Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

How to defeat pikemen

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>
Author
TheARRGH View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Over-Lord of the Marching Men

Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
  Quote TheARRGH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: How to defeat pikemen
    Posted: 22-Sep-2008 at 23:40
I think the answer has been thrashed out to a suitably definite: "it depends."Big%20smile

The answer to "pure pikes vs. pure lancers" has, I think, pretty much been decided as "Probably pikers unless they were singularly undisciplined"

Temujin: You stated that the infantry would likely have less morale--I understand the logic behind this, but I think we should generally assume similar levels of skill, discipline, and morale just to simplify the debate.





Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 20:46
don't tell the Poles, according to them the lances of their Hussars were logner than pikes and they defeated them on occasion. Wink
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 21:23
only for the sake of record i reply

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
Cavalry is limted in effectiveness to terrain


no, not at all, in fact cavalry is the most flexible and suitable to almost any terrain of them all. in modern armies mountain infantry still uses mules to transport equippment because mules are faster on broken ground than vehicles. irregular cavalry was able to operate virtually anywhere and i already gave examples of it above.

The point however is that given a pavise and the typical armor which can be worn by pikemen,


armour doesn't make invincible and pikemen have no pavises. and what you mean with "typical armour" anyways? whats a typcial armour for pikemen? which period do you talk about?

That is to say that the ratio of damage taken by the horse archers would be greater then the damage sustained by the pike/


no. thats just your assumption, i already mentioned why infantry is an easier target compared to HA
 
Enemy retreats, victory.


i see you were Napoleons advisor in Russia or something...

 
 
If the pikes have missile troops why can't the horse archers have silly examples that are irrelevant to the topic of conversation? :p


because your foot archers were not part of the topic in the first place.


Because this isn't a tit for tat balancing act.


again, stop thinking in gaming terms, warfare was NEVER balanced.

It was simply said that pikemen with archer support if organized could beat a force of horse archers. That's all.


YOU said that, there was no talk about archers unless you brought them up to defend your undefendable position
 
The original question itself is a half question because I don't think there ever existed a time when one encountered an army solely made of pikemen.


of course just ignore ancient Hellens and medieval Swiss. of coruse they had support troops of other kinds but the primary setup of the army were pikes.

That is why I mentioned archers


suuuuuuure, so you say there were no armies with pikes but you assume there were armies only with horse archers? LOL

and I have no problem discussing the tactics surrounding pikes or any form of archery, but please can we stop with this notion that horse archery is the answer to all medieval tactics and is the end all be all tactic.


no one claimed that, but horse archery combines the prime maximes of warfare, speed and firepower, so horse archery pretty much is the best answer to everything up to gunpowder.


Edited by Temujin - 23-Sep-2008 at 21:24
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 22:52
I think a klibanophoros would an excellent choice for pikemen, armored lancers and horse archers all in oneClap and a pike couldn't gut the horse becasue his armor hangs down to his knees so the shaft would get caught and the hook couldn't gut himSmile and the klibanophoroi would have the archers in the center and they would shoot while they chargedSmile and since a pike takes both hands you can't take a sheildEvil%20Smile 


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 23:12
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I think a klibanophoros would an excellent choice for pikemen, armored lancers and horse archers all in oneClap and a pike couldn't gut the horse becasue his armor hangs down to his knees so the shaft would get caught and the hook couldn't gut himSmile and the klibanophoroi would have the archers in the center and they would shoot while they chargedSmile and since a pike takes both hands you can't take a sheildEvil%20Smile 

1) First klibanophoros didnt fought agaisnt any pikemen during they heyday. Also it would be impossible to shoot effectively for those cavalry archers inside klibanophoros formation while charging. Most likely Cavalry archers in byzantine army (just like contemporary Arab archers) used their bows while in halt, anyway they didnt fight in steppe fashion, unlike genuine nomad horse archers.

As for cavalry armor - check what kind of cavalry faced Landsknecht pikemen during Italian wars - it was the most heaviest and most armoured cavalry every fielded in battles.
Back to Top
C.C.Benjamin View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 16-May-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 125
  Quote C.C.Benjamin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Sep-2008 at 23:32
Originally posted by Temujin


no, not at all, in fact cavalry is the most flexible and suitable to almost any terrain of them all. in modern armies mountain infantry still uses mules to transport equippment because mules are faster on broken ground than vehicles. irregular cavalry was able to operate virtu


What do you base this on?  Most battles seem to describe the cavalry being unable to charge through woodlands or over difficult ground, and smart generals taking advantage of this.  See the hundred year's war for plenty of examples of the English doing this to the French.

Transport mules are not cavalry, they are able to traverse difficult terrain at a walking pace better than motorised vehicles, true, but that isn't really relevant.

Cavalry worked best on a flat, open battlefield.


Originally posted by Temujin

no one claimed that, but horse archery combines the prime maximes of warfare, speed and firepower, so horse archery pretty much is the best answer to everything up to gunpowder.


It's certainly a pain.  I've always mused on how the English Longbowmen would have faired against the Mongol horse archers.
Know thyself
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 00:28
don't tell the Poles, according to them the lances of their Hussars were logner than pikes and they defeated them on occasion. Wink
 
One exception doesn't make a fact.
 
only for the sake of record i reply
 
Is that a sneaky way of saying you want the last word? :p Damned be my ancestors if an Oltenian like me will let that happen.
 
no, not at all, in fact cavalry is the most flexible and suitable to almost any terrain of them all. in modern armies mountain infantry still uses mules to transport equippment because mules are faster on broken ground than vehicles. irregular cavalry was able to operate virtually anywhere and i already gave examples of it above.
 
There you go. Mules to TRANSPORT. Cavalry is flexible yes, but not a jack of all trades and a master of all. Transporting things over broken ground is a lot different then fighting on it. Remember when the French charged their cavalry over muddy ground against an inferior english force?
 
armour doesn't make invincible and pikemen have no pavises. and what you mean with "typical armour" anyways? whats a typcial armour for pikemen? which period do you talk about?
 
I didn't say it made anyone invincible but being on foot does allow one to have more armor then a horse archer. I could see a pikeman wearing a nice metal breast plate and the rest being some thick leather, maybe some mail, and that would cut the effectiveness of arrows by quite alot.
 
Pavies was spoken in relation to the archers which you incorrectly assumed could not be used by them. Please don't pretend like it was anything other then that. We all know what I was refering to. Own up to it.
 
no. thats just your assumption, i already mentioned why infantry is an easier target compared to HA
 
You know what the problem is when you quote only snippets of my comment and take it out of context? You seem to also forget reading the full version. I never said infantry was harder to hit than a horse archer. What I said is that the rate and effectiveness of a horse archer against the pikemen would be greatly limited by the effectiveness of the foot archer against the horse archer.
 
i see you were Napoleons advisor in Russia or something...
 
Are we discussing single battles or a full campaign? I was speaking of battle by battle situations. The rest is irrelevant in this example. Please do not try to turn our conversation into anything else other then what it is.
 
because your foot archers were not part of the topic in the first place.
 
Ok the question was "how do you defeat pikemen" you stated horse archers. I stated that an organized pike formation backed by archers could defeat the horse archers. That's all. If you want to talk about only pikemen against only horse archers, well no crap the horse archers win. The pikemen would never catch up to them and they have no way to attack the horse archers. But that's a pointless thing to discuss. There is no discussion concerning that because it is obvious to anyone what the outcome of that is.
 


again, stop thinking in gaming terms, warfare was NEVER balanced.

It seems my friend that you have a very bad memory because it was YOU who said 50 pikemen and 50 archers vs 100 horse archers. It was YOU who said that if the archers get pasives then the horse archers get camels. So if anyone is trying to make it a balancing video game it is you, not me. As a matter of fact even what you quoted of me i said "This ISN'T a tit for tat balancing act." Please friend at least read even the out of context snippets which you quote. :)
 


YOU said that, there was no talk about archers unless you brought them up to defend your undefendable position
 
I know I said that. Undefendable position? My position has ONLY been that f archers with pikemen would defeat h archers. That has been my only position. If you can find anywhere in this thread where I have said pikemen alone can defeat horse archers please quote for us all. If you can not please apologize for misleading others to what my position was in this conversation as I find it unfair for you to discredit me based on your fallacy.
 


of course just ignore ancient Hellens and medieval Swiss. of coruse they had support troops of other kinds but the primary setup of the army were pikes.
The hellenes and swiss did not have solely pikemen. That is all the statement I quoted said. Of course again you ignore my sentences and words. It seems to be your "primary set up" :(


suuuuuuure, so you say there were no armies with pikes but you assume there were armies only with horse archers? LOL
 
Where did I say there were no armies with pikes? I said there were not armies with JUST pikes. Please re-read my statement for further clarification. Right now I am discussing a pike and FA vs HA scenario. If you would like, after we finish that, to discuss some theoretical scenario where HA would also have some other troops with them we can.
 
Again please do not mislead others to what my position is based on you skipping every other word in my sentences. Thank you kindly.
 
no one claimed that, but horse archery combines the prime maximes of warfare, speed and firepower, so horse archery pretty much is the best answer to everything up to gunpowder.
 
Horse archery pretty much is the best answer to everything up to gunpowder when it comes to steppe maybe you mean that?
Back to Top
TheARRGH View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
Over-Lord of the Marching Men

Joined: 29-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
  Quote TheARRGH Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:39
Originally posted by Temujin



i see you were Napoleons advisor in Russia or something...



YOU said that, there was no talk about archers unless you brought them up to defend your undefendable position




again, stop thinking in gaming terms, warfare was NEVER balanced.



suuuuuuure, so you say there were no armies with pikes but you assume there were armies only with horse archers? LOL




Temujin...

Y'know, when it's pretty obvious someone's trying to reconcile, that's not the time to laugh and get in a last "your argument sucks."

Maybe that's now what you're trying to do. But that seems to be how it's coming out.

You're a moderator, but to constantly state that another's argument is undefendable, laughable, and dependent on a foolish video-game centric view of things when it is in fact dependent on a logic that just happens to be different from yours is not, in my opinion, particularly moderated.

Not trying to be confrontational, but this is a debate.

I've done speech and debate, and I can tell you that if I made the arguments you're making the way you're making them at a tournament, I'd get docked for lack of civility--or at least get quite a few dirty looks.





Edited by TheARRGH - 24-Sep-2008 at 04:41
Who is the great dragon whom the spirit will no longer call lord and god? "Thou shalt" is the name of the great dragon. But the spirit of the lion says, "I will." - Nietzsche

Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:39
Originally posted by Roberts

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I think a klibanophoros would an excellent choice for pikemen, armored lancers and horse archers all in oneClap and a pike couldn't gut the horse becasue his armor hangs down to his knees so the shaft would get caught and the hook couldn't gut himSmile and the klibanophoroi would have the archers in the center and they would shoot while they chargedSmile and since a pike takes both hands you can't take a sheildEvil%20Smile 

1) First klibanophoros didnt fought agaisnt any pikemen during they heyday. Also it would be impossible to shoot effectively for those cavalry archers inside klibanophoros formation while charging. Most likely Cavalry archers in byzantine army (just like contemporary Arab archers) used their bows while in halt, anyway they didnt fight in steppe fashion, unlike genuine nomad horse archers.

As for cavalry armor - check what kind of cavalry faced Landsknecht pikemen during Italian wars - it was the most heaviest and most armoured cavalry every fielded in battles.
 
From what I've read they fired while in the center of the formation, however they have also been deployed on the wings, and I believe they did fight in the steppe fashion as early as the sixth century or even earlier, and I will most definetly check out the italian wars thanksSmile


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:44
Do you have any websites on the heavy cavalry from the italian wars that you owuld reccomend?Smile and what sort of armor did they have?Smile was it the typical chanfron,  crinet, peytral, crupper, and frouchard arrangment?Smile with mabye some chain mail? 


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
  Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:46
Not trying to sound like some kind of close minded a**hole but why the hell would Cataphracts fight in the steppe fasion? My understanding is that they were flexable because of their wide array of different equipment which allowed for different tactics. But using heavy cavalry as a type of horse archer contradicts its purpose its like why bother if their going to be much slower.
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 04:54

Dude you just said it was their wide array of equipment that made them so flexible there's your answer, they could fight as lancers and horse archers and who says heavy cavalry is slow? also remember why other heavy cavalry was doomed because they didn't have long range attack capability whereas the cataphract was able ot sgwoer his enmy with arrows and they spread out to avoid the arrows they were butchered by the lancers and fi they tightened up formaiton it made them that much easier to shoot the battle of carrhe si a perfect example of that



Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
  Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 05:06
I could see heavy cavalry using ranged weapons as a kinda softening up of the enemy before the charge but as horse archers? I.E harrassing the enemy and using steppe style feints. Why use them as horse archers when mostly countries like Parthia used them, countries that if i remember correctly were very horse archer heavy.
Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 05:25
Parthia was also very catphract heavySmile also I thought by steepe style you meant firing at a run not harassment and feint although cataphracts did that but I don't think they did it mongol styleSmile I think the byzantines left that to their own light horse archers 


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Count Belisarius View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Magister Militum

Joined: 25-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1109
  Quote Count Belisarius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 05:28
By harassment and feint do you mean drawing them into ambushes with fake charges and faking charges?Smile


Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)


Back to Top
Roberts View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain

aka axeman

Joined: 22-Aug-2005
Location: Riga
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1138
  Quote Roberts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 05:49
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Do you have any websites on the heavy cavalry from the italian wars that you owuld reccomend?Smile and what sort of armor did they have?Smile was it the typical chanfron,  crinet, peytral, crupper, and frouchard arrangment?Smile with mabye some chain mail? 

I don't know any websites about them in English, though I am sure you can find a lot about them in French language internet, since they had most of this heavy cavalry.

Here are some pictures from my hard drive to give you better idea of their armament.


You can read about them in wikipedia too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)
Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
  Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 06:15
Great pictures Roberts Thumbs%20Up. By feints yes thats what i meant Count, Also yes Parthia was cataphract heavy but the ratio of horse archers to cataphracts made the horse archer the more numerous and common component of the Parthian army.
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.
Back to Top
Husaria View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jul-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 150
  Quote Husaria Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 06:30
Good example

Battle of Carrhae Parthian composition

9,000 horse archers,
1,000 cataphracts
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.
Back to Top
ataman View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1108
  Quote ataman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 12:21

Originally posted by Temujin

don't tell the Poles, according to them the lances of their Hussars were logner than pikes and they defeated them on occasion. Wink

According to primary sources lances of Polish hussars were longer than piks. And there still exists hussar lance which is 6,2m long. It is more than any pike of its time.

Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

don't tell the Poles, according to them the lances of their Hussars were logner than pikes and they defeated them on occasion. Wink

 
One exception doesn't make a fact.
Join the group Zaglobastavern. My friend and historian Radosław Sikora has shown there 6 photos taken from 6 places of battles (Kircholm 1605, Kłuszyn 1610, Smoleńsk 1633, Mohylew 1655, Połonka 1660, Basia 1660), where hussars defeated pikemen. And they were taken only during his last trip. There were another battles where hussars defeated pikemen (like Lubieszów 1577, Byczyna 1588, Mitawa 1622 etc.).


Edited by ataman - 24-Sep-2008 at 14:26
Back to Top
Carpathian Wolf View Drop Down
General
General

BANNED

Joined: 06-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 884
  Quote Carpathian Wolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 15:28
I know the poles employed those tactics but I don't think it had anything to do with the trend of conversation i was having with Temujin.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.139 seconds.