Arent pikemen the worst possible infantry you could have against

>>2147347
Because your guns needed protecting, idjit.

>>2147347
>Cavalry

>>2147353
>>2147360
This OP. You are a literal fucking retard for asking this question.

>>2147347
Because they go hand in hand with the bread and butter of firearm battlefield effectiveness: shock. The pike was a weapon that on the offensive could almost immediately crush enemy morale, especially if you give them a good gun volley just before the charge. It's the same reason cavalry stuck around for so long despite being such big, easy targets for artillery and firearms in general.

The problem was as guns got better and as armies continued to grow, it became much harder to train large numbers of pikemen willing to attack. Early firearm infantry couldn't stand up to disciplined pikemen, but in order to close the distance those pikemen would have to stand firm against increasingly effective enemy fire. Thus pikemen were relegated to defense, and were increasingly useless outside of helping the formation feel more secure in the face of an enemy infantry or cavalry charge. They wouldn't be very effective in fighting off an attack due to their poor training by then, but they allowed their own firearm infantry to hold their line and drive off an attack with concentrated fire. Once the bayonet was developed they really had no purpose left and were phased out completely.

>>2147455
I never understood, why did lancers (light cavalry) make a comeback in the 19th century?

It's basically 100 AD tech-wise

>>2147347
In simple rock-papper-scissors terms:

Pikemen > Cavalry > Gunmen > Pikemen

>>2147716
It's almost as though cavalry existed and people wanted a way for them to kill other cavalry

How crazy is that?

>>2147716
They were noted to be quite effected on occasions, particularly in a charge supported by cavalry wielding sabres.

>>2147726
Artillery>all

>>2147782
*performs cavalry charge on you*

>>2147782

it was Napoleon who proved that.

The confederates almost deployed pikemen in the US civil war. They had a bunch built and everything.

>>2147782
muh God of War

>>2147716
Speed was extremely important, so cavalry was always important. Light cavalry in particular are very effective in moving around a battlefield quickly, especially when looking to exploit a gap in a line or the enemy flank. The thing about the musket is that one could lay down three or so volleys at an approaching infantry line before they finally made contact, but a determined and swift cavalry charge can slip through only two, maybe even one, volley only. And that's if they're forced to charge headfirst at a formation and haven't managed to circle around from the back or the sides. For infantry without a solid formation - especially line infantry stretched out into a thin line for maximum frontage in their volley fire - cavalry is very frightening and why the square formation was a thing.

As for why lancers in particular, it had to do with style as news of the highly skilled Polish and Indian lancers spread causing many to follow suit. When trained right, a lancer squad can make very devastating charges against both cavalry and infantry alike. This is just my impression, but I consider offensive pikemen and cavalry lancers two types of soldiers who perform very similar functions: to deliver an irresistible charge that can drive off all but the most determined force.

>>2147347
Armor still worked at the time, and the pikes would simply march over your shot if you didn't have your own pikes.

So would cavalry.

Guns would not not be able to kill enough pikes fast enough to stop them from reaching them, and would often flee if left unsupported against an advance.

File: Breastplate musket shots.jpg (108KB, 719x881px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 719x881px

>>2148726
This.

>>2149397
The lucky bastard.

File: zajI5UC.jpg (36KB, 500x631px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x631px

>>2149397
>>2149543
Then there's this...

File: 2zz.png (87KB, 192x324px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 192x324px

>>2149572
JUST

>>2149572
>>2149617
KANONED.COM

>>2149572

To be fair there is a bit of a difference between musket fire and fucking cannon balls.

At least the poor frog probably died instantly.

>>2149397

Far from an expert, but that looks much later than late 15th/early 16th century. MUCH later.

>>2147347
The formation was invented by Fernandez de Cordoba to counter the French army at the italian wars. (the french army at the time was famous for its heavy cavalry + pikemen)

>>2147347
A single guy with a musket might beat a single pikemen but once you scale up to formations 4000 strong things change a lot.

Period writers touched on this subject.

File: a6ef506fa21cfdb3cfc6cc45f6210709.jpg (376KB, 1852x2704px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 1852x2704px

>>2149397
To be honest I doubt it a little.

The profile and shaping does not match many other 15th century examples. Among other things it appears to be rather flat.

On top of that it has attachment knobs for shoulder straps so i am going to say its probably a 17th century one.

The shot marks can be from a poorly rammed musket shot, pistols, carbines or simply a fake made with a rounded hammer.

Or a long distance shot.

File: infantry breastplate.png (2MB, 759x951px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 759x951px

>>2150259
Here is another one to compare and contrast.

>>2147782
Trenches > Artillery

>>2150435
>Implying

>>2150450
Trenches were used during sieges.

>>2147782
>t. POG who did basic training at Ft. Sill

pikemen counter cavalry
cavalry counter musketeers
musketeers counter pikemen

>>2147369
Why are you calling him a retard for humbly asking something

I can tell you're a faggot who doesn't know much and compensates with elitism

>>2150514
Do you happen to be a designer of the Battlefield series?

File: combattable.png (188KB, 697x472px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 697x472px

>>2150551
>>2150514

wrong game

>>2150514
As dumb as rock-paper-scissors concept of war is, the actual triangle is:

pikemen > musketeers
musketeers > cavalry
cavalry > pikemen

>>2150732
>Rise of Nations
My nigger.

>>2150737
>pikemen > musketeers
Only in mêlée.
>musketeers > cavalry
Only at a distance.
>cavalry > pikemen
Only if cavalry had lances or pistols.

>>2150737
the first 2 are debatable but this can't be right
>cavalry > pikemen

>>2150810
>>2150774
The assumption is that all troops involved have solid discipline and unable to break the other side and exploit shaky morale. In which case a pike block will be able to close in on a musket formation and drive them off, a musket formation will not break ranks and allow cavalry to penetrate their formation allowing them to shoot down and drive off cavalry, and a cavalry formation will be able to encircle, isolate, and pick off a pike formation and pin them down until they are forced to retreat or remain immobile to suffer attrition.

>>2150259
>>2150275

You are a literal fucking morn, this place never, NEVER ceases to amaze me.

>historical, actual history inside a museum is fucking wrong!!!
>I AM RIGHT BECAUSE MY SUPER SLUETH INTERNET DEDUCTION SKILLS ARE ON POINT

Seriously, literally, kill yourself.

File: ori_1910_100719486_1135519_182suc_c_900x900.jpg (86KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 900x900px

>>2150903
You seriously overestimate the ability of curators in some shitty third world country.

Unless you have a better explanation of how 17th century shoulder strap attachments found their way on a 15th century breastplate I suggest you keep your mouth shut.

Terços or tercios which is better ?

>>2150195
based on what?

>>2150903
>Museums
>reliable sources of information especially when it comes to dating

lol anon

you'd have a point if an actual physical historian wrote that blub but it was in fact just some retard on Pininterest

>>2151441
Tercios had 10 (later 12) companies of men of mixed units of sword, pike ,musket and calvary. With a grand total per tercio being 3000

The terço (The portuguese third)
Was adopted in order to keep up with spain.

It was the exact same except for the number of companies (8) and the Grand total of men per Terço(2000)

>>2151441
Tercios.

>>2149572
>>2149617

SHOT THROUGH THE HEART

>>2149572
He was fine right?

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A49473.0001.001/1:11?rgn=div1;view=fulltext

Hey look, an entire period book about pikes.

>>2150528
I agree on principle...but that's what we were all thinking right?

>>2150903
the armour is in a museum but the actual post is from some guys pinterest you retard

File: FB_IMG_1483006767772.jpg (120KB, 1632x1224px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1632x1224px

>>2150903

>museums are always right
>some random guy on facetrest is always right

The museum at Bosworth apparently doesn't know the names of the sides in the war it's commemorating. But it's in a museum so it must be right!

>>2151752
AND YOURE TO BLAME

>>2153617
YOU GIVE CUIRASS A BAD NAME

>>2153734
NAPOLEONS SMILE IS WHAT YOU SELL

Cavalry kills guns, guns kill pikes, pikes kill cavalry.

>>2153582
>not lannister

>>2154060
cavalry kills pikes, pikes kill guns, guns kill cavalry

>>2151441
It's like asking whether swiss pikemen or landsknechts are better

>>2150259

The shape reminds me of butter and incredibly badly timed feasts.

>>2154608
cavalry killes pikes, cavalry kills guns, cavalry kills cavalry

>>2155074
This
>Then anon, why they didn't use more cavalry
Money

>>2154608
Pikes hardly killed anybody.>>2152109

>>2155443
I know, I read that and was basing myself on it. The problem with pikes in that scenario is that the mere presence of cavalry shuts them down and opens them up to being riddled with bullets either by cavalry or musketeers. Remove cavalry from the equation and that problem goes away.

>>2147716
Lancers were counter-cavalry. They might seem a bit off going against line infantry, but they'll fuck up musketoon or saber armed cavalry in a charge.

>>2149572
>>2149617
did they ded?

>>2155500
There were known to be clumsy against fellow cavalry, lances being to cumbersome in melee.

>>2155533
They*

>>2151025
>>2151483
>>2153582
Holy fuck this is some advanced stupidity. Fuck off back to wherever you came from you pathetic know-it-all dipshits.

>>2155660
They're right though.

>>2148596
Hence pikemen upgrading to lancers in Civ 5

>>2155660
But anon, they're actually right this time. These museums must have some really ill-informed staff, but then again what else can we expect from /western/ education in regards to getting historical facts right?

File: 06_DinoGirl1[1].jpg (216KB, 1023x758px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1023x758px

>>2155660
The quality differs from museum to museum since it's not a protected name. And they differ by a lot. Anyone and anything can call themselves for a museum.

>>2155863
True. Some museums I've been to have been piss poor. The last one I went to had decent artefacts yet woeful displays with little to no information.

>>2155500
>>2155533
I have heard that lances were used for their reach against square formations

>>2155660

>litterally posts an example of a museum being blatantly wrong
>advanced stupidity

No, you fuck off back to whichever shithole you crawled out from.

>>2155914
Possibly, but it seems a bit risky though. If you look at the squares at Waterloo, not only were they pretty much impregnable but they also broke the charge itself, leaving French cavalry prone to small arms fire. Lancers would have been in the same position. However, lancers, supported by other cavalry, were apparently good breaking through lines, and it seems that's how they were mostly used. Yet, if there was one type of cavalry unit able to break through a square, I'd imagine it would be lancers.

File: chaotic-evil.png (693KB, 1042x1000px) Image search: [Google]

693KB, 1042x1000px

>>2155863
thefuq

>>2147347

They tried swords for a while, but honestly reach is super important.

They were keeping pikes unironically till 1798, and the American Confederates kept a supply out of complete desperation.

>>2147716

mobility is AWESOME!!

and they didn't have TANKS yet!

>>2150435

>implying static formations > artillery

it's almost like you're completely missing the point purposefully.

>>2150528

Well said

>>2156317

There's no criteria you need to meet to become a museum. You can put a glass case of toenail clippings in your window and proclaim yourself a museum.

>>2150195
Could it be an 18th century cuirassier?

>>2147347
>fires shitty matchlock musket vaguely in the direction of the enemy
>shot makes more noise than damage
>start reloading
>still reloading
>STILL reloading
>get charged by cavalry
>dead

Pikes remedy this

>>2155863
DLET