Pike length - just how important tactically?

[DBS]

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.

[DBS]

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...)

[Erpingham]

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.

[DBS]

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...

[Imperial Dave]

And it depends on the situation

Pike vs pike only?

[DBS]

Pike vs pike only?

That is the specific context of the Italian Wars claims.

[Imperial Dave]

Oof...depends

Training
Morale
Terrain

Etc etc ad nauseum

If all.things being equal possibly the longer reach helps in the first contact....

[Erpingham]

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

[Imperial Dave]

Well remembered

[RichT]

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. 

[Keraunos]

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

Thank you for that link.  I enjoyed particularly Maurice of Orange's idea of "flippent targets"

[Martin Smith]

Just for fun, may I introduce the term 'Macedonian Cubit' ?? (Light blue touch paper, and retire............😁).

[skb777]

I would have thought the weight of numbers to be more of a factor than the pointy end.

[Erpingham]

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)."

[DBS]

"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.