The spear’s endearing simplicity has seen it adopted by virtually all cultures and societies across the globe. Indeed, the history of the spear is [almost] as old as that of homo sapiens where it has been used as a tool for hunting and/or fishing. Along with the club, knife, and axe, it is one of the earliest and most widespread tools ever developed by early humans. Even after the invention of other hunting weapons such as the bow and sling, the spear continued to be used, either gripped in the hand or thrown as a missile. Throughout human history spears have also seen widespread use as weapons. Wielded with either one or two hands, they have seen action in nearly every conflict up to the modern era where, even now, the spear’s descendent is the bayonet fixed to the muzzle of military rifles.
Origins
The
Clacton Spear, or Clacton Spear Point and the
Schöningen spears found in present-day England and Germany respectively are evidence that wooden spears have been used for hunting since at least 400,000 years ago. All that survives of the former, currently housed in the Natural History Museum in London, is the wooden tip which was discovered in Clacton-on-Sea in 1911. It is the oldest known worked wooden implement dated to 420,000 years ago. Named for where they were found, the Schöningen spears are a set of ten wooden weapons from the
Palaeolithic Age that were recovered between 1994 and 1999 from an open-cast lignite mine. They were found together with animal bones and stone and bone tools. Most of the spears were crafted from the trunks of slow-growing spruce trees, except for spear IV which is made from pine. The complete spears vary in length from 1.84 to 2.53 m (6.04 to 8.30 ft), with diameters ranging from 29 to 47 mm (1.14 to 1.85 in). The wood was debarked and tapered to make a point at each end, the exception is Spear VI which does not appear to taper at the back. The evidence of tapering suggests that the Schöningen spears (except Spear VI) may have been designed to be thrown much like a modern javelin. Experimental research has shown that experienced athletes are capable of throwing replicas of Spear II a distance of at least 15 to 20 m (49 to 66 ft). The exception is Spear VI which has a natural kink and does not taper at the back and, thus, is interpreted as a thrusting spear. Although thought to be javelins, the Spear II replicas have also been experimentally tested as thrusting spears demonstrating that these early wooden spears were probably used for both thrusting and throwing.
Hunting
The adoption of the Clacton and Schöningen spears not only would have provided a degree of personal protection for the wielder but also the opportunity to hunt larger animals for food. One of the dangers for hunters, however, is getting close enough to kill their intended prey without becoming a casualty themselves. There is evidence in the archaeological record that early humans preyed on large ungulates such as mammoths where, given the size and strength differential between human and mammoth, the risk of being trampled or gored by the animal’s tusks would have made hunting a risky business. Thus, the first spears were probably devised so that early humans could mitigate the risk of being injured by their prey by increasing, albeit slightly, the safe distance.
Hunting wild boar, for example, has always been a potentially dangerous business for those armed with anything other than firearms. Boar, especially in the defence of their piglets, can be particularly aggressive greatly increasing the risk of injury to the hunter. Consequently, boar spears often have two “lugs” or “wings” fitted to the spear socket below the blade (as pictured) intended to prevent the spear from penetrating too deeply into the quarry where it might get stuck or break. Moreover, the lugs are also intended to stop an injured and furious boar from working its way up the shaft of the spear to attack the hunter. On the early Mediæval battlefield the winged spear was originally a Frankish weapon, but it was also popular with the Norse (or “Viking”) warriors. It would become the ancestor of later polearms, such as the partisan and spontoon.
Simple design Whether for hunting or fighting, spears can be divided into two broad categories: those designed for thrusting as a melee weapon and those designed for throwing as a ranged weapon, the latter usually being called darts or javelins. In both cases the advantage gained is to keep your opponent or prey at a safer distance. To confuse matters slightly, however, the Roman pilum (pl. pila), a well-known example of a javelin, could be used as a thrusting weapon in hand-to-hand combat just as the archetypal Roman spear (Latin: hasta) could be thrown at an opponent. Regardless, within this simple classification, there was a remarkable range of spear types; far too many to detail them all. So, for the sake of brevity, spears are polearms with a relatively simple design comprising a haft or shaft, usually of wood, that terminates with a pointed head and sometimes a butt-spike or ferrule at the other end. As stated, there are far too many variants of bladed polearms to warrant an in-depth discussion. Even so, the typical spear’s principal components are:
- Haft Ideally the haft of a spear is straight to facilitate more accurate thrusts or throws. While there are historical examples of all metal spears, such as the Iberian Soliferrum [1], the vast majority of spear hafts were made of wood, preferably with the grain running the length of a haft without lateral faults. Cornel and Ash were favoured wherever and whenever available because the close grain provides strength especially in compression when striking a target. Handgrips on spears were largely unnecessary and thus rare. Indeed, when fighting with a spear, it is advantageous to be able to slide the haft through the hands to strike an opponent with the spearhead or recover the spear to the guard position.
- Spearhead In its simplest form the spearhead was the sharpened end of the haft itself. Such spears might be fire-hardened to remove moisture from the wood by being charred over or directly in a fire or a bed of coals. The resulting change to the wood’s structure and material properties makes the point more durable and efficient as a tool or weapon. The fire-hardening process was first developed by early hominids at least 400,000 years ago, long before either flint or stone points were made. It may be done before, during, or after the fashioning of the wooden tip, but the process can make the wood brittle. Nevertheless, it substantially reduces the time needed to make a hardened spearpoint.
Before long, fire-hardening was superseded by attaching a separate point to the haft, most likely of sharpened animal bone or antler. Multiple prongs, with or without barbs, made useful fishing spears or harpoons. From circa 200,000 BC onwards, however, Middle Palaeolithic humans began to make complex stone blades with flaked edges, typically of flint but also obsidian. These blades could be fixed to the spear haft by gum or resin or by bindings made of animal sinew, leather strips or vegetable matter.
The advent of metallurgy meant stone and bone tips were gradually replaced first by copper and then cast bronze blades. In turn, these spearheads were supplanted by the harder wearing, hammer forged iron, and eventually steel, blades. The most common design for hunting and/or warfare, since ancient times has incorporated a spearhead shaped like a triangle, diamond, or leaf. Most medieval spearheads were generally leaf-shaped, although a notable exception was the early medieval angon, a throwing spear with a long head like the Roman pilum, used by the Franks and Anglo-Saxons.
- Butt-spike Many spear designs incorporated “butt-spikes” or “ferrules”; simple cone-shaped additions to the rear end of the haft, which may have had several uses:
- Firstly, the butt-spike could be planted in the earth when not in use so that the spear could be easily retrieved its user. Doing so meant the spearhead need not be thrust into the ground avoiding its edge being blunted or damaged and reducing the likelihood of a ferrous metal blade rusting.
- A spearman could wield the butt-spike in a melee alternating attacks between it and the spearhead as necessary.
- Likewise, should the haft break near the spearhead or the blade is damaged, then the spike is a useful back-up.
- In a block of spearmen only the first few ranks could project their spearpoints to threaten an enemy. To protect the formation from, say, arrows, those men in subsequent ranks are often shown porting their spears forward at an angle creating a hedge of spears above the heads of their fellow spearmen. This carrying position also allows spears to be easily and quickly lowered to the attack as necessary. Moreover, as the formation advances, the spearmen would have to step over or around any fallen opponents. Those in the subsequent ranks, it is surmised, were in an ideal position should they wish to use their butt-spikes to despatch fallen enemies.
- Most significantly, a weighty butt-spike would act as a counterweight allowing a longer spear to be employed; a topic to be covered shortly.
The long and the short The main functional variation in spears is their overall length which, coincidentally, is also their main advantage over other weapons. To be useful in battle, a spear must be long enough to keep sword, axe and mace-users at bay. Were a spear to be as short as a sword, then one should favour the latter since the swords ability to cut and thrust makes them, in trained hands, more versatile in a fight. Precisely how long a spear might be is not always so easy to determine. Evidence can be obtained by comparing the length of spears depicted in artworks with the assumed average size of the men carrying them. Yet the reliability of images is questionable since the spears may be shortened so a statue can fit within a building’s pediment. The length of a spear carved on a relief may be reduced to fit the available space in a given frieze. Similarly, the painted band of decoration encircling a vase or the available space on another painted ceramic object may dictate length. Several archaeological examples have been recovered from graves or comparable excavations, but even then the evidence for spear length may prove inconclusive. The organic material - the wood of the spear haft - does not always preserve well whereas the metal components may survive. Yet, the measured distance between the surviving spearhead and any butt-spike can only ever be a guide and not proof of the spear’s original length. It is always possible that a long spear was broken to fit in the grave as it seems unlikely anyone would expend time and energy digging a grave long enough to facilitate the deposition of a 3 m long spear alongside the interned no matter how high status the person may have been in life. Far easier and simpler to break the spear in two. Indeed, there is archaeological evidence for breaking or rendering weapons unusable. This may mean such weapons were made worthless to anyone other than the deceased or, in a more ritualistic sense, may have been meant to break the weapon’s perceived “power”.
From the pictorial, written, and archaeological evidence the overall length of most spears it seems averages at about the height of the spearman, or perhaps just slightly longer. This is significant because in the ancient world most combatants carried a shield for self- and collective defence. It stands to reason that if one side is being showered with arrows or sling-stones by its opponents, then anyone without a shield is very vulnerable. Thus shields were adopted by ancient armies across most cultures (especially those in the ancient Mediterranean world) such that it became the norm for spearmen to enter battle carrying a protective shield in one hand and a spear in the other. Consequently, wielding a spear one-handed limited its practical length. From practical experience, and with training, it is feasible to wield a 2.4 m (8 ft) long spear in one hand to make accurate, powerful thrusts and to parry an opponent’s attacks. Any longer and the weapon becomes far too unwieldy, even for strongest spearmen, and necessitates using a two-handed grip. Interestingly, this does seem to accord with contemporary historical accounts and supported by, albeit limited, archaeological findings. For example, Greek hoplites of the Classical period (5th- and 4th-centuries BC) seem to have favoured 2.4 m to 2.5 m (around 8 ft) long spears, which the Greek historian and geographer Herodotus insists were longer than those of the Persians (see
above right).
Ancient Greeks
The use of both a single thrusting spear and two throwing spears are mentioned as the preferred weapons of the warriors in Homer's Iliad [2]. Written, it is thought, in the late 8th-century BC, this epic poem suggest two styles of combat were evident. The earlier style, dating to the Mycenaean period (approximately 1750 BC to 1050 BC) in which the Iliad is set, favoured thrusting spears in contrast to throwing spears of a later style which, anachronistically, appears to be from Homer's own Archaic period (c. 800 BC to 480 BC).
Sometime in the 8th- or 7th-century BC, a large, circular, bronze-faced shield (
aspis) was introduced by the city of Argos. Widely adopted across the Greek speaking world (Greek:
Hellas), the
aspis made possible the introduction of a new close-order infantry formation, the
phalanx (pl.:
phalanxes or
phalanges). Evidence of this innovation is provided by the Chigi vase, dated to c. 650 BC, represents hoplites armed with aspis, spear, javelins, and other aspects of their panoply. The hoplite phalanx dominated warfare among the Greek City States from the 7th- into the 4th-century BC. Hoplites during this period equipped themselves with an
aspis and a 2.1 m to 2.7 m (7–9 ft) spear (
doru or
dory) with an iron head (
aichme) and bronze butt-spike (
sauroter).
Sarissae
The 4th-century BC saw major changes in Greek warfare with a greater reliance on light infantry called peltasts (Greek: πελταστής, peltastes) armed with spear and javelins, and the development of the sarissa (Koine Greek: σάρισσα, pl. sarissae), a long spear or pike about 5 m to 7 m (16 to 23 ft) in length [3]. Introduced by Philip II of Macedon, sarrissae equipped his Macedonian “phalangites” and replaced the earlier, considerably shorter hoplite dory. These longer spears improved the strength of the phalanx by extending the rows of overlapping weapons projecting towards the enemy which, in turn, kept the latter at a greater distance. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, the sarissa was a mainstay during the Hellenistic era (4th– to 1st-centuries BC) by the Hellenistic armies of the successor states of Alexander's empire, as well as some of their rivals.
The great length of the
sarissa was balanced by a counterweight at the rear end, which also functioned as a butt-spike, allowing it to be planted in the ground. However, the sheer length and weight of the weapon meant phalangites, already less heavily armoured than their hoplite forebears, had to wield it with both hands. This meant they could only carry a smaller shield, with an overall diameter of perhaps around 600 mm (24 in) in Alexander's era, for self-defence. The phalangite bore his “
pelta” by passing his left arm through integral straps within the bowl-shaped shield. The
pelta probably retained handling straps to be gripped like a (smaller) aspis if the fight progressed to sword-wielding. As both hands were needed to control the
sarissa, a neck strap may have been used to help support the shield and protect the left shoulder. However, this dictated that the
sarissa had to be held underhand so the shield would not obscure the phalangite's vision as it would if held overhead.
While marching and manoeuvring,
sarissae were held vertically. Once they were levelled ready for battle, the phalanx could advance straight forward, initially in a more open formation to aid movement. As phalanx closed on the enemy, however, the spacing between its files would be reduced into a close formation or even a compact formation (
synaspismos). This tightened formation created a “wall of spearpoints” with the
sarissae of the first three to five ranks able to be brought to bear on the enemy. Should an opponent get past the first row, there were still four more to stop them. As for the earlier hoplite phalanx, the back rows bore their
sarissae angled upwards and forwards in readiness which, as previously mentioned, also served the additional purpose of deflecting incoming arrows.
The steadily advancing Macedonian phalanx was considered practically invulnerable from the front, but it did have its weaknesses. Uneven ground, natural or manmade obstacles such as streams, rivers, ditches, trees or hedgerows could break up the formation’s cohesion exposing the phalangites to counterattack. Indeed, the best way to defeat the Macedonian phalanx was generally by one of a loss of morale from killing the enemy commander, breaking its formation, or outflanking it since turning the phalanx to face a new threat required comprehensive training and discipline. For example, during the Battle of Cynoscephalae (197 BC) when an unnamed Roman tribune realised his force was positioned at the exposed rear of the disorganised Macedonian right wing detached 20 maniples of Roman infantry (approximately 2,500 men) and sent them into the rear of the phalanx. Being quickly cut down due to the inflexibility of the formation, the Macedonian phalanx disintegrated. Some were simply killed where they stood, others pointed their sarissae directly upwards in a sign of surrender that the Romans either ignored or failed to understand. The slaughter continued until stopped by the intervention of the Roman commander, Titus Quinctius Flamininus. It is generally perceived that this defeat, and that experienced in the later Battle of Pydna (168 BC), demonstrated the superiority of the Roman manipular legion [4] over the Antigonid Macedonian phalanx. The phalanx, though very powerful head on, was not as flexible as the Roman Republican-era manipular formation and thus unable to adapt to changing conditions on the battlefield or break away from an engagement if necessary.
Ancient Romans
The sarissae-armed phalanx, supported by peltasts (light infantry) and cavalry, had been the dominant mode of warfare among the Greeks from the late 4th-century BC onward until Greek military systems were supplanted by the Roman manipular legions. A Roman legion of this period was organised into four lines divided by experience with the younger soldiers at the front and the older soldiers further back. From front to rear these were the velites, the hastatii, the principes, and the triarii. According to Polybius, the most complete and likely the most accurate account, the legion consisted of 10 maniples of 120 hastatii, 10 maniples of 120 principes, and 10 half strength maniples of triarii containing 60 men each. Together with 1,200 velites and 300 cavalrymen, a legion numbered 4,500 men, although in times of great need this might be reinforced up to 5,000.
In the opening stages of a battle the velites would deploy in front of the legion to screen the army's size and its formation from enemy eyes. The second and third echelons (hastatii and principes respectively) generally formed up with a one maniple space between each maniple and its neighbours. When battle was joined, the velites would engage the enemy with javelins to disrupt the latter’s formation but if pressed the velites would retire behind the remainder of the army through the spaces left between the maniples without disrupting the army’s cohesion. The withdrawal of the velites allowed the first lines of heavy infantry formed by the hastatii, the younger and least experienced soldiers, to engage the enemy. Where resistance proved too strong the hastatii would also withdraw through the lines of principes thereby presenting the enemy with fresh, more experienced Roman legionaries. If necessary, the principes could yield to the battle hardened triarii, the veteran soldiers with the most experience. At this point in battle, the maniple greatly resembled the phalanx.
Apart from allowing rotation of troops, the gaps between the manipular system also proved invaluable against enemy phalanxes providing the Romans with a major tactical advantage against their Greek foes. As we have seen, to maintain its hedge of spears the phalanx required rigid battle lines that could not easily break into smaller units. Gaps in the maniples thus lured hoplites in and disrupted their formation after which they became disorganized, surrounded, and easy prey for Roman swords. Having discharged their pila (Latin: sing. pilum), the heavy javelins specifically designed to be thrown at an enemy to pierce and foul the target's shield, both hastatii and principes resorted to their primary weapons of a short cut-and-thrust sword (Latin: gladius; pl. gladii) and large oval shield (Latin: scutum; pl. scuta). As the focus is on spears it is worth noting that the principes were originally armed with a short spear called a hasta (Latin: pl. hastae), but these gradually fell out of use, eventually being replaced by the pilum. The triarii, however, continued to use the hasta very reminiscent of the hoplite dory.
From the late 2nd-century BC, all legionaries were equipped with the pilum, which continued to be the standard legionary polearm until the end of the 2nd-century AD. By contrast, men in the Auxiliary cohorts seemingly favoured the hasta although the use of javelins or darts was entirely possible. During the 3rd-century AD, although the pilum continued in use, legionaries were equipped with other forms of throwing weapons such as short javelins (verruta or lanceae) or darts known as plumbatae. Thrusting spears similar to those of the auxilia of the previous century became more prevalent to counter the threat posed by invaders who possessed a developed culture of cavalry warfare. By the 4th-century, the pilum had effectively disappeared from common use.
Early Mediæval continuation
Even after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire nearly all Western European cultures continued to arm their warriors with spear and shield. During the Early Mediæval period (c. AD 476 to c. AD 1000) spears were far more common than swords and axes principally because they needed less smithing skill than a sword and were cheaper to manufacture; most of the spear-tip was wrought iron with only a small amount of hardened steel needed to retain sharpened edges. Although often portrayed with an axe or a sword in hand, most Viking warriors were armed with spears, as were their Anglo-Saxon, Irish or continental contemporaries.
After 1066, the Normans and their successors spurred a resurgence in mounted warfare. The spears used by cavalry, however, remained comparable with the contemporary infantry spears, the latter largely unchanged from earlier weapons as previously described. The panel from the Bayeux Tapestry
pictured illustrates the similarities with infantry and cavalry spears at the Battle of Hastings (AD 1066). The spears wielded by the Normans during the battle appear to have an average length within the range of 1.8 m to 2.4 m (6 ft to 8 ft). As
shown, they are also depicted on the Bayeaux Tapestry being held overhead in one hand presumably to strike at opponents protected by a shield-wall. In the 12th-century, after the
adoption of stirrups and a high-cantle saddle, the spear lengthened once more to become a decidedly more powerful weapon - the lance. A mounted knight would couch his lance by holding it with one hand and tucking it under the armpit. When combined with a lance rest, all the momentum of the horse and rider could be focused on the weapon's tip while still retaining control and accuracy. Training to use the lance effectively was perfected in the Mediæval sport of jousting.
Revival
Tactical developments in the 14th-century meant knights and men-at-arms more often fought on foot. Consequently, the cavalry lance was shortened to around 1.5 m (5 ft) to make it more manageable in hand-to-hand combat until, that is, specialist polearms were adopted. At about the same time an evolution in metal-working techniques facilitated the manufacture of larger plates of armour that could be shaped to encompass and better protect the body. To counter improved defences, weapons such as poleaxes or halberds that combined the thrusting properties of the spear with the cutting properties of the axe were adopted. Where spears were retained, they again grew in length evolving into “pikes”, the descendent of the ancient Macedonian
sarissae. During the Wars of Scottish Independence in the late 13th- and early 14th-centuries, for example, the dominance of lance-armed English cavalry meant foot soldiers were increasingly vulnerable to massed cavalry charges. The lowland Scots revived a spear formation, most famously at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, that they called a “schiltron”. The first specific mention of this formation, however, appears to be at the
Battle of Falkirk in 1298 where William Wallace's army employed circular schiltrons. Essentially a static, wholly defensive formation, at Falkirk the shiltron was fortified by driving stakes into the ground before the men, with ropes between. The British military historian
Sir Charles William Chadwick Oman describes the formation thus:
“The front ranks knelt with their spear butts fixed in the earth; the rear ranks levelled their lances over their comrades heads; the thick-set grove of twelve foot spears was far too dense for the cavalry to penetrate.”
Wallace’s circular shiltron was essentially immune to attacks by mounted men-at-arms providing they obligingly threw themselves at the spear wall and, critically, the foot soldiers remained steady when facing a formidable and terrifying cavalry charge. Closely packed pike formations were especially vulnerable to enemy archers and crossbowmen, however. At Falkirk the English and Welsh archers, crossbowmen and slingers began raining projectiles with impunity on the inexperienced and poorly armoured Scottish spearmen. With no defences and nowhere to hide, the schiltrons were an easy target. Pinned in place by the English cavalry and infantry, unable to retreat or attack, the battle was lost for the Scots almost as soon as the first arrows began to strike. Observant to King Edward I's command, the English army simply waited until the Scottish ranks were sufficiently weakened and disordered. The English then attacked the wavering Scottish spearmen, and the schiltrons broke and scattered. Unfortunately for Wallace, the first recorded use of the schiltron by a Scottish army had failed in the face of a combination of English and Welsh longbowmen, and English cavalry.
In response to this crushing defeat, Robert the Bruce’s new tactic at the
Battle of Bannockburn (1314) was to employ rectilinear formations which, unlike the circular schiltron, were capable of both defensive and offensive action. Although it required the Scots to be highly disciplined, the Bruce had drilled his troops in the offensive use of the pike. Moreover, he was able to select ground to his army’s advantage. Robert chose a flat field flanked by woodland known as New Park for his camp south of Stirling Castle but overlooking a stream known as the Bannock Burn. The trees offered protection to his foot soldiers from the English, especially their cavalry. Bannockburn was unusual in that it lasted two days whereas most Medieval battles were short-lived, lasting only a few hours. The first day had been proved inconclusive but overnight the English crossed the Bannock Burn establishing their position on the plain beyond it. Not long after daybreak on the second day, the English king Edward II was surprised to see the Scottish pikemen advancing from the cover of the New Park woods towards his position. The English were gradually pushed back and ground down by the Scots' schiltrons. Unlike at Falkirk the English longbowmen were unable to effectively engage the advancing Scots or support their own knights for fear of friendly fire. When the English and Welsh longbowmen attempted to flank the advancing Scots, they were repelled by the Scottish cavalry. Hemmed in by the Bannock Burn, the English cavalry could not manoeuvre and, unable to hold their formations, they broke. It quickly became clear that the English had lost the battle. Edward fled with his personal bodyguard and panic spread among the remaining troops, turning the defeat into a murderous rout. From the carnage of Bannockburn, the rest of the army tried to escape to the safety of the English border, 90 miles (140 km) south. Many were killed by the pursuing Scottish army or by the inhabitants of the countryside they passed through.
Defence or offence?
Mediæval pike formations seemingly had better success when employed in an aggressive manner. Yet, this required considerable tactical cohesiveness or suitable terrain to protect the formation’s vulnerable flanks, especially from attacks by mounted men-at-arms. At the Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297) the Scots exploited the terrain and the momentum of an aggressive charge to overrun an English army while the latter were crossing a narrow bridge. A year later the unwieldy nature of the long pike probably encouraged William Wallace to adopt a more deliberate, defensive use. The Scots learned the lessons of both Falkirk and Stirling Bridge and Robert the Bruce’s employment of better-trained troops capable of using the pike in an aggressive attack arguably won the day at Bannockburn. The schiltrons had proved their offensive worth.
As the Macedonian phalanx had proved centuries before, as long as it kept good order, a pike formation could roll right over enemy infantry. Even so, it did have weaknesses. Over uneven ground or in the face of determined resistance, formations could become disordered leading to a confused melee for which pikemen were often ill-equipped and disadvantaged. Moreover, the men in a phalanx or pike block all advanced facing in a single direction. They had difficulty turning quickly or easily to protect the formation’s vulnerable flanks or its rear. Consequently, pike formations sought to have supporting troops who could protect their flanks or would manoeuvre to counter an enemy’s outflanking attempt.
Pike and shot
The development of both the long, two-handed pike and gunpowder firearms in Renaissance Europe saw an ever-increasing focus on integrated infantry tactics. In the aftermath of the Italian Wars, from the late 15th-century to the late 16th-century, most European armies had adopted the use of the pike, often in conjunction with primitive firearms such as the arquebus and caliver, to form large pike and shot formations.
The quintessential example of this development was the Spanish tercio, which consisted of a large square of pikemen, as well as traditional men-at-arms and small, mobile squadrons of arquebusiers moving along its perimeter. These three elements formed a mutually supportive combination of tactical roles: the arquebusiers harried the enemy line, the pikemen protected the arquebusiers from enemy cavalry charges, and the men-at-arms, typically armed with swords and javelins, fought off enemy pikemen when two opposing squares made contact.
Pikes would be a dominant infantry weapon in the 16th- and 17th-centuries but the percentage of men armed with firearms in Tercio-like formations steadily increased as firearms technology improved. On the battlefield, however, the musketeers lacked protection against enemy cavalry so smaller pike formations were used, invariably, to defend them. During the English Civil War (1642–1651) the New Model Army (1646–1660) initially had two musketeers for every pikeman. By 1697 (the last year of the Nine Years' War) the post-Restoration English Army’s infantry battalions fighting in the Low Countries still had two musketeers for every pikeman organised in the now traditional style of pikemen five ranks deep in the centre, with six ranks of musketeers on each side.
End of an era
From the middle of the 17th-century to the early 18th-century the use of pikes declined as the flintlock musket proliferated in most European armies. Compared to the earlier matchlock musket, the flintlock meant a trained musketeer had a faster rate of fire than ever before, incentivising a higher ratio of shot to pikes on the battlefield. The pike’s decline was hastened further with the introduction of the plug bayonet in the 1680s. The plug bayonet (pictured below left) did not immediately replace the pike, however. Its use required the soldier to insert the bayonet’s tapered “plug” into the musket’s muzzle thereby surrendering his ability to shoot or reload. The socket bayonet that followed in the 1690s solved that issue by being securely fitted over the muzzle. By the mid-1700s most European armies had adopted the socket bayonet (pictured below right) which, by adding a long blade of up to 600 mm (24 in) to the end of the musket, allowed the musket to act as a spear-like weapon when presented in both hands towards an opponent.
Although clearly lacking the full reach of pikes, bayonets were an effective defence against cavalry charges, usually the main threat to musketeer formations. Less reliance on pikes also allowed armies to greatly expand their potential firepower by giving every infantryman a firearm. Put simply, pikemen were no longer needed to protect musketeers from cavalry. Furthermore, improvements in artillery incentivised most European armies to abandon large formations in favour of multiple staggered lines, both to minimize casualties and to present a larger frontage for volley fire. Thick hedges of bayonets proved to be an effective anti-cavalry solution, and improved musket firepower was now so deadly that combat was often decided by shooting alone.
Ultimately, the spear proper was rendered obsolete on the battlefield although a shortened version known as the half-pike or spontoon (
pictured earlier) was still carried by officers of various ranks into the 19th-century. Originally a weapon, it became a badge of office more likely used to direct troops rather than fight. During the Napoleonic Wars [5] sergeants in the British Army carried the spontoon to defend the battalion or regimental colours from a cavalry attack. Later the rank of Colour Sergeant [6] would be created to reflect this prestigious role. Within the Royal Navy the half-pike, sometimes known as a boarding pike, was retained on warships to repel boarding parties until the late 19th-century.
Bon appétit!
Endnotes:
1. Soliferrum or Soliferreum (Latin: solus, “only” + ferrum, “Iron”) was the Roman name for an ancient Iberian ranged polearm made entirely of iron. Called a Saunion by the Iberians, it was a heavy javelin designed to be hand-thrown to a distance up to 30 m.
2. From Wikipedia: The Iliad, "[a poem] about Ilion (Troy)", is one of two major ancient Greek epic poems attributed to Homer. It is one of the oldest extant works of literature still widely read by modern audiences. As with the Odyssey, the poem is divided into 24 books and was written in dactylic hexameter. It contains 15,693 lines in its most widely accepted version. Set towards the end of the Trojan War, a ten-year siege of the city of Troy by a coalition of Mycenaean Greek states, the poem depicts significant events in the siege's final weeks. In particular, it depicts a fierce quarrel between King Agamemnon and a celebrated warrior, Achilles.
3. The actual length of the Macedonian sarissa is unknown but may have been twice as long as the dory. If so, this means sarissae were at least 4.3 m (14 ft) long, but 5.5 m(18 ft) appears more likely.
4. The Maniple (Latin: manipulus; literally “a handful [of soldiers]”) was the tactical unit of the Roman Republican armies, adopted in 315 BC during the Samnite Wars (343 BC to 290 BC). Cohorts (Latin cohors, pl.: cohortes), generally comprising 480 legionaries in six centuries each of 80 fighting men, replaced maniples as the Roman Army’s organisational units from the late 2nd-century BC onwards.
5. The Napoleonic Wars were a series of conflicts fought from 1803 to 1815 between the First French Empire under Napoleon Bonaparte (1804–1815) and a fluctuating array of European coalitions.
6. The rank of Colour Sergeant (CSgt or C/Sgt) was introduced into British Army infantry regiments in 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars to reward long-serving sergeants. They protected the most junior officers, known as ensigns, who were responsible for carrying their battalion or regimental colours to rally troops. This tradition continues today as CSgts form part of a colour party in military parades, and it is from a CSgt that the ensign collects the battalion or regimental colours during ceremonial events. Thus, to be appointed “Colour Sergeant” was considered a prestigious attainment granted to those sergeants who had displayed courage on the field of battle. At this time a single colour sergeant was appointed to each company as the senior NCO. A century later, from 1 October 1913, British infantry battalions were reorganised from eight companies to four, leaving two colour sergeants in each new company. The senior of the pair was appointed to the new rank of Company Sergeant Major (CSM) and the junior to that of Company Quartermaster Sergeant (CQMS). Although the rank of CSgt was then abolished, the CQMS of an infantry company continued to be generally addressed as "Colour Sergeant" until the rank was reintroduced, probably during the Second World War. At this point CQMS became an appointment of the rank of CSgt both in infantry regiments and in the Royal Marines, and remains so today. In other British Army units, the equivalent rank is Staff Sergeant (SSgt).
.JPG)
