Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I think that this entire discussion in fact WOULD be helped out by a good dosage of semantic reasoning (after just spending 20 minutes arguing with, and researching with my roommate, to define this, so it can be discussed effectively.

For all purposes, all long thrusting weapons should be described as a "spear". If you mean to refer to the specific weapon called a Spear in-game, it would be best to refer to it as a "short spear", else for the purposes of this discussion, any usage of the word "spear" could and should be seen as saying "long spear".

To clarify, the Pike and the Sarissa are in fact very different weapons, originating in very different times, with very different usage. Yet, they both do fall under the broad classification of "spear".


Also to clarify, the Sarissa may have been used as early as 3000 BC, and the Pike did not see use until circa 500 AD. They had different designs, and different uses. They were both spears. If we agree on terminology, maybe, just maybe, we can understand eachother, and our differing ideas, just a little bit better.

<3

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I have. I completely understand your point, and the repel does work, but in my experience, it is not as effective as shield bearing infantry on the defense, and they are rather vulnerable to crossbow fire.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

In my experience it really depends on the length of the weapons the shield bearing infantry carries and the length of the enemies weapons. If the shield bearers carries morningstars (length 2) and the enemy carries spears (length 4), the spear carrying infantry will never repelled and always get a second chance (repel check) but the morningstars will always be subjected to a repel check when they attack and never get to repel. Even with high morale (12-14) it is not unlikely they will get repelled when attacking while the spears can just concentrate on directly beating their defence. That is two check for the morningstars to even get through and one for the spears. It should be the other way around for a good defensive unit. Pikes on the other hand (length 6) will beat any other weapon so they are excellent for defence. Missile fire on the other hand... well, then you really want a shield (double parry against missile).

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Oh wow... Great discussion guys!

Firstly... Pictures of Sumerian pikes from bas relief

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...halanx-2500-BC

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Those aren't pikes! Those are pointed sticks.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I don't dispute the validity of your point Dedas, but I think you overstate it.

Repel is not widely used as a tactic for a reason.

Numbers will beat it.
Equal length weapons defeats it. Trampling defeats it. Missiles defeat it.

Not to mention the usual other suspects.

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

I dont know how to quote like you guys do yet....

From Wranga
"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)."

I've seen an reenactement that convinced me personally. The arrows coming in arent that fast having only gravity for momentum, so a defelction of as little as 10% would help keep you from getting stuck. A twenty foot peice of wood gets a pretty good vibration if you shake it. If nothing else you'd train your phalangites/pikemen to do it for morale reasons, so thay have something to do whilest thousands of arrows fall on them. We'll have to disagree ;)

"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..."

They worked. Just they werent the steamroller I was expecting.

"Don't draw conclusions from Hollywood, for Cthulhu's sake!"

Again I'll hastur disagree. While far from definative hollywood has been trying to make decent histio-porn for the past twenty years. They fail miserably most the time, but at least they talk to some historians before shooting. The movie Troy for example has the only footage I've ever seen of two phalanxes meeting (even if it lasts like 10 seconds). They're trying. My point was that until I saw that scene in Alexander I had never imagined a way to use an elephant against massed pointy things.

"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)."

I hastur really really disagree with this (concerning the romans). Reading Ceaser's dispatches to Rome you'd believe that every gaul was an eight foot tall woad covered, mouth foaming fanatic that took five pilums to drop (wildly exagrarating to make my point of course). Didnt the romans claim that a dacian falx could cut a legionaire in half through his shield? Descriptions painted of the jihadi's at fallujah given by the Us marines harldy painted their opponents as "inefficient buffons." I've always read that battelfield reports had a tendecy to overestimate the capabilties of even easily defeated foes. I'd have to say that a commander's after action reports of the enemy probably owe more to politics than reality even today.

"Wrong. First, they were used differently in different context"

Sure, we're discussing a 4,500 year period in the historic record. I'm positive that we could both come up with many specific examples to support our mutual views!

"for now let's not go into whether Macedonian sarissa should be classified as pike"

Please educate me. I always figured twenty foot pointy thing= 20 foot pointy thing.

"Still later, Romans turned to using pikes"

Actually I thought the Romans dropped the pike in the Marian reforms. Even Dom3 has early age Ermor with pikes.

"Swiss infantry was used mainly in attack - but they mainly used halberds"

Again, I'll disagree. weren't halbreds used by the front ranks in the same manner as the Landsnecht zwiehander, to chop up the other guys pikes?

"Swiss army almost never had cavalry of its own"

I thought the swiss spent most of their ascendent period fighting for the french who provided the cavalry?

"Landsknechts, on the other hands, were formed as pikemen"

Weren't the landsnechets copying the swiss to fill a need for mercenary pikes since the french largely monopolized the swiss and used them to spank everyone else?

"Gustavus Adolphus decreased both numbers and influence of pikes in his army"

Agreed one hundred percent! My point was that tightly massed formations of men with long pointy things were still being used after the introduciton of gunpoweder weapons. I think the consensus is that pikes were displaced by the adoption of the socket bayonet.

"which traditionally formed 8 ranks and didn't use pikes at all"

Maybe traditionl wsant such a wise choice of words. I think I was referenceing the spartans defeat at the hands of the sacred band. According to my memory the Spartans were using the "traditional" sixteen ranks while those sneaky thebans stacked themselves thirty two ranks deep. I promise I'm quoting somehting I read.

"half- or three-quarter-plate armors"

Wouldn't that be a good description of hoplite armor or the dendra panopoly?

I guess what I meant by offensive use was you'd want to be rushing forward to make skish ka bob of your opponents. I just can't imagine holding still and waiting for your opponents to skewer themselves on your pikes would be terribly effective in the majority of cases.

Ok, saying they were NEVER defensive weapons is a bit much. Especially since I brought up the role of pikes in the age of gunpowder. If you'll allow me to badly paraphrase Patton... "Defensive structures are a monument to the stupidity of man"

"And sorry for rant, by the way... "

No, I enjoyed it very much, you made some great points and I enjoyed it!

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Indeed, or for lack of a better word, Long Spears.

Again, the Pike was not invented until circa 500 AD, long after the phalanx came into prominence. Thus, the Sumerians did not use a Pike. The Pike and the Sarissa are both varieties of spear, and while there are others, it disservices the veracity of any arguments, to use the term "Pike" as a generalization. The most famous English long spear was called a Pike, and we are using the English language here, but that does not make all long spears, Pikes. <3

Remember, a Zeppelin is not a Blimp. And a Teepee, is not a Tent. ;)

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

Well.. since wikipedia is no help to me on the difference of pikes and sarrissas (Defining a sarissa as a 13-21 foot long pike) could you please elaborate the difference for me?

Re: Pike vs Cavalry
 

That is because of the trend toward the over-association of the term Pike, with any long spear.

There seem to be 3 primary design differences between the Hellenistic Sarissa, and the English Pike. The first being that the Sarissa notably featured the bronze butt spike, so that it can be very firmly set in the ground in anticipation of a charge. The second being that the Sarissa was typically fashioned in 2 pieces, that were then adjoined like a pool cue, likely primarily to make the weapons easier to handle during extended mobilizations. The third difference being that the English Pike was tapered towards the tip, and thus needed to be reinforced with metal strips.

Functionally, the Sarissa is intended to be used with a shield, and the bronze butt spike aids in balancing the long weapon for 1 handed use. By contrast, the English Pike was exclusively a 2 handed weapon, such as the Pike is portrayed in Dominions.

Oddly, the actual "Long Spear" in the game is used with a shield as well, and thus is the closest that we come to a Sarissa, despite the fact that the average length of a Sarissa was actually longer than the average Pike, yet, in game Pike = 6 and Long Spear = 5. ;) Crazy Swedes. <3