Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I've always been a fan of Pikes. I should though drop the habit in LA, since crossbows are so common that the (much less armored compared to my favorite Black Pikeneers: I love them so) Pikes just can't function without shield infantry and can't take too many hits.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I also don't think Marignon or Tien Chi pikes are useful. Ulm has better stats on common soldier, after all...

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Pikes are a truly ancient weapon system dating back to at least the Sumerians. To be in front of a pike square on level ground was a very bad place to be as the romans found Cynoscephalae. On the other hand, as the romans showed at Cynoscephalae the pike could be soundly defeated if fought on uneven ground and/or flanked.

Pikes offerd signifigent protection against massed archers in the form of the back ranks using their pikes to knock incoming arrows aside.

I have to admit one of the first things I tried in Dominions3 was mass MA Ulm pikes and was very disapointed in their performance against enemy infantry in the independent territories.

In a fantasy context I had for a long time assumed a pikes vs monsters would be a bit like a cat vs a hedgehog. ie very inconclusive. Hollywood changed my opinion on this with the movie Alexander. In that movie a Macedonain phalanx was treated like so many galley slaves getting their oars clipped by an elephant marching perpendicular to the phalanx.

My revised opinion, according to earlier statements in the thread, would be that the treatment of tramplers vs pikes is fairly accurate in dominions3.

Pikes were never defensive, but always an offensive weapons, being the very definition of a shock weapon. A wall of spear points approaching at a charge worked for the Sumerians right up to the swedes under Gustavus Adolphus.

Two greek hoplite armies, traditionally sixteen ranks deep impacting each other at a dead run was a terrible experience. Pikes shattering on shields giving off the noise of gunfire, the warcrys and screams of the dying mixed with the smells of blood. Men dying from the sheer crush of bodies, the smell of the recenly deceased loosening their bowels mixed with the stench of the merely terrified loosing control of thier bladders. This led Hippocrates to describe a condition that in later times was called shellshock.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

But of course, the shock effect of the Phalanx requires good terrain. The sheer inflexibility of the Phalanx when it came to being flanked or on forested and rough terrain is the primary reason why the Hellenistic Empires fell to a more flexible, reformed Roman Legion system.

That and unimaginative commanders, but that's besides the point.

Pikes I suppose do have SOME advantages over cavalry: the repel is useful to negate the charge: which is one of the best shock values on cavalry. Past that though, Pikes don't have that much survivability against normal morale infantry. Pikes definitely have their uses, of course: against Giants (because those shields won't protect you when that Jotun Sword hits) or low morale chaff.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Seriously? :eek:

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Have you tried pikes against normal infantry?

Making a moral check against normal morale (10) is morale + drn against 13 + drn. I don't see that translated to low survivability against normal morale infantry. Also, logic tells us it is better to be able to repel than not. Another thing to remember is that it is not only a matter of repelling but also about being repelled, thus a longer weapon is double effective.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Would you be so kind as to offer a proof link considering Sumerians? It seems conclusion was drawn from Assirian and Babilonian armies who DID use them - not always successfully.
Cynoscephalae, on the other hand, is mostly a moot point - as Romans have won due completely to the fact that their more experienced army was able to dress ranks faster as two armies clashed accidentally (they marched on parallel roads unaware of each other, for those who don't know/remember about this battle).

Yes, such a legend exists. But it is mostly drawn from descriptions by MUCH later authors who didn't have personal experience in battle. Of course, some arrows falling onto phalanx could strike raised pikes and be accidentally deflected, but this was certainly rare, or Macedonian phalangistae wouldn't have shileds (and Assirians, of course).

And they are about the best pikemen in the game! Lack of formation concept makes for a lousy pikemen, unless you take steps to improve them in some other way...

Don't draw conclusions from Hollywood, for Cthulhu's sake! %) Really, it would depend on monster. It's well known that in real world elephantes were tried against falanx, but results were surely inconclusive - meaning, different each time. Of course, much information that we have comes through Romans and they liked to portray enemies as inefficient buffons coming into battle in great mobs to be slaughtered by brave and agile Romans in shiny armor (much like today reports, if you think of it). Of course, while smaller North Africa elephantes could be stopped more easily, larger Indian ones would require more drastic measures - and they were sometimes armored, especially in later period, so, barring some lucky shot were pretty impervious to phalanx's weapons. Rhino, on the other hand... ;)

Wrong. First, they were used differently in different context (for now let's not go into whether Macedonian sarissa should be classified as pike). In late Greek or Macedonian army part of the pike-armed phalanx was doing the offensive, while another part was performing a holding operation - but that was against enemy's infantry. Assirians an Babylonians used their pikemen mainly on defense as a base which protected their powerful archers, with chariots as an offensive arm. Alexander the Great's army used a reformed heavy cavalry as the main offensive arm, with phalanx more as an "anvil" (of course, when it came against inferior enemy it couldn't help but make progress). In later Hellenistic states its role varied on case to case basis - and against Romans it was used mainly on the offensive just because Roman infantry couldn't take it head on - and on the other hand, Romans had throwing weapons so waiting for them indefinitely would be unwise. Still later, Romans turned to using pikes themselves and in Byzantine times their pikemen were used to form a protective square from which archers shoot and cavalry sallied forth...
And later still, Swiss infantry was used mainly in attack - but they mainly used halberds, not pikes! :) Also, Swiss army almost never had cavalry of its own. Landsknechts, on the other hands, were formed as pikemen - and used more to stop enemy cavalry while holding strong German cavalry in reserve and shooting attackers from harquebuses and, later, from artillery.
And, of course, Gustavus Adolphus decreased both numbers and influence of pikes in his army, using them to protect musketeers from cavalry charges - i.e., also on defense... :p

It would be a good description if only you didn't mistake late armies influenced by Macedonia with early ones - which traditionally formed 8 ranks and didn't use pikes at all. Description itself would be accurate if you'd only add that it's drawn from the Rennaissance time... We do NOT have actual eyewitness descriptions from the Ancient world - and data on losses seem to disagree with such a description. In Rennaissance times, of course, first ranks were in half- or three-quarter-plate armors, which reduced casualties from pikes dramatically. Still, they were high. Ancient world also used more broad formations then Swiss-originating columns - but then, in those days, cavalry was weaker due to abscence of both stirrup and really large warhorses...

And sorry for rant, by the way... ;)

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Battles between two phalanxes actually were relatively bloodless - they were largely huge shoving matches. The reason for this is that phalanxes were very close order units to start with, and when two met, the crush meant that the unwieldy pikes were not good at cutting the enemy down. The casualties tended to occur when one side routed and were cut down fleeing.

The Greek way of warfare was a very different matter from the Middle Eastern. The Persians/Babylonians/Assyrians etc. mostly relied on missile fire or smashing the enemy with chariots or cavalry, or in the case of the Persians sheer volume of numbers. However, their bulk spearmen quite evidently tended to be poor quality, mostly unarmoured, and it's very doubtful they fought as ordered units in the way the Greeks or Romans did. They were probably pretty much light infantry on a par with peltasts, except maybe not even that good. They may have had pikes on occasion, but I think we can consider it doubtful they operated much that was comparable to (or as effcetive as) a phalanx or medieval pikemen.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I totally agree with Agema, and I've read (in some book, but can't remember if it was a reliable one...) it was the phoenicians who invented the hoplitic formation. Along with bireme and other stuff.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Victor Davis Hansen actually does an incredible job describing hoplite warfare. As for phalanxes meeting at a run, Herodotus makes a big deal about how unique it was that the Athenians did this at Marathon, so I'm inclined to think that mostly they just met at little more than a jog. Besides, running would disrupt the formation.