike in hand. Maybe the parallel was to some extent with Roman field fortification? Huddling in a square under outstretched pikes was maybe a less effective way of seeing off the Turks than firing from behind a barrier? All speculation on my part though.

Given the reliance on firepower to beat the Turks I think this idea is probably valid. However, as pikes were deemed sufficient in the west it does suggest a material difference between how the cavalry of the Turks behaved and that of the western nations - more persistent in fighting pike protected infantry perhaps? Or maybe in the end it is all down to what the cavalry believe - western horse "know" they cannot break pike defended formations so don't persist in trying but the Turks "know" they can and so make a greater effort?

Perhaps pike and shot formations with more shot than pike in their front rank should not cont as Protected against Cv? be interesting to try that out

timmy1 wrote:Don't we also have an earlier example at Pavia. Spanish Arquebusiers holding off French Gensdarmes purely by firepower?

I have a feeling that terrain and the French being threatened from multiple directions (including by landsknechts) may have been involved rather than a straight up holding off by firepower.

Perhaps pike and shot formations with more shot than pike in their front rank should not cont as Protected against Cv? be interesting to try that out

Given that your source seems to describe the Turks looking to mess up the formation before contact, maybe the P&S should only get the benefit of Protection if Steady?

A later but, perhaps, still relevant account is in de Saxe's Reveries: https://archive.org/details/reveriesormemoir00saxe
I've cleaned up the scanned text, with its f's for s's but otherwise simply copied and pasted it.

"At the battle of Belgrade, I saw two battalions cut to pieces in an instant, of which the following is a relation. Being surrounded by a thick fog, which rendered it impossible for us to discern any thing, a strong blast of wind suddenly arose, and dispersed it ; when we immediately saw a battalion of Lorrain, and another of Neuperg upon a hill, called the battery, separated from the rest of our army.
Prince Eugene at the same time discovering a party of horse in motion upon the side of the mountain, asked me if I could distinguish what they were : I answered, they were thirty or forty Turks ; then replies he, those two battalions are undone : at which time I could perceive no appearance of their being attacked, not being able to see what was on the other side of the mountain ; but galloping up at full speed, I no sooner arrived in the rear of Neuperg's colours, than I saw the two battalions present, and give a general fire upon a large body of Turks at the distance of about thirty paces ; instantaneously after which, the Turks rushed forwards through the smoke, without allowing them a moment's time to fly, and with their sabres cut the whole to pieces upon the spot. The only persons who escaped, were M. de Neuperg, who happened luckily to be on horseback ; an ensign, with his colours, who clung to my horse's mane, and incumbered me not a little, besides two or three private men. At this instant came up Prince Eugene, almost quite alone, being attended only by his body-guard ; but the Turks, of their own accord, retired. Here the Prince received a shot through his sleeve. Upon the arrival afterwards of some cavalry and infantry, M. Neuperg desired a detachment to secure the cloathing ; upon which sentries were immediately posted at the four angles of the ground, occupied by the dead bodies of the two battalions ; and their cloaths, hats, shoes, etc, collected in heaps together ; during which time, I had curiosity enough to count the number of Turks, which might be destroyed by the general discharge of the two battallions, and found it amounted only to thirty-two ; a circumstance, which has by no means increased my regard for the firings."

nikgaukroger wrote:

Jhykronos wrote:Honestly, it's always been my impression that the 17th century pike tends to get overrated as a defensive weapon vs. cavalry and seriously underrated as an offensive weapon vs. infantry, at least in the pre-bayonet era.

As for pike against foot I think that rather depends on when you are talking about. Sticking with the FoG:R period it does appear that by the mid C17th it isn't that effective, but then again formations at that point are relatively thin and the pikemen may not be in very close order - the ECW has examples of pretty ineffective "push of pike" for example, and I think it may all be about aggression rather than the weapon to be honest.

Well, if both sides are "pushing" pike, it sort of cancels out, no? The point is, without a body of pikemen, and without fixed bayonets, I wonder just how credible a charge into melee a unit of shot can really make. Either you have a bunch of fellows with clumsy clubs, or one hell of a juggling act to get the real combat weapons out. This is as opposed to the defensive, where dropping your gun is more of an option (well, assuming you don't lose, anyway). There has to be a good reason the Swedes and others kept their pike contingents up to strength so late.

Just musing, and somewhat off topic anyway.

Perhaps pike and shot formations with more shot than pike in their front rank should not cont as Protected against Cv? be interesting to try that out

Polish Pancerni would love that.

Musket butts could be very effective in a melee or single combat. Hutton, writing in the late C19 reckoned a bayoneted musket should beat a sword given equal ability. Even minus a bayonet, a feint poke in the nose with the muzzle followed by a clout to the ear with the butt, would be hard to stop. Hutton reckoned it was the butt swipe that made the bayoneted musket particularly deadly.
Re eastern cavalry, de Saxe, through Napoleon to Nolan, there seems to have been agreement that if they could arange any sort of melee or loose fight, they had the beating of european regulars. The trick was to deny them that fight.
Re their succeses versus formed bodies, they seemed to have succeeded when they could pick on an unsupported unit and chivvy and harass it till it lost shape, stamina and confidence. Cossacks did that to cuirassiers in 1812; the Turks in de Saxe's story seem to have done it to two isolated battalions by slipping 30 or 40 men around behind them. De Saxe perhaps makes this less than totally clear because his argument is that musketry is trivial, which the failed volley to the front might substantiate but the Turkish strategem observed by Prince Eugene might not.
Imho it helps to differentiate what could be done where a regular force could be harassed ad inifinitum and the harassers had no object to lose, and the more usual european battle.