Lately I have been doing a fair bit of reading about the Italian Wars. Right at the end of our period, shading over firmly past the 1500 date of course. But what struck me is the repeated reference to Swiss or Landsknechts being beaten, often by supposedly inferior Italian troops, because their opponents had longer pikes.
Now, on a simplistic level, it does seem prima facie that a chap with a longer pike is going to enjoy a potential advantage when it comes to poking at his opponents. But I do wonder whether a tad too simplistic? Also, I do wonder quite how uniform pike lengths were within a formation. An employer might seek a certain standardisation, but how realistic was that? Plus we know from later periods how grumpy ECW and Thirty Years War commanders were about their pikemen shortening their pikes because whilst they might occasionally actually fight with them, they would spend 100% of the campaign having to lug the damned things around, and any reduction in weight and unwieldiness was jolly attractive.
Anyway, I raise it as something that, at least in theory, must be relevant to earlier periods. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of ancient battles, especially between the Diadochi, supposedly being decided by one side having pikes a foot longer than the enemy, but I must admit that may be my fault in not having taken as much interest in the Hellenistic kingdoms compared to other periods and theatres of war.
I should have said: of course, just because contemporaries thought that the reason the Swiss or Landsknechts were defeated was because their pikes were shorter does not mean that it really was the reason; but clearly it was a perception, rightly or wrongly. As far as I can tell, the claims are mostly made on the Italian side, so it also does not seem to be an excuse from the Swiss and German side. (It would be a fairly poor excuse, as the obvious question would be why they did not use longer pikes anyway...)
I think I'd be a bit dubious to put things down primarily to length. In the late 15th/early 16th century various pike lengths seem to have been in use in various nations, between about 16-22 ft. The length does not seem to correlate particularly with effectiveness. Other factors (e.g. technique, training, tactical situation) may well have been more significant.
Precisely why I raise the issue. Contemporaries say length is a decisive factor, but I am instinctively doubting of the claim, but equally cautious of saying that contemporaries are talking nonsense...
And it depends on the situation
Pike vs pike only?
Quote from: Imperial Dave on Jul 26, 2025, 04:21 PMPike vs pike only?
That is the specific context of the Italian Wars claims.
Oof...depends
Training
Morale
Terrain
Etc etc ad nauseum
If all.things being equal possibly the longer reach helps in the first contact....
For those who wish to disappear down the rabbit hole of pike tactics, I was reminded of this earlier discussion on the forum. In this we discussed both Hellenistic and Late medieval/Early Rennaissance pike tactics.
https://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=3912.msg50602#msg50602
Well remembered
The usual assumption is that pike lengths were shorter under Alexander, got longer under the Successors, and then stabilised (to something) for the rest of the Hellenistic period. The problem is we only have a few data points, the accuracy and dating of which is not always certain, and it is not clear that we are seeing trends rather than just arbitrary points.
If pikes did indeed get longer under the Successors, when pikes first started fighting other pikes, this would lend some support to the idea that longer pikes were useful. If pike lengths then settled down to an optimum, this suggests that the various pros and cons were found to balance out. But I don't recall any examples of pike length being said to be decisive (or even important) in the Hellenistic period.
Quote from: Erpingham on Jul 26, 2025, 06:19 PMFor those who wish to disappear down the rabbit hole of pike tactics, I was reminded of this earlier discussion on the forum. In this we discussed both Hellenistic and Late medieval/Early Rennaissance
Thank you for that link. I enjoyed particularly Maurice of Orange's idea of "flippent targets"
Just for fun, may I introduce the term 'Macedonian Cubit' ?? (Light blue touch paper, and retire............😁).
I would have thought the weight of numbers to be more of a factor than the pointy end.
This conversation has led me to do a little more research, to turn up things we didn't have in the old linked topic. I have been raiding long dormant blogs.
Firstly, some 16th century ones on pike use - most of which were covered in the early talk
https://artmilitary.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/on-the-push-of-pike/
These do reflect on what contemporaries may have thought important in a pike fight - armour, for example.
These two were new to me and are well within the Society's period of interest. They do talk about pike length variation.
https://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-push-of-pikes-in-14th-century.html
https://deventerburgerscap.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-14th-century-pike-and-its.html
I thought this bit of tactical advice interesting
Gy menne, de nyn harnsch anne en hebben, gy solt achter uns beharnscheden gaen, und wyket nycht und schuwet uns und steket myt den peyken under de iseren hode.
"You men, who have no armour on you, you shall go behind our armoured (men) and will not move nor fear and you will stab with the pikes underneath the iron hats (in the faces of the enemy)."
Quote from: Erpingham on Jul 27, 2025, 11:17 AM"You men, who have no armour on you, you shall go behind our armoured (men) and will not move nor fear and you will stab with the pikes underneath the iron hats (in the faces of the enemy)."
That ties in with 17th century thinking where a helmet (preferably brimmed) was more important than a breastplate as it was thought difficult to stick a pike through reasonably thick clothing, especially something like a buff coat, but no-one likes a pointy stick in the face. So, wear a helmet, and keep your head bowed as much as possible.
There also seems to be a
supposed difference between the Swiss and Landsknechts late 15th/early 16th centuries, with one lot keeping their pikes low, aiming for lower stomach/groin, and the others aiming high, presumably chest and face. Again, one wonders how much this was observed in the heat of battle.
I've hunted out an article by J.F. Verbruggen Arms and the Art of War : The Ghentenaar and Brugeois Militia in 1477-79
A re-armament of 1477 resulted in the following pike purchases
Ghent : 300 13ft, 300 16ft including heads
Bruges : 200 14ft, 100 20ft
While there is no clear standardisation, there seems to be a short version and a long one. Unfortunately, other than saying all these were used at the same time, there is nothing on how they were used.
Out of period, but pike length famously played a part at Benburb (1646):
QuoteThe British officer whose account of O'Neill's speech as given in History of the Wars in Ireland has been quoted, attributes the defeat of the Scots primarily to over-confidence, and also to the fact that the soldiers were wearied by their long march from Lisburn, having had but little rest or refreshment on the way, and having had to stand to their arms for at least five hours. To these he adds another reason, the shortness of the Scottish pike. "The Irish pikes", he says, "were longer by a foot or two, and far better to pierce, being four square and small, and the other pikes broad-headed, which are the worst in the world."
https://electricscotland.com/history/ulster/vol3chap10.htm
I've had a look for sources of the long Italian pikes. It is difficult to pin down a contemporary source but the military innovator Vitellozzo Vitelli is said to have armed his men with pikes 70cm longer than landsknechts in 1497. He seems to have got the idea from service with the French. With these men, he defeated Borgia landsknechts at Soriano in January. The innovation is also attributed to Pietro Monte at the battle of Cadore (or Rio Secco) in March 1508. Monte apparently gave his men pikes 60cm longer than the opposing landsknechts. Again, the landsknechts lost.
Those were the two primary incidents that triggered my original question.
From what I can tell of the two battles, the longer pikes were noted but it isn't clear they were the sole contributor to victory. Certainly, at Cadore, the Habsburgs were under attack by cavalry, infantry and artillery on the flanks as well as engaged with Venetian pikes to the front.
Maybe the psychological effect of being told you have 'a longer weapon' than the previously feared enemy helped in making the pikemen more determined and sure of victory? (As inferred by previous posts...not a physical advantage, as such).
Just on the two length pike orders - would that indicate the formations operated in paired ranks with tips at the same point when levelled? Second rank covering the first when thrusting?
Looking again at Cadore, I went back to Pietro Monte's tactic for defeating Germans which started the older pike thread I referenced. This must have been written around the time of Cadore, as Monte was killed the following year, though whether after or before is impossible to ascertain. In the passage, Monte refers to having some men equipped with longer lances than the Germans. These were to be particularly useful if the German's adopted a defensive, close order stance with crossed pikes.