mid 17thC Battles, what actually happened?

[telemachus]

Bit of a lay person's question. I am relatively ignorant of anything pre SYW and would like to know broadly how infantry battles were actually fought at the tactical level pre-1650.

I understand the overall organisation and tactical principles of mixed formations but with decreasing pikes v increasing muskets if you are composed of (say) 40% pikes and 60% muskets what happens when 2 bodies of infantry troops close with each other? I assume in theory the flanking muskets withdraw behind the pikes but there must have been numerous instances (or were there?) of troops with musket fighting in melee with other musket armed troops.

This was when bayonets were beginning to come into use but otherwise would troops use their muskets as a club or resort to blades?

Were Pikemen over represented in casualties as they would be at the same risk of gunfire as the musketeers but at increased risk from melee?

That's more than 1 question  but any guidance would be appreciated.

[Hobbit]

I suspect that is a bit of a "can of worms" sort of question. As far as I'm aware there aren't very many accounts of the detail of  infantry vs infantry combat of the period. Caliver Books have a little pamphlet called "The Mechanics of Infantry Combat in the ECW" but even that is a little vague. https://www.caliverbooks.com/bookview.php?67u0gqf7a0v6gv7cl7lp117dk2&id=2853

Please excuse my lack of detail as I'm working from memory here. For the ECW there's an account from the (then) Duke of York at Edgehill of very unenthusiastic pike fighting one another. On other occasions musketeers are described as using their muskets like clubs (and being the owner of a repro c17th musket I can assure you it would make a vicious weapon); I think it is 1620-ish French troops who complained that the English were barbaric for fighting in such a manner as musket blows shattered bones. Swords were supposed to be part of the musketeers' equipment but I suspect they often weren't issued if supplies were short.

I'm not aware of any detailed casualty returns that would answer your question about disproportionate casualties falling on the pikemen.

All a bit vague on my part but I hope that is of some help.

[Hunter776]

I fully agree with Hobbit about the coyness of some of the sources, presumably because they were describing something that the presumed readers would already know about.

I would also recall for OP that in the ECW, there were a few all pike units, which were pretty well thought of, so push of pike may have been on life support, but it certainly was not dead yet. It's probably safe to say that in infantry vs. infantry meetings, the majority of the time they stood off from each other and shot it out, but from time to time, for various tactical reasons, they would come together.

Pike lingered because of the protection they gave against cavalry until bayonets that did not interfere (much) with firing came to predominate. Commanders began to see pikeman as wasted manpower.

I mentioned in another thread recently that here in Maryland, we had our own pike battle during the ECW when the Catholic and Protestant factions were fighting it out for control of the Maryland legislature. The pike combat occurred at a bridge across a creek in Annapolis, our state capital. There is a yearly tug of war over that bridge's replacement to commemorate the incident.

[Sparrow]

Hi - as you've guessed this is a huge subject. It's important to remember that what happened in the 3O Years War would have been quite different to what may have been experienced in the ECW. Even in the ECW there can be big differences between, say, the South West and, say, mid England (and don't even mention Scotland!).

A few books I'd recommend

Pike and Shot Tactics by Keith Roberts (Osprey Elite series) - Keith is a very knowledgable and experienced ECW historian and was one of the pioneers of the new wave of ECW Historians in the 1980's. I've even seen it on Kindle!

The Soldier's Life in the English Civil War by Stuart Peachey (Caliver Books although Empress Miniatures have a supply) - this includes an updated version of the pamphlet book Hobbit refers to above. Be aware, Stuart holds strong opinions so question what you read. I find him really thought provoking.

As a general "feel" for the ECW try "All the King's Armies" by Stuart Reid (his pamphlet book "Gunpowder Triumphant" is interesting but also still very controversial!). Be warned, Mr Reid has a very strong pro Scots bias!

We all have opinions and can argue about details - the truth is, none of us really know. One quick tip - if you see any ECW rules that typically encourage pike blocks 4 modeis deep and shot 2 models deep the writers don't know much about mid C 17th. Look at contemporary pictures/woodcuts and you'll see musket blocks as deep as pike blocks. (Look, also, at the drill books and the accounts of tactics in the field.)

Think also of logistics- limited ammo and powder supply, powder quality etc. It's complicated!  

Hope this all helps - enjoy doing your own research and forming your own opinions. ! It's great fun when you get into it!

Regards

Ian

PS Caliver books do a really good reading list if getting into ECW - it's a great starting place.

[Sparrow]

Sudden thought (if I haven't already bored you rigid!)  - try also "Edgehill 1642, The Kineton Fight' - a really good drilled down account of a single (and quite unique) battle. It has a good breakdown of the tactics used on the day, frontages etc.

Also Glenn Foord's book on Naseby that pulls on a lot of archeological evidence. It also gives a nice feel of armies on campaign.

The new Helion series is also well worth a good look. They're a mixed bag (in my opinion) with some weaker contributions but there are some really nice nuggets there well worth investing in.

(Interesting question - has there been any archeological evidence found of C17th casualties caused by pikes?)  

[telemachus]

Many thanks guys.

Looks like evidence is as ambiguous as its looks like on first glance.... Will pick up a couple of books and read a little more.