{"id":76451,"date":"2025-06-11T01:00:06","date_gmt":"2025-06-11T05:00:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=76451"},"modified":"2025-06-10T13:55:39","modified_gmt":"2025-06-10T17:55:39","slug":"qotd-pike-and-shot-in-the-early-gunpowder-era","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2025\/06\/11\/qotd-pike-and-shot-in-the-early-gunpowder-era\/","title":{"rendered":"QotD: “Pike and Shot” in the early gunpowder era"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>… this is why the pike[-armed infantry] fought in squares<\/em>: it was assumed the cavalry was mobile enough to strike a group of pikemen from any direction and to whirl around in the empty spaces between<\/em> pike formations, so a given pike square had to be able to face its weapons out in any direction or, indeed, all directions at once.<\/p>\n

Instead, pike and shot were combined into a single unit. The “standard” form of this was the tercio<\/em><\/a>, the Spanish organizational form of pike and shot and one which was imitated by many others. In the early 16th century, the standard organization of a tercio<\/em> \u2013 at least notionally, as these units were almost never at full strength \u2013 was 2,400 pikemen and 600 arquebusiers. In battle, the tercio<\/em> itself was the maneuver unit, moving as a single formation (albeit with changing shape); they were often deployed in threes (thus the name “tercio<\/em>” meaning “a third”) with two positioned forward and the third behind and between, allowing them to support each other. The normal arrangement for a tercio<\/em> was a “bastioned square” with a “sleeve of shot”: the pikes formed a square at the center, which was surrounded by a thin “sleeve” of muskets, then at each corner of the sleeve there was an additional, smaller square of shot. Placing those secondary squares (the “bastions” \u2013 named after the fortification element<\/a>) on the corner allowed each one a wide potential range of fire and would mean that any enemy approaching the square would be under fire at minimum from one side of the sleeve and two of the bastions.<\/p>\n

That said, if drilled properly, the formation could respond dynamically to changing conditions. Shot might be thrown forward to provide volley-fire if there was no imminent threat of an enemy advance, or it might be moved back to shelter behind the square if there was. If cavalry approached, the square might be hollowed and the shot brought inside to protect it from being overrun by cavalry. In the 1600s, against other pike-and-shot formations, it became more common to arrange the formation linearly, with the pike square in the center with a thin sleeve of shot while most of the shot was deployed in two large blocks to its right and left, firing in “countermarch” (each man firing and moving to the rear to reload) in order to bring the full potential firepower of the formation to bear.<\/p>\n

Indeed it is worth expanding on that point: volley fire. The great limitation for firearms (and to a lesser extent crossbows) was the combination of frontage and reloading time: the limited frontage of a unit restricted how many men could shoot at once (but too wide a unit was vulnerable and hard to control) and long reload times meant long gaps between shots. The solution was synchronized volley fire allowing part of a unit to be reloading while another part fired. In China, this seems to have been first used with crossbows, but in Europe it really only catches on with muskets \u2013 we see early experiments with volley fire in the late 1500s, with the version that “catches on” being proposed by William Louis of Nassau-Dillenburg (1560-1620) to Maurice of Nassau (1567-1625) in 1594; the “countermarch” as it came to be known ends up associated with Maurice. Initially, the formation was six ranks deep but as reloading speed and drill improved, it could be made thinner without a break in firing, eventually leading to 18th century fire-by-rank drills with three ranks (though by this time these were opposed by drills where the first three ranks \u2013 the front kneeling, the back slightly offset \u2013 would all fire at once but with different sections<\/em> of the line firing at different times (“fire-by-platoon”)).<\/p>\n

Coming back to Total War<\/em>, the irony is that while the basic components of pike-and-shot warfare exist in both Empire: Total War<\/em> and for the Empire faction in Total War: Warhammer<\/em>, in both games it isn’t really possible to actually do<\/em> pike-and-shot warfare. Even if an army combines pikes and muskets, the unit sizes make the kind of fine maneuvers required of a pike-and-shot formation impossible and while it is possible to have missile units automatically retreat from contact, it is not possible to have them pointedly retreat into<\/em> a pike unit (even though in Empire<\/em>, it was possible to form hollow squares, a formation developed for this very purpose).<\/p>\n

Indeed if anything the Total War<\/em> series has been moving away from the gameplay elements which would be necessary to make representing this kind of synchronized discipline and careful formation fighting possible. While earlier Total War<\/em> games experimented with synchronized discipline in the form of volley-fire drills (e.g. fire by rank), that feature was essentially abandoned after Total War: Shogun 2<\/em>‘s Fall of the Samurai<\/em> DLC in 2012. Instead of firing by rank, musket units in Total War: Warhammer<\/em> are just permitted to fire through<\/em> other members of their unit to allow all of the soldiers in a formation \u2013 regardless of depth or width \u2013 to fire (they cannot fire through other<\/em> friendly units, however). That’s actually a striking and frustrating simplification: volley fire drills and indeed everything about subsequent linear firearm warfare was focused on efficient ways to allow more men to be actively firing at once; that complexity is simply abandoned in the current generation of Total War<\/em> games.<\/p>\n

Bret Devereaux, “Collection: Total War<\/em>‘s Missing Infantry-Type”, A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry<\/em><\/a>, 2022-04-01.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

… this is why the pike[-armed infantry] fought in squares: it was assumed the cavalry was mobile enough to strike a group of pikemen from any direction and to whirl around in the empty spaces between pike formations, so a given pike square had to be able to face its weapons out in any direction […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":35193,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[62,14,7,5,41,663],"tags":[31,1299,1457,1102,49,1103],"class_list":["post-76451","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-europe","category-gaming","category-history","category-military","category-quotations","category-weapons","tag-army","tag-bladedweapons","tag-bretdevereaux","tag-cavalry","tag-guns","tag-infantry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/favicon.png","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-jT5","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76451","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76451"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76451\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":96043,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76451\/revisions\/96043"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/35193"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76451"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76451"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76451"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}