Quote:
Originally Posted by Agema
My point about "meaningful sense" is that the sarissa was equivalent to a pike in virtually every way except that it was specific to a set of nations at a different point in history. Encyclopaedias are not academic sources, but they are based on academic sources. I own two books on ancient warfare that refer to sarissas as pikes, and I've read others also describing them as such: I expect the authors to be adequate authorities.
|
I think that your assessment of what differences are meaningful or not, may be a bit superficial. In fact I would argue that the -only- major similarity between the Pike and Sarissa (in form) was that they are both very long point sticks (Spears). And I would argue that the only major similarity in usage between the Pike and the Sarissa in usage, was that formations would array multiple ranks of spearheads towards a given enemy. Beyond that, there were distinct differences to every aspect of design and use. It's like arguing that a Halberd is a Glaive, and that all Polearms are Glaives, rather than calling them all Polearms.
And this leads me to my next point - a Historian is not a Semanticist.
Furthermore, the Sarissa was employed millenia before the Pike. By the transitory property of relational semanticism, if you refuse to call either the Sarissa or the Pike a "Spear", then since Pikes did not exist when the Sarissa was invented, you could consider the Pike to be a type of Sarissa, but it is wholly improper to consider the Sarissa a type of Pike. Still, they are both Spears, as it came before either, and has long since been used as a broad classification for any "long pointy thrusting weapon made mostly or entirely of wood".
Oh and to answer you Dedas, I'd just go for higher Morale troops, and/or insure the casting of Sermon of Courage to marginalize the benefit of your Repel "chance".
Re: Pike vs Cavalry
Hybrid Mode
