From what I've heard, there was first about a 1:1 ratio of pikes to muskets, which made cavalry pretty much ineffective as the muskets could just retreat into the middle of the pike whenever cavalry came near, but the pikes didn't actually really engage in much combat, as most of the battle was just shooting ( when both armies were using pike and shot ) meaning that if an army reduced the number of pikemen and added more muskets they would have the advantage. As far as I can tell, reducing the number of pikes and increasing the number of muskets along with armies forming longer thinner formations ( eventually lines ) rather than squares happened gradually, until eventually the pike was phased out and instead they used bayonets in case of close combat ( but I'm not sure how much close combat of musket armies ever actually happened )
Noone replied, but it got an upvote, Im just not 100% and interested in find out if / how right it was.
A reply to /u/CreeperSc2
The coronelia of de Cordoba, an expeditionary Spanish army operating in Naples around 1500, had a mix of arquebus, pikes, and sword-and-buckler, with a ratio of about 1:2:2. They operated mostly as companies of 100-200 each, supporting each other, in the style of defense or offense in depth.
By 1560 the sword-and-buckler had disappeared, and the ratio between firearms and pikes were about 1:1 although firearms almost surely outnumbered pikes. And then firearms were further split between arquebus and musket. This is the tercio system, refined by Alba among others. He further decreed that the proportion of firearms were increased.
The 1630s in the Thirty Years War we saw further and further use of mobile field artillery, the result of which the pike blocks were becoming more and more punished for their density. So over time the formations thinned as companies became thinner and the movements become more flexible. But pikes or halberds were a necessary deterrent against cavalry. By the end of that conflict most major european armies ran a ratio of 2:1 firearms to pikes, if not even higher in practice.
The bayonet is a rather old idea, dating to the 1500s, but it was only in late 1600s that units started to experiment with the ring bayonet. Some experiments were so bad that Louis XIV was said to really hate them. The 1700s really saw more widespread use of them, I shall hand this over to my colleague /u/DonaldFDraper to fill you in.
G. Parker, "The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500-1800", ISBN-13: 978-0521479585, 1996.
Jorgensen, Pavkovic, et al., Fighting Techniques of the Early Modern World by
Your answer was removed shortly before you posted this question. It did not meet our standards.
We ask that answers in this subreddit be in-depth and comprehensive, and highly suggest that comments include citations for the information. In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with the rules, and take these key points into account before crafting an answer:
Thank you!