Pike vs Cavalry

[JimMorrison]

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

[Trumanator]

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.

[Dedas]

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).

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Dedas

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).

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.

[Dedas]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

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.

I understand you but my humble (and annoying) opinion is that repel is much better than people give it credit for. I have done a lot of tests over the years and found out that repel gives a subtle (for the eye) but very effective edge over your enemy in two different ways. Those ways are to repel and to not be repelled as opposed to not repel and to be repelled. There is a third option and that is no repel in effect in the event of equal length.

To meet your arguments:
As for numbers "beating" it that is just not true. In the event of repelling an attack you get normal to hit for the first, -2 to the second, -4 to the third etc. With high attack you could repel several blows to you with high probability. With low attack you could repel several attacks as well but it is not so likely after a few. But this is the same principle applied when you attack someone, it gets easier for every blow. So what would you rather have when you are attacked by a big number of enemies?

1. The same length weapon: no repel in effect but you get -2 defence for every attack made to you.

Summary: You get one rapidly fading chance to defend yourself from every attack.

2. Shorter weapon: no repel in effect but you get -2 defence for every attack made to you. When you attack however the enemy gets to repel. When attacking the enemy gets one rapidly fading chance to defend itself.

Summary: You get one rapidly fading chance to defend yourself from every attack. When attacking the enemy gets two rapidly fading chances to defend itself.

3. Longer weapon: you get to repel with -2 to your attack when trying achieve repel. You get -2 defence for every attack made to you.

Summary: You get two rapidly fading chances to defend yourself from every attack. The enemy gets one rapidly fading chance to defend itself.

The right answer is of course 3.

In addition, I don't see the connections between choosing numbers over repel. It is all a matter of what you meet. If the enemy comes equipped with axes (length 1) use broad swords (length 2) and you will have a clear edge as seen above. If they come with battle axes (length 3) use spears (length 4) and so on. Oh, and if they come with pikes (length 6) you either want to come with pikes as well (alternative 1) or use missile units. Just try to avoid alternative 2, that is bad in every way for you. And if you have bigger numbers than your enemy you might even it out, but there is nothing stopping your enemy to field the same amount of troops as you (or more) and beat you more efficiently (lower losses/cost). Intel is key here.

As for trampling. Yes, but that is true in any case, shields won't help you here, only high natural defence, size and HP.

Missile units. You can use a shield and still have a longer weapon than your enemy. In the case of the pike, no. But I'm not debating pikes over shields or something silly like that. Everything has its place.

Thank you for discussing with me.

[chrispedersen]

Dedas:

Outnumbered 2:1, the pikemen in the game aren't going to matter a hill of beans.

you asked which would I rather have repel or no repel outnumbered and my answer is:

Neither. I'd rather not be in that situation. But if I was in that situation I'd rather have significantly better armor.

[Scarlioni]

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!

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

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

Well, there is that little button down of each post... Of course, if the post itself is long - like this one, you have to cut it to pieces manually (by copying quote marks, then pasting them where you want them).

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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

For morale reasons it would probably be good. Still, could you give some link on such a reenactmaent?

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

To clear this: Ulm has the best pikemen in the game. They work (somewhat).
In real life pikemen could be quite a steamroller unless specifically countered...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

Hastur disagrees a lot, it seems... And "porn" is a good term here.
As for Troy, it has some saving moments (Achilles & Priamos scene is good, for example) - but two phalanxes meeting had no place under Troy in 1200 BC! At the same time, you wouldn't have to imagine a lot had you read actual historical books. Of course, primary sources are still better even if they aren't always easy to use...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

Yes, and he also said that enemy army had always been much more numerous than his own. Don't remember offhand his report, but Marius said that there were 300 000 Teutons with their allies when they met Romans. How would you call 300 000 7-foot tall guys which were slaughtered with Romans with loss of about 500 Roman lives? And Roman portrayal of Mid-Eastern armies was particularly notorious in this degree - it seems almost as they tried to outdo Herodotos with his 5 million Persians (including noncombatants, of course!).
Your last phrase is, of course, completely on-target. Such reports can often be misleading.

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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!

So you concede the point of "weapon mainly used on offense?

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

Jim noted some points already. I would add that these "pointy things" had different points actually! Rennaisance pike had piramidal or even conical one to better punch through armor. Macedonian sarissa had a laurel-leaf head causing more dangerous wounds against no or little armor. Plus, different balance as already mentioned. Konnolly has quite good illustrations of it.

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

Before Marius they didn't use them. They used spears (hasta). They used heavy javelins (pila). But later Karakalla offered to introduce some pike-like weapons (probably sarissa - I didn't look int othis moment closely) to use against Germanic and Eastern cavalry. As I said, I didn't try to follow a fate of this reform after he was assassinated but Byzantians used long spears at 6-10th centuries at least...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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?

First, zweihander was not used to chop off pikes - just to knock them aside, the same as later halberds, or, still better, ranseurs/espontons (sp?). And Swiss started with halberds only, using them to chop up (and thrust, too) whoever came to hand. Later they started to used pikes, too, but it was after Landsknechts appeared and iirc Swiss pikes were always shorter.

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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?

At their ascendent period they fought mainly for themselves and plunder. Later France and other kingdoms began to hire them and yes, at this later period French commanders tried to make Swiss fought on defense. Unfortunately, this rarely worked and Swiss trying to plunge forward against enemy fire led to some pretty heavy defeats for France.

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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?

Copying the Swiss - it could be said. But I don't happen to remember whether Emperor Maximillian said anything on who he used as a prototype for his "new army". It could also be Scotts (also almost monopolized by French) or Flemish (and these were partly imperial subjects). We can draw some conclusions on similar battle order, but I'm not certain. And as I said, Swiss started to use pikes after Landsknechts, not before - which actually makes sense as the latter were initially organized as a semi-regular forces by a centralized state while the former were militia of small cantons who sometimes had to fight in less cohesive way...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

I wouldn't be sure about the latter. My personal opinion is more like that mounted pistoliers and harquebusiers making pikemen suffer heavily while being at the same time vulnerable to musket fire. After they became a prevalent cavalry - and with a progress in field artillery - pikes became less needed and more vulnerable. Plus, at the 30-years War pikemen were used only in large battles, while musketeers were also used in raiding - and so gathering more spoils. Which led to the latter position becoming much more popular for a common soldier...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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.

Quite possibly. But iirc Sacred band at Leuctres was at 50 or so ranks deep.

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

"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"

Well, Patton has a reason to say so in his time. But he probably wouldn't be so cocky facing Wermacht of 1941... Defensive structures - and formations - were used to allow you to concentrate most of your military strength against a pert of the enemy's strength. And they were quite effective at this, too - unless you were so much overwhelmed as Germany was by 1944 (fighting against countries with a total of 1.5 billion population and 2 largest economies of the world)...
As for half-plates and hoplite armors - they certainly played similar roles. They were made differently (of course, if Hellenes had a good steel...). I don't remember "dendra panopoly" - it seems Greek, but escapes me right now...

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

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

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

Well, I'm not so sure all the others did - especially as the guy starting this thread pulled his hair some time ago...

To Agema: I don't know what you mean by "meaningful sense". They were used in different periods against different enemies. So they HAD quite a few differences. Encyclopedias are great to start your reading - they were never meant to contain all about the subject (well, maybe Diderot's was, but never mind this...)

To Dedas:
You seem to forget that shield soldiers - or greatswords often have:
1. better armor;
2. better damage output to defeat enemy armor;
3. weapon/shield combo resulting in higher Defense.
So your examples are flawed as they don't take all these into account (I can be not able to repel you but with my armor/shield/broadsword you either won't hit or won't wound me - and in return, my armor will protect me from your repel, I have better attack and your armor isn't proof against broadsword). Note that Ulm pikemen partially negate these with their better-than-human stats, but that wouldn't be true for other pikemen.
And of course, the point with tramplers is that soldiers with greatswords/halberds/battle axes can strike back against large and tough tramplers with a chance to kill or heavily injure them with just a few hits while pikemen have to really overwhelm them with numbers to do that - and numbers cost.
(Sorry for intruding in your discussion, but it seems to include flawed reasoning which is counterproductive...)

[Scarlioni]

Oh wow... Great discussion guys!

Firstly... Pictures of Sumerian pikes from bas relief

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

[vfb]

Those aren't pikes! Those are pointed sticks.