Pike vs Cavalry

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by vfb

Those aren't pikes! Those are pointed sticks.

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.

[Scarlioni]

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?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Scarlioni

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?

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

[Agema]

The sarissa is a pike in most meaningful senses. The semantic difference has very little to do with tactics, function and form, and a lot to do with the fact the former fell out of use during late BC and the latter was a reintroduction centuries later. It's hard to agree with the design difference argument because there are notable differences in designs across the history of European pikes, yet they are all still pikes.

At least one encyclopaedia and some books on ancient warfare I've read readily describe the sarissa as a pike or a pike-like weapon, so I'd suggest expert opinion considers them effectively the same thing.

[Agema]

It's certainly true that the bayonet put pikemen on the road to obsolescence. However, it also involved improvements in gun technology (flintlocks, Adolphus' powder & shot cartridges) such that muskets became more efficient battlefield weapons, and firepower started to become more dominant for infantry. Pikemen were no more vulnerable to cannons than musketeers, and the threat of gun-owning cavalry was already minimal because of mixed-troop formations such as the Spanish tercio.

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.

The sacred band was only 150 strong. It's very unlikely it fought 50 ranks deep!

[Scarlioni]

Still, could you give some link on such a reenactmaent?

I looked for about ten minutes on utube and couldnt find anything, sry.

Dendra panopoly..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendra_panoply

[JimMorrison]

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".

[Akela]

Some of you guys know waaaaaay too much about this stuff. After the holocaust I want to be on your team.

[Dedas]

But armour comes after repel, don't you see? First you have to hit something to do damage. Also, repel is not something limited to pikes. If you think that your understanding of the game mechanics are seriously limited.

Also, pikemen without significant armour is a lot cheaper to mass than those with so I say there is a great chance than anything with more armour and shorter weapons will be outnumbered. And even if it isn't it will have to pass two checks to do damage instead of one - a serious disadvantage.

[chrispedersen]

I do understand armor comes after repel.

I also understand that repel is only a *chance* of repelling the attack. And that repel decreases with each sequential attack.

So I'd much rather have

20 Atk 10 Pro 4 Pike Len 6
vs
10 Atk 10 Prot 16 Random Shortweapon3

than

20 Atk 10 pro 4 Pike Len 6
vs
10 atk 10 pro 4 Pike len 6

Assuming strengh 10