HEY EVERYONE SOME STUFF IN HERE I COPY PASTED FROM OTHER SITES! Priz_karl doesn't aprove of that shit! The issue with pike blocks versus a sword and shield "formation" is that in a head on fight the pike formation can and will put more soldiers into the same battle space as a sword and shield man. The sword and shield (here after referred to as S/s) needs a minimum of one meter of clear area on each side to use the typical sword style of the time. So that would be a battle space of; roughly 2 meters, per soldier. Now in that same 2 meters a pike formation can put 3 soldiers into the same space.
Now the shield obviously gives a defensive edge but the issue is many shields where held by a simple cross bar and boss in the center of the shield. And as such it was possible with a strong thrust to actually pivot the shield out of the way for one of the other pike men to attack the opening. Against something like a shield wall it would be an unmitigated slaughter as the S/s man then loses his mobility and the chance of personal kinetic motion.
When just Spanish S/s-men fought against pikemen historically , they lost horribly. That's what happen to Gonzalo de Córdoba at first (at Seminara), but he learned quickly and got pikes of his own.
Sword&buckler-men were effective against the landsknechts at Ravenna because the Germans had already engaged with Spanish pikemen. Maybe the sword&buckler-men had some victories against pikes without help, but to my knowledge Machiavelli was the only guy claiming such a thing, and he still suggested a force of both pikemen and sword&buckler-men.
And nobody really listened to Machiavelli anyway. At the end of the 16th century, Sir Roger Williams, a student of Spanish methods, made barely any mention of sword&buckler-men. He certainly didn't suggest using them to kill pikemen. He had far more respect for bills and halberds.
Obviously the Romans solved this issue with closed rank formations as already discussed.
Now the Swiss pikemen alone are interesting as they relied on speed and combined arms as such only the front ranks of the Swiss were heavily armored; the ranks behind them wore little or no armor and would be vulnerable to some degree to arrows raining from above. Plus the front ranks could be vulnerable to heavy crossbows at close range. If only one in one hundred arrows/bolts actually wounded or killed it would have an effect. A man would drop to the ground or at a minimum drop his pike and stop advancing. This would cause some disruption to the ranks behind him and possibly to one file on either side.
The Swiss blocks advanced in echelon. So your cavalry either threatens the leading block on the side without supporting blocks or it threatens the rear block, and by such hopefully removing the Swiss reserve from the battle. Then you hope to defeat the leading two blocks with your infantry, both missile and possibly your own pikes.
And let's remember that in many victories attributed to the Swiss (but by no means all) they were mercenaries fighting in an army that provided the heavy cavalry and missile troops that supported their pikes. So they were often part of a combined arms army themselves. Their advance may have broken the enemy lines and gained the victory, but friendly cavalry countered enemy cavalry and friendly missile troops would have weakened the enemy line of infantry before their pikes crashed into it. Without that support some of their victories would have been defeats.
But again I have to say that in warfare timing is crucial as is how you use your different troop types. Mishandle your heavy cavalry and missile troops and yes, the Swiss will shatter your line. But if you use them correctly and the Swiss misjudge their timing you stand a good chance of beating the Swiss.
All in all, a combined arms army is superior to one that relies upon just one or two troop types. But it is also harder to coordinate and use the various troop types effectively.
**Some is my opinion but much is fact.
edited for many typos.
