YourStepDad said:
I was saying that our depictions and ideas about formation fighting techniques and how formation combat played in general out are largely speculative. All the sources available are limited by their format; they are either written or painted. What I'm essentially saying is that there is a discrepancy between what is known of formation fighting and what actually happened.
I agree that there is still much to be unveiled, but I do not believe that it is "largely speculative".
Swarms of pictorial and written descriptions pretty much describe properly what happened.
They came at each other, with formations of various forms and spacing...and then butchered each other with melee weaponry.
How that happened was probably slightly different in every single battle that was fought, but the overall theme was usually the same.
YourStepDad said:
such as the unit spacing and how the engagements themselves proceeded. Were they quick? Were they slow? (According to what I know, they usually were)
Spacing differed even between different militias of nearby cities, it was far from uniform most of the time, but usually it was shoulder to shoulder.
For instance, this is an early 16th century source about soldier spacing;
Delbruck quotes from a document he dates to around 1522. He ascribes the authorship to Georg Frundsberg:
"For the foremost men, who are supposed to do the work, do not wish to be too closely pressed; they must be left room for freely jabbing, otherwise they would be pushed in as one pushes people into a ditch."
In other words don't have the back ranks push on the front ranks. Let the foremost men have room to fight. This fits well with what Montluc states how the Landsknechts fought.
However, the very fact that this has to be explicitly said implies that formations were usually quite thickly packed(probably a leftover of the medieval period).
In terms of fighting time, depends on the battle, most of the time would be forming up, reforming, marching to different positions, engaging/disengaging etc.
Some battles lasted under an hour while others lasted the entire day.
YourStepDad said:
though I've wondered about pushes of pike specifically. Just how much tactics and technique can even be applied in a scenario where two heavy blobs of men are closing in on each other with big, heavy pointy things. I cannot imagine the men can rely on many manouvers at all, as there is no space to move or free hands to deflect blows or dodge things. I would guess they relied on timing the pokes and relying on the same things from pikes of their comrades. That said, I think it was still a little more than a bloody pokefest, and it goes along with pushes of pike being described as such.
Push pike happened relatively often in the late 15th century and early 16th century but it became increasingly rare as time went on.
Usually, both sides would march in what was basically a game of chicken, hoping the other side would disrupt, waver and run.
If that did not happen, it would be a full frontal clash of pikes which was called "Dirty War" because of all the casualties that ensued.
It also depended on the skill of the pikemen, as they were very well trained, far from the slow formations we are used to being depicted.
On push pike;
The Commentaries of Sir Francis Vere (1606), chapter titled "Second Relieving of Rheinberg,";
"And so presently I can at
push of pike with them (the Spanish).
Where, at the first encounter, my horse being slain under me with a blow of a pike, and falling on me so as I could not suddenly rise, I lay as betwixt both troops till our men had made the enemy give back; receiving a hurt in my leg, and divers thrusts with pikes through my garments. It was very hard-fought on both sides, till our shot(gunners), spreading themselves along the skirt of the wood, as I had before directed, flanked and sore galled the enemy: so that they could no longer endure, but were forced to give back: which they did without any great disorder, in troop. And, as they were hard followed by our men,
they turned and made head manfully, which they did four several times till they broke."
As you can see, not only did both sides frontally engage each other above the Sir Francis(who somehow survived all that
), but they also remained in formation as they were flanked and were retreating.
Not only that, they reformed and re-wrecked into the pursuing pikes multiple times before routing.
Showing that renaissance melee infantry could be absolutely superbly trained and disciplined.
In fact, medieval and renaissance pikemen were even trained to
sprint into battle while
maintaining formation;
“As soon as you be within reach of the Canon you must go on directly upon the enemie (unlesse you be sheltered from his Artillerie) by this means your souldiers are encouraged, you avoid the danger of the enemies Canon, and you leave behind the place where your Armie stood ranged, which ground will serve to rally and order the Battaillons which shall happen to be routed. You must not give on so hastily, as that thereby the Battaillons be disordered; and on the other-side you are to use a marching pace untill you come within distance of a Pistoll-shot,
but then to double your pace and charge furiously, the Pikes being close ferried , and the muskets continually playing on the Flanks, having certain Targetteers in front which may shelter the Battaillon and disorder the enemies Pikes.” John Cruso The Art of Warre, 1639
"I began to cry out aloud: 'Gentlemen, it may be there are not many here who have ever been in a battle before, and therefore let me tell you that if we take our pikes by the hinder end and fight at the length of the pike, we shall be defeated; for the Germans are more dexterous at this kind of fight than we are. But you must take your pikes by the middle as the Swiss do and
run headlong in force and penetrate into the midst of them, and you shall see how confounded they will be." - Blaise de Monluc
There are swarms of other sources, and I assure you, anyone who manages to study the subject enough, gets quite an accurate image of what happened.
YourStepDad said:
In a nutshell, nobody has ever participated in a formation who lives to this day
True, but nobody from the 19th century wars is alive either, yet we have nearly a complete picture of how they fought simply because there is so much written about it.
I believe that textual descriptions, images along with a little imagination is more than enough to get at least a relatively accurate image of whatever historical subject is in question.
) entire rules of engagement would change, surely.
