Slitherine

MikeC_81 wrote: We know a very large force of Celts crushed a much smaller force of Roman legions fighting in the classical phalanx (not pikes) style at the battle of Allia. There are little to no tactical details however.

Actually, for the Allia we have one very useful one - part of the Gallic army charged the Roman army in the flank.

Scutarii wrote:I said oposite, pike units are the less letal units in battlefield because they use a bad weapon to deal high damage in short time like spears or swords can do when they are in active combat... pikes deal small damage and need a lot of time to made enemy units have noticiable casualties because pikes are very hard to use weapons when you need hit a specific target fast.

BUT pikes are assasins when enemy impale over them because the impact from attacker made pikes maximize the effectivity, is like in martial arts, the enemy power is used against him... maybe this is why the best pike combats were VS enemies that simple "assault" them wasting forces in suicide charges and when enemy is weak pike units simple push enemy back.

Pike is the best weapon VS an enemy that base his combat power in impact BUT when combat become a melee here pikes best option is mantein enemy far from their position but not deal a lot damage to enemy units... at same time if enemy armed with smaller and more usable weapons in melee like swords or spears can move between pikes and try deal damage to pike units... of course this means that in melee pike units and his enemies enter in a type of combat where none of them is going to suffer high casualties.

Terrain impact in phalanx is based in the disruption of formation that open gaps that an attacker can exploit... the first charge sure deal a lot damage to attacker but after impact they can infiltrate troops in the holes and start destroying formation..

Do you really believe that anyone would run into a wall of pikes... I'm pretty sure that would rarely be the case.

The only way that a legion would break a phalanx would be to first disrupt it with enough missiles so their soldiers could enter into the gaps. As mentioned above there are some instances that it occurred but that is obviously something very rare.

Pikes are going to do massive damage in a drawn out melee, we have hundreds of account this is the case from both ancient and medieval/renascence sources. It is only in pike versus pike fights you see the formations pushing each other with relatively few casualties until one side breaks. It is the pure mass of pike that make the formation so formidable.

The reason Romans did not use pike phalanxes was not its efficiency but their culture and the way they used their army, pike warfare was only suitable for large open battle. The legionary was way more dynamic and useful for what the Roman neded it to be and certainly good enough in open battle too. The phalanx was just too rigid a tool for the Romans and their command style was what made the legion so superior not the weapon system they used. In battle I would say that command and discipline is way more important than what weapons and armour you use.

nikgaukroger wrote: You know, the only recollection I have of lighter troops in amongst the phalanx is Pyhrros mixing Italian (or Illyrian or similar) units/troops between the phalanx units (on one occasion?). All the rest appear to have been a solid line of phalanx units only (although I'm sure there would be small gaps between taxeis to allow for some manoeuvre ability) - well until Antichos III screwed it up with nellies between the units.

As far as I know Alxander used it too and I'm of the impression this was relatively common practice. Skirmishers would operate out in front of the phalanxes and then provide some small meassure of security once the fighting start.

Pure physics dictate that gaps must be relatively wide. A phalanx on the march is in a loose order and you must still have some distance to the phalanx next to you to move. Once in close order the gaps grow even further. I'm not talking dozens of meter but at least a few, these gaps would need to be defended in battle. I for one would never just leave them there and open myself up for a possible disaster.

If anyone did as you say I could see that as a reason for why a pike formation was disrupted.

If we look at medieval or renascence use of pike we see the same pattern. Skirmishers or crossbowmen/arquebusiers defended the flanks. In ancient cases we are not talking about huge numbers of men to fill these gaps which is most probably why it is not mentioned specifically very often.

You hit the target, who is going to attack a wall of pikes??? my reply is as they are now in game the impact is not punishing the units doing it... with time usually pike units are going to win VS heavy foot IF impact not disrupt pikes (and here the warbands have a biggest chance to disrupt pikes in impact apart they can stand more in combat VS pikes because have bigger size than the other heavy foot).

As you say the way to deal with pike units is use shot units to soft them, engage them in a terrain they lose the formation cohesion and flank them to avoid frontal combat with pike units.

I want see first how work a reduction in the size-price in warband armies and after do this work in other special units that need diferent aproximation to "normal" heavy foot.

PD: other point is that in medieval armies are going to be heavy foot spearmen that are not impact foot... is a "pike low cost" unit pure defensive... imagine them VS impact foot... in old FOG they were relative inefective.

Scutarii wrote:You hit the target, who is going to attack a wall of pikes??? my reply is as they are now in game the impact is not punishing the units doing it... with time usually pike units are going to win VS heavy foot IF impact not disrupt pikes (and here the warbands have a biggest chance to disrupt pikes in impact apart they can stand more in combat VS pikes because have bigger size than the other heavy foot).

As you say the way to deal with pike units is use shot units to soft them, engage them in a terrain they lose the formation cohesion and flank them to avoid frontal combat with pike units.

I want see first how work a reduction in the size-price in warband armies and after do this work in other special units that need diferent aproximation to "normal" heavy foot.

PD: other point is that in medieval armies are going to be heavy foot spearmen that are not impact foot... is a "pike low cost" unit pure defensive... imagine them VS impact foot... in old FOG they were relative inefective.

Once two formation was in contact the pikes would start pushing into the enemy and they would try to resist, this would produce allot of casualties. You only have to read a bit about it, there is no magic to it. You just seem to go on some gut instinct and not of any actual facts. Anyone who studied these types of combat know pikes are lethal.

The problem with missile fire in ancient times is that they rarely used massed missile fire, most missile fire came from loosely organized forces. Someone else have to explain why they did not use more massed bow fire like they did in India and China.

You also must understand that rulers of the time could not educate just anyone in the art of war and equip them with weapons this was equally true in medieval times. Spearmen of the middle ages was mainly trained peasants and they were usually poorly trained and equipped more like the fyrd militia or similar. Arming the peasants was often a very bad idea. The ruling class who were the actual soldiers (the knights) used the best equipment and that was heavy armour and a horse because why not use the best of the best. Some states during the middle ages lived on providing mercenaries which they hired, their economy was good and arming the people was a lucrative business and they didn't have to fear rebellion. If you were a mercenary you did not want to be in the front line getting killed so the crossbow was the favored weapon for mercenaries even if pike men and landsknekt was other famous mercenaries.

You must understand that choice of weapon or style of war is as much dictated by society as it is by war itself.

Cumandante wrote:I think the problem may lie partly in Impact Foot's power. Not only does it provide a very strong 200 POAs, it also adds a -1 cohesion check modifier on defeats.

Impact foot units can very reliably disrupt other foot on impact. During the charge they easily match the much more fickle Pike's 200 POAs, and clearly best Offensive Spearmen's 100.

If disrupted, the odds change from 100vs200 in favor of Pikes, or from 50vs100 in favor of Spearmen to 100vs100 even fights.


I'm not claiming Impact Foot is unrealistically powerful, but perhaps it is worth considering.

However impact foot are trashy against lance cavalry. Pike, offensive and defensive spearmen neglect lance bonuses in impact. So its balanced in this way. However 200 impact is ofc quite lopsided in infantry combat.

Minute 3


I know is not perfect but you can see that try hit a individual target (a soldier) with a pike is not easy and these are a lot shorter than real pikes... the value of pikes is in the intimidation and that prevent a formation pass them... but as weapon to deal damage i dont see pike as the best option because is harder to use compared with a spear or a sword to hit an individual target (more in units with no formation like warbands)... pikes are more to block and impale units that try assault them... other history is why units like roman legions CANT break contact with pike units that are a lot slower and with less mobility.

Scutarii wrote:Minute 3
-video-

I know is not perfect but you can see that try hit a individual target (a soldier) with a pike is not easy and these are a lot shorter than real pikes... the value of pikes is in the intimidation and that prevent a formation pass them... but as weapon to deal damage i dont see pike as the best option because is harder to use compared with a spear or a sword to hit an individual target (more in units with no formation like warbands)... pikes are more to block and impale units that try assault them... other history is why units like roman legions CANT break contact with pike units that are a lot slower and with less mobility.

Pikes are harder to control and aim than spears, true. But in a pike formation several points are threatening each enemy at the same time: even if you don't hit him, there's a good chance that one of your friends will.

Scutarii wrote:Minute 3
I know is not perfect but you can see that try hit a individual target (a soldier) with a pike is not easy and these are a lot shorter than real pikes... the value of pikes is in the intimidation and that prevent a formation pass them... but as weapon to deal damage i dont see pike as the best option because is harder to use compared with a spear or a sword to hit an individual target (more in units with no formation like warbands)... pikes are more to block and impale units that try assault them... other history is why units like roman legions CANT break contact with pike units that are a lot slower and with less mobility.

I don't understand where you get your information, if it is from movies I do understand... but pike formation was a combat formation. Even if one of its role was to fixate the enemy forces so cavalry could attack the flank that is one thing, this does not mean it did the heavy brunt of killing quite often.

An enemy line obviously must resist the pike pushing it or they will break a hole in the line where support troops could get in and start attacking the rear.

In many cases it was the legions job to fix enemy forces in place for cavalry or other mobile forces to attack a flank... this is a rather simplistic thinking that defense was its only job.

Pike formation was NOT defensive more than it was offensive, it was both depending on what you needed it to be. Look at the battle of Gaugamella, Alexander used his phalanxes both defensively and offensively. The left flanks job was to hold while the right pushed against the Persian center.

Cumandante wrote:

Scutarii wrote:Minute 3
-video-

I know is not perfect but you can see that try hit a individual target (a soldier) with a pike is not easy and these are a lot shorter than real pikes... the value of pikes is in the intimidation and that prevent a formation pass them... but as weapon to deal damage i dont see pike as the best option because is harder to use compared with a spear or a sword to hit an individual target (more in units with no formation like warbands)... pikes are more to block and impale units that try assault them... other history is why units like roman legions CANT break contact with pike units that are a lot slower and with less mobility.

Pikes are harder to control and aim than spears, true. But in a pike formation several points are threatening each enemy at the same time: even if you don't hit him, there's a good chance that one of your friends will.

Yes, combat on this level are rarely about trying to hit something, you will have like six to eight rows of pike in front of you, it will be impossible to dodge that for long if you stand in the front rank of en enemy formation.

I know is not a perfect source, but show that pike value is in formation and that as offensive weapon to deal damage is not very effective... you need enemy impale in pikes to have the best damage dealing in the unit and this is only in impact that is where in game impact heavy foot have the chance to defeat pikes.

After impact is when pikes are less effective to deal damage but in game is in this moment when pike units can deal the biggest amount of damage to enemy.

Scutarii wrote:I know is not a perfect source, but show that pike value is in formation and that as offensive weapon to deal damage is not very effective... you need enemy impale in pikes to have the best damage dealing in the unit and this is only in impact that is where in game impact heavy foot have the chance to defeat pikes.

After impact is when pikes are less effective to deal damage but in game is in this moment when pike units can deal the biggest amount of damage to enemy.

Simply no... you are way off... sure pike in a square formation is super defensive but that is the case in the game as well since you can't initiate combat that way.

You may believe whatever you want but please read some real sources before you form an opinion.

JorgenCAB wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: You know, the only recollection I have of lighter troops in amongst the phalanx is Pyhrros mixing Italian (or Illyrian or similar) units/troops between the phalanx units (on one occasion?). All the rest appear to have been a solid line of phalanx units only (although I'm sure there would be small gaps between taxeis to allow for some manoeuvre ability) - well until Antichos III screwed it up with nellies between the units.

As far as I know Alxander used it too and I'm of the impression this was relatively common practice.

I'm certainly unaware of any evidence for it and to be honest off hand can't recall ever before seeing a suggestion that it happened (which of course doesn't mean nobody has, just that I haven't read it).

JorgenCAB wrote: Once two formation was in contact the pikes would start pushing into the enemy and they would try to resist, this would produce allot of casualties.

The accounts of pike ve pike fights from the early modern period (which I'm probably more familiar with in respect of pike on pike evidence) suggests that casualties were actually pretty hard to cause. Examples from the ECW seem to show it was as much about knocking people over as anything (one officer got knocked over 3 times in a pike fight IIRC) and an earlier (C16th) example of a Scots civil war talks of pikes getting tangled up with each other, caught in peoples jacks, etc. and generally not killing people much (and FWIW the formations were so dense that missiles thrown from the rear lay on top of the two sides pikes as they were pushing at each other). There is even an account from a Swiss soldier which basically says it is extremely hard to hurt somebody badly with a pike (and the Swiss knew a bit about pike warfare).

For one thing, a Macedonian-style pike has a very small head. Over 90% of it is fairly smooth ash wood, which hurts to get bonked with but isn't exactly a tool of the grim reaper. The only stabby part is the very tip, as opposed to some of the other pole weapons seen in late medieval and early modern times, which were slashing weapons like halberds.

The Hellenistic Kingdoms did use phalanx as their main offensive arm, for one because they could not possibly manage the 1-to-4 ratio of cavalry-to-infantry that Alexander had, and for another because so many of their troops were recruited at random that a coordinated strategy had to be based on SOMETHING regular, which was the phalanx.

i feel like helenistic factions should have more phalanexes at least. like 10-30% increase in quantity (number of units,not size)

nikgaukroger wrote:

JorgenCAB wrote: Once two formation was in contact the pikes would start pushing into the enemy and they would try to resist, this would produce allot of casualties.

The accounts of pike ve pike fights from the early modern period (which I'm probably more familiar with in respect of pike on pike evidence) suggests that casualties were actually pretty hard to cause. Examples from the ECW seem to show it was as much about knocking people over as anything (one officer got knocked over 3 times in a pike fight IIRC) and an earlier (C16th) example of a Scots civil war talks of pikes getting tangled up with each other, caught in peoples jacks, etc. and generally not killing people much (and FWIW the formations were so dense that missiles thrown from the rear lay on top of the two sides pikes as they were pushing at each other). There is even an account from a Swiss soldier which basically says it is extremely hard to hurt somebody badly with a pike (and the Swiss knew a bit about pike warfare).

I did specifically state that pike versus pike was mainly an affair about pushing and major casualties only occurred once one side broke.

You should read the battles where Romans faced Hellenistic pike formations, most of these battles have accounts of the Romans suffering great losses through trying to assault or hold of the pike formations. Most of the campaign in Greece and against Phyrrus describe this.

So, against someone with no pikes losses would mount up, against pike or shield wall type units like Hoplites it mainly came down to a shoving contest. Romans did not really fight in true shield wall formations with interlocking shields.

JorgenCAB wrote:
I did specifically state that pike versus pike was mainly an affair about pushing and major casualties only occurred once one side broke.

Ah, sorry. Thought you were on about pike vs pike.

You should read the battles where Romans faced Hellenistic pike formations,

Last thing I need just now is to read all those again for the millionth* time


* may contain traces of exageration

nikgaukroger wrote:

JorgenCAB wrote:
I did specifically state that pike versus pike was mainly an affair about pushing and major casualties only occurred once one side broke.

Ah, sorry. Thought you were on about pike vs pike.

You should read the battles where Romans faced Hellenistic pike formations,

Last thing I need just now is to read all those again for the millionth* time


* may contain traces of exageration

I could at least add that Pike formations did not directly come unscathed from battle with the Romans either. In the case of Phyrrus for example the losses of the Greek during the infantry slog was quite substantial as well but at the end of the day in most cases the Roman legions had to withdraw from the heavy weight of the phalanxes.

nikgaukroger wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote: We know a very large force of Celts crushed a much smaller force of Roman legions fighting in the classical phalanx (not pikes) style at the battle of Allia. There are little to no tactical details however.

Actually, for the Allia we have one very useful one - part of the Gallic army charged the Roman army in the flank.

I am more talking about the minutae that Scutarii and 76mm are talking about. Ex the supposed Warbands not being good in sustained combat and such. One of the primary examples about Warbands needing rebalancing is cited in the thread is there endurance in sustained combat and how they are too strong vs Warbands in sustained combat.

My point is that we have no real sources for this behaviour. Only speculation from quite biased sources.

Of course I know find maybe many of these comments are rooted in ..... movies....