1600s warfare | pike phalanx action 

This is like final fantasy guns with swords.

Its not a fast food tier list its horrific

What? that doesn't make any sense

@@theunknownfencer6336 don't ask me, ask oda Nobunaga 😂

@@johnsnow618 Actually it does make sense, I believe what the 'point' Oda Nobunaga is trying to make is that even a farmer, with the proper training, can be turned into a soldier, and a pike is quite an easy weapon to master

Yarimazing

@@armoredangel01 Thought that's a reference to the Long spear Ashigaru.

The Musketeers seemed the most ridiculous of the 3. Alatriste was the most tense, and seemed far more realistic. Nobody alive today could imagine what it was like in the middle of one of those fights staring down a pike.

a hero

It’s amazing people were willing to die for kings/queens who didn’t give a d__n about them.

THANK YOU Fred!

@@donwillis9103 That is because it attempted to put modern morals and PC into a story taking place 500 years ago.

Gary Panter the movie clip is from Capitan Alatriste about the Spanish Tercios with viggo Mortensen

Why didn't the Romans adopt the Macedonian Phalanx ?

@@shaaprosperous1520 originally they used it , but moved on to the 3 line system because the Italian terrain was not suited for phalanx combat. the samnite wars are a good starting point

@@oscardelafuente8649 Indeed the romans used phalanx in the early realm before the republic, but they see that a better shield can improve the efectinees of a soldier so they start to use the testudo and increasse the size of the shield until cover almost entirely, so when they fight against greeks they see their phalanx stank untill the heavy roman infantry and they pilums reduce their coerssion. But when they start to encounter cavalry especially in germany and persia, (3,4 century) they restored the medium lance in their infantry formations. And increase the size of their swords.

is that really how they did it? dodging spears and stabbing each other in the groin? good lord, Renaissance obviously didn't apply to warfare, still as barbaric and savage as it had always been.

When you are with many, have courage meb

Musket fire are not like bullets, they don't instantly kill

@@mikailshakes4514 actually that's incorrect as musketballs are very much bullets, they may not look like bullets we have today but they are indeed bullets. Also muskets were very much deadly infact if a person was shot by one many times they would be instantly dead (if not from infection later). Unlike modern bullets which have penetration power, musketballs have stopping power meaning they slam into you body leaving huge horrendous wounds tearing apart flesh while shattering bones and turning them into shrapnel in your body so needless to say a person isn't surviving that

@@mikailshakes4514 "They don't instantly kill" while neither does any bullet really, all depends on where it hits you, and that's not always a good thing. I'd far rather take a ball to the skull than the throat.

@@paddyret7968 Well Muskets are most likely lesser due to the fact that in a lot of 18th century wars, most of the casualties are from untreated wounds and disease

It was the last breath of Medieval/Reinassance warfare

Wish there were more representations of this period. I'd love to see more of this type of stuff!

The 16th century as well (1500’s) where you still have fully kitted knights as well as firearms dominating the battlefield. This was also the beginning of the reign of the Tercio on the battlefield.

@@Brokenlance Not only fully kitted knights as well as firearms. Fully kitted knights WITH firearms, often two at a time.

shut up, moron

Yep pitched battles were the equivalent of going to the casino with your empire

This was the case in Western Europe. When western mercenaries serving the Swedes were hired by Russia in the early 17th century, many complained and eventually munitined because, among many other things, that they had to fight way more often.

That’s not just a cavalry commander, that’s Prince Rupert of the Rhine, cousin to Charles I.

@@adamcheklat7387 Yeah, even better!

Yes, but spanish gouvernement don't like it, and put down the movie. It's nice movie but poor. Marxismos = sionismos, in Spain. For them : The life arrive in this world with their new order sionist. TOTAL DESTRUCTION OS EUROPA IN 72 LITLE SIDES, ALL CONTROLED BY THEM In 1666 arrive at London from Holland this new order, in 400 boats. They destriud all, to create THE CITY, where they don't pay takes. TAXIS, yes they pay taxis. Only this

@@juanalvarez2830 ¿has olvidado tomarte la medicación hoy Juan?

@@danielleiva9353 Daniel La judía Leiva, gonna cry?

@@zurgesmiecal hombre, no me gustan mucho las judías verdes pero tampoco lloraría si hay que comerlas. No os olvidéis del gorrito de papel de plata al salir de casa. Saludos

Cromwell has the best 1000 foot view. Formations, deployment and movement of units, scale of battle, etc. Alatriste has the more realistic 'close up' depiction, showing that slow, desperate, and brutal grind fight between the pike lines. Both are great.

I think that was the Zweihander soldiers. The frontline of the Pike were usually the most experienced, the best armored people in the army.

Hence the "doppelsoldner" (double mercenary). They fulfilled a role similar to the sword and buckler men as depicted in the 2:30 clip, getting past the pikes to break the enemy's formation. "Zweihander" is a two-handed sword which could be used in such a role. And, yes, they did have the best possible armour as it was the most dangerous place to be. Although I recall a certain English commander in the Civil War who fought in the front rank of his pike formation and was killed within minutes of the battle commencing, leaving his men leaderless...

The doppelsöldner did not have greatswords usually, they were a ratio of 50-50 with gunners/crossbowmen and pikemen/halberdiers. Greatsword users were usually stationed at the back, and while they also counted as doppelsöldner they weren't leading the charge. You put a guy with a sword head-on against guys with pikes and all you will accomplish is a dead swordsman. Instead the better use is to use them defensively, or send them wherever is needed in the formation, as was likely done.

In the Spanish Tercios, the best of its times and unbeated for many many years on wars all over Europe, the first lines were reserved for spanish soldiers by their own demand, and with the most war experience.

@@duchessskye4072 it was likely that they where used like Alexander the greats swordsman dude Of course you wouldnt send them first into the front ranks dude You would look for weakness somewhere in the line (your pikeman taking some ground from the enemy, confusion or retreat from pressure) Or try to find a sufficient opening (maybe a opening created by your cavalry that you can exploit to get some guys through, enemy formation could have an opening due to terrain that pike formation cant traverse) to get around the formation to attack it from another angle...Then you send in your swordsmen So you are both right in a sense

Camera man never dies

There is an Alatriste series, released in 2015. IMO not on the same level though.

a Tercio aint the name of the specific formation. I also dont think phalanx is the right term too. Tercio is the given name to the entire army unit consitsing of its pikemen, arquebuseers, musketeers, artillery, cavalry and supplies. Kind of like a Legion so to speak.

Hollywood trash I think

what do you mean, anyone can just push 10 pikes to the ground and then use them as a ramp to jump over the enemy 3:40

@@stevenblack7928 Actually BBC PC nonsense, putting today's society into mid 17th Century.

"The boss is watching, look busy"

drum duel.

If both were in the right side they probably wont see each other but maybe the one from the company besides them... And what the hell do they did when the pikes clashed? just... stood there praying or what?

@@d.esanchez3351 probably went deep into their formation for protection,they need the drums to communicate

did the drummer boys live that long?

Yes it would. He may not he dead, but he is sure as hell knocked off.

Got to remember the force behind the sword and the surface area that force is concentrating on... it not kill ,but I would definitely imagine him being laid back in the saddle with slow recovery because of his armor weight or just thrown off the horse completely.

@@majorcoat or could be his foot stuck with the stirrup and being dragged by his panicked horse

Not possible with a sword. If it's a lance hit, it would make more sense

Love the people justifying that a swing from a sword can knock down a 200 pound man in 75 pound armor. That is nearly impossible. Not completely impossible but close.

Well yes, but actually no

Same

Read a novel with something similar, Zombie/berserker got stab through the torso and push through the psychological effect lead to formation breaking.

i had that same thought

Warhammer Fantasy

Hola Sabes como se llama la pelicula

@@carloscisneros792 1. Cromwell (1970) 2. Alatriste (2006) 3. The Musketeers (2014-2016 series)

pikes are long and heavy, its hard to properly hold them so a wipe can easily dispatch them

@@erichvondonitz5325 Maybe in some situations but mostly not and especially not as easily as in that ridiculous scene.

@@MetalKingII yup, depends on the situation

gotta admit that scene is horseshit

Tiktards😆

dunno its like a trashy film. than the first two.

It's from the Three Musketeers TV show

totally

A movie called Altariste

psshh what do you mean?? every one knows that the Spanish tercios would instantly break formation the second some dude with a sword charged at them

it was specificly that, it was more cheaper and easier to outfit a musketeer and training them took way much less then a longbowman, bows takes years to practice if you want to have a good longbowman, and arrows were pretty expensive to make aswell

@@wulfsragar Archers would be a lot faster than the musketeer though

@@aaronjacobamadorsalazar1934 true, but it still takes a hell of alot of training and years of experience to get to that point, training in the use of muskets or arquebus takes waaaaay less time and effort, they choose it this way because of time and money, arrows are really expensive at the time, but i do get your point though ;)

@@wulfsragar I mean investments won't hurt if it'd work...

an archers reserve behind a line of musketeers would be devastating

I know it does little sense to add this but the modern army of spain still has the eay of marching of the tercios (looks gay af but is the most effient way to march while holding an 11 ft pike) an the tercios are the ones in the 2nd film

Yep.

Battle of Rocroi,my friend from the film of alatriste

The 30 years war between Spain and France for the control of Belgium. France won that war and started the Rococo era of france dominace until Napoleon

to be fair the 30 years war and the english civil war were happening at the same time. both ended in 1648 i think

It was such an awesome game.

They would be destroyed

@@baldwintheleper8290 well, they have musketeer too

Cagayan battle.

The Rooks will roost, a murder of Crows, the Foxes bellies full.

But then came the battle of Breitenfeld.....

Thats right!An astonishing win for the protestans!it was round about 1630 But Spain dominates the world for about 300 years. And after that defeat for another 150 years.The Tercios were undeafetable during a long period of time!

@@JoseAlvarez-dp8fz That's true. Though the term "protestants" should be exchanged with the term "Lutherans", as the Swedes were Lutheran. The Thirty Year War, started out as Catholicas against Protestants, but later it was rather mixed.... As far as I know, La Legion still uses the term "Tercio" for their units, which is a suitable connection to former traditions. "Nadie en el tercio sabia, quien era aquel legionaro".... Gunpowder changed warfare, and the Swedes developed light artillery, which made it more versatile, and more effective against packed units. I actually liked the movie "Alatriste", as it depicted the tercios in a fairly accurate way.

@@Lassisvulgaris And the....NORDLINGEN

evidently a show called the musketeers.

Horses would not go straight into spears, that was the reason for standing in formation like that. They knew the horses would ride around so a square of pikes and later bayonets would keep the horses at bay.

Holy shit another Cossacks player!

@@MajesticOak Hello Mate!

@@CryseTech Which is your favorite in the series? Currently I mostly play Cossacks 3 (mainly because of the quality of life features and that it's in 3D) but I really wish for a remaster of American Conquest (I don't care if they lie and label it as American Conquest 2 much like Cossacks 3 is basically an unfinished remaster of Cossacks 1).

The Italians called it the Bad War. The moment two blocks of pikes are locked in combat, both sides have no other choice but to push forward. Doing so they will sustain terrible casualties, but falling back may result in total destruction. This was starting from the late Middle Ages untill the mid 1600's. After that they were increasingly refraining from locking pikes in such a fashion on the continent. The Dutch and the Swedes had repeatedly beaten larger forces by using superior musketry, and indeed only using pikes as protection for their musketeers. But if needed they could, and did, engage in such a manner of fighting. Also keep in mind that the pike went out of fashion for soldiers when they found out that putting a sharp object on a musket had pretty much the same result. Bayonet charges were the direct successor to pike warfare and in regular use in the First World War.

The scene you are referring to is the French invasion of Spain.

@@GorinRedspear Interesting. Thanks.

@@fasiapulekaufusi6632 No, The battle of rocroi was in 1643 in France, the napoleonic invasion of spain was later in 1808 and no-one use the pike then.

@@sergiorivillocarrere2685 I wasn't referring to Napoleon.

Reliable guns in warfare were still comparably new during the wars depicted; in those their use was developed and increased considerably.

The part in the middle? Yes, it's tercio. It's from a movie about Rocroi. Edit: Alatriste

Presumably you would train the extras to use pikes, then. That's exactly what movie productions do nowadays.

Presumably you would train the extras to use pikes, then. That's exactly what movie productions do nowadays.

@@hunterkiller232134 Health & safety would be a major issue as well. For example, The Sealed Knot and ECW Society DO train their reanactors pike drill, but also ensure that pike heads are rubberised and that the pikes themselves are held almost vertically on contact with the 'enemy'. Thus combat between pike blocks simply evolve into shoving matches. All to do with safety. It must have been nightmarish to be involved in a pike-to-pike struggle IRL!

Probably because Cromwell did things equal to what the Nazis did to people in occupied territories. Whole villages were slain by the English Army under Cromwell. Some 30% of Irish were killed by the end of the English Civil War due to Cromwell's actions and his redistribution of Irish Catholic property to Protestant English settlers laid the groundwork for the Troubles centuries later.

@@hunterkiller232134 Yes but while Hitler is universally reviled, our neighbours have a totally different view of him as the father of parliamentary democracy a title that he would hate he had no time for democracy.

They stared using grenades around this time, basically thin wooden balls stuffed with gunpowder with a short fuse.

You're right, the most accurate is the second vid

You wouldn't.

only if you wanted to become a horse kabob

you would really only charge the cavalry against musketeers or skirmishers, never pikemen unless they were retreating or broke formation

@@armchairradical2665 Not really... The French did it quite succesfully at the Battle of Ceresole (it was on the flank though). They also did it during the battle of Marignano, quite effectively. The famous Chevalier de Bayard had to cut his way through the Swiss Phalanx to rescue the Duke of Lorraine. If the pikemen were a perfect anti-cavalry unit, he would've died like the Prince of Tallemont did during that same battle. Thing is, during the early 16th century, firearms weren't some god-tier weapon, they did the job but were inaccurate and misfired more often than not, and cavalry was still clad in full armor (which could make a bullet bounce off). Pikes were effective, but if you take a look at the horse armors of that time, you'll notice that it has some really good angles which could easily make a pike glance off. Knights generally didn't charge pike formations because there was a high chance that they would come off worse, but it happened when the planets aligned, and it could grant some great results. But in the mid to late 16th century, with the evolution of firearms, infantry drills, pikes and all that, God forbid you charge that pike square, you'll look like Swiss cheese in no time.

@@gaolmiralis2247 I agree the pike square and other formations were far from perfect and subject to exceptions, like you mentioned. However, these pike formations were probably the most effective tactic against the cavalry. No horse was going to charge into a wall of sharp points, no matter how hard you willed it. But part of the problem with the pikemen, which made them not very effective during the late medieval period, was that they weren't very useful unless they could hold formation. Like you said these formations required extensive drilling and a professional army. The swiss and the Spanish demonstrated the effectiveness of a professional army, during the 16th century and early 17th century. In regards to firearms, they were not really used as the primary attacking force until the mid-part of the 17th century. More often than not firearms were used to disrupt the enemy and open holes in the opponent's formations for the cavalry or pikemen to exploit. Gustavus Adolphus demonstrated how devastating cavalry armed with swords could be. However, by the time formations became mainstream it had become generally accepted that gunpowder weapons were the future. Not really disagreeing, but just affirming that by the 30 years war pikemen were necessary against cavalry.

I see it as the front line are expected to die in a prolonged battle. So everyone should have pikes to reinforce the lost position. Plus it’s expensive to give secondary weapons to everyone when you could just make another unit of pike

The ranks further back would hold their pikes forward so that the enemy cannot effectively get around the pikemen in front. This is painting a broad brush across history but often there would be some type of ranged component near a pike formation to provide support. Typically musketeers who would retreat behind the pikes when threatened, and longbows or archers to support.

Spears where obsolete by this time. That is what the musketeer's role was, to fire bullets into the opposition. There was a formula to determine the ratio of pike men to musketeers.

Sorry for late reply but some of the musketeers or pistoleers stand behind the first or second rank of pike to shoot while the pikes are in melee

It was probably because the formations were mutch thicker, and shields would get in the way.

The pikes were too long for one hand so they needed both hands to operate.

@@janefelix3821 I don't think that's the case, because the sarrisas and pikes have around the same length. You should watch lindybeige's video on pikes if you already haven't. To summarize, the sarrisas went into battle expected to go into melle so they carried shields, whilst the pikes went into battle expected to be forts against calvary, so they didn't bother.

Armour was good enough that sheids were unnecessary, and expensive. That and Pikemen are only supposed to protect the gunmen from cavalry and not fight other pike formations. Those engagements always resulted in high casualties, even if you won, so commanders tried to avoid fighting other pike formations. The men with guns and artillery were the real killers.

archers never shot over the mass, is a tipical stereotype of moovies

@@Quinto547 Nonsense. Romans in the back rank threw javelins over the front rank into the enemy masses. It was very devastating to enemies like the Celts who had no armor and little cohesion. Certainly then, archers fired over the mass of their own troops into the enemy.

@@charlesphillips1468 boy, stop playing total war, in the reality bow archers never shot over the mass

@@Quinto547 I don't know what 'boy' you are talking too, likely I am old enough to be your dad. And I have never played Total War. I have no interest in it.

@@charlesphillips1468 then stop talking like a kiddo, learn and read about of archers and bows, boy