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
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 Topic: How to defeat pikemen
    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 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 04:44
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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: 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
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: 22-Sep-2008 at 21:24
Temujin: contrary to popular believe cavalry is NOT limited by terrain like mountains or swamps. the Soviets in ww2 had a type of cavalry called "Mountain-Cavalry" and used their cavalry for partizan operations in swamps, likewise German cavalry was used in swamps for counter-partizan warfare. and that's just a recent example.

other than that, Longbows and Reflex Composite Bows used by Steppe Nomads had pretty much the same range.

also targets standing still is a better target, particularly in a closely packed formation. also Steppe horsemen would ALWAYs try to envelop their enemies, also Cossacks did that even if they were outnumbered by the enemy. also as we are talkign about medieval infantry but also infantry in general they would have a much lower morale and route.
and then, even if the Steppe Nomads withdraw, what is the infantry supposed to do? they can go nowhere, their every step will be tracked and harassed by the Mongols. in such a hypothetical scenario the infantry doesn't stand a chance.
===========================================
 
 
Cavalry is limted in effectiveness to terrain and anyone who ignores the terrain does not know military logistics and tactics. Also no one is denying the fact that tightly packed people standing still is an easier target to hit by the horse archers. The point however is that given a pavise and the typical armor which can be worn by pikemen, they would have a relatively good defense. And while the Horse archers may be harder to hit by comparisant, they wouldn't be impossible. That is to say that the ratio of damage taken by the horse archers would be greater then the damage sustained by the pike/footarchers.
 
If the steppe nomad withdraws what can the infantry do? Are you talking about the battle? They don't need to do anything. Enemy retreats, victory. Or are you talking about a highly bias variable you are picking that favors the horse archer again such as the battle happening in the middle of an open grass field for as far as the eye can see?
 
 
Temujin:
 
i mentioned above the Parthian archers at Carrhae were supplied by baggage camels that carried arrows for re-stocking.


and btw, how did this topic devolved into a battle foot archer vs horse archer? if the pikes can have missile troops, then why can't the horse archers have, say assault pioneers with flamethrowers? THAT's a good idea, or wait, why not close air support? i justc ame to think how silly this thread became and it's really funny that it's ME who's being called a fanboy while the pikemen faction introduced all those ridiculous advantages not previously part of the initial question... Clown
 
==============
 
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 this isn't a tit for tat balancing act. It was simply said that pikemen with archer support if organized could beat a force of horse archers. That's all.
 
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. That is why I mentioned archers 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.
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: 22-Sep-2008 at 19:05
i mentioned above the Parthian archers at Carrhae were supplied by baggage camels that carried arrows for re-stocking.


and btw, how did this topic devolved into a battle foot archer vs horse archer? if the pikes can have missile troops, then why can't the horse archers have, say assault pioneers with flamethrowers? THAT's a good idea, or wait, why not close air support? i justc ame to think how silly this thread became and it's really funny that it's ME who's being called a fanboy while the pikemen faction introduced all those ridiculous advantages not previously part of the initial question... Clown
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Sep-2008 at 18:58
How about the limiting factor of how many arrows could a horse archer carry? I suppose it was not so easy to go back to the camp and re-stock.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
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: 22-Sep-2008 at 18:42
contrary to popular believe cavalry is NOT limited by terrain like mountains or swamps. the Soviets in ww2 had a type of cavalry called "Mountain-Cavalry" and used their cavalry for partizan operations in swamps, likewise German cavalry was used in swamps for counter-partizan warfare. and that's just a recent example.

other than that, Longbows and Reflex Composite Bows used by Steppe Nomads had pretty much the same range.

also targets standing still is a better target, particularly in a closely packed formation. also Steppe horsemen would ALWAYs try to envelop their enemies, also Cossacks did that even if they were outnumbered by the enemy. also as we are talkign about medieval infantry but also infantry in general they would have a much lower morale and route.
and then, even if the Steppe Nomads withdraw, what is the infantry supposed to do? they can go nowhere, their every step will be tracked and harassed by the Mongols. in such a hypothetical scenario the infantry doesn't stand a chance.
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: 22-Sep-2008 at 01:20
Expressed my opinion perfectly. Agreed completely. I also wish to add that this populairty concerning horse archery often murkies up the waters of what is truth and history and what is just "fanboydom". Another example would also be the almost cult following of the "katana". I see both "katana fans" and "horse archery fans" use similar arguements and with similar zealotry concerning their opinion.
 
I will however say that I do like horse archery and if i were back in history 9 out of 10 times i'd want a horse and i'd want a bow. But the Mongols/horse archery aren't the end all be all.
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: 21-Sep-2008 at 23:33
Temujin:

Archers can use pevesie. And believe me, it would be VERY hard for horse archers to be able to truly defeat an organized, disciplined, coherent formation of pikes and archers.

Horse archers can do impressive damage, but they rely on several things.
First is terrain. cavalry-ANY cavalry--is at it's best on an open field. Throw swamps into the mix, or rough ground that horses can break their legs on, and they're much more vulnerable.

Second--a lack of enemy ranged troops. This is important. The fact that horse archers can move fast is a pretty good defense against arrows, but it's not by any means a certain defense. And, in case you were wondering, longbow archers mainly shot up to avoid the front line defenses of their enemies and hit the less-guarded rear. Think the battle of Hastings. A longbow is quite capable of firing straight on, and a bodkin is unlikely to gain much, if any, more force falling down from an arc than it does fired from a bow with a two-hundred pound draw. Besides which, the archers don't need to hit the horse archers. Mostly, what they need to do is hit the horses themselves, which make a much, MUCH better target. Not only can you kill or injure some of the enemy when their horses fall out from under them (or on top of them), but all of a sudden, your enemy becomes a lightly armored, lightly armed man with a bow that carries a shorter distance than yours, who is dazed and shocked in the middle of a battlefield.

I admit they might not be using longbows, but why wouldn't a foot archer use them? A "longbow" doesn't mean the english longbow, although that's one of the best, roughly on par with the african elephant bow (mentioned here). Best, defined as topping with a roughly 200-pound draw, and made of extremely effective materials. The BEST mongol composite bows probably reached about 160 pounds of draw, and assuming that both sides are armed with the "standard" type of weaponry, that would place most of the horse archers at a significant range disadvantage.

Also, one 200-pound propelled arrow is quite enough to pierce through horse archer armor.

Assuming standard defense/offense tactics, one can assume the infantry would have pevesies set up, and a forest of pikes above is quite capable of interfering with arrows.

I'm not saying that, necessarily, the infantry would automatically win (as a matter of fact, I feel it could go either way, depending on circumstances and leadership). But you seem to be out-of-hand writing off the infantry side as doomed to failure, and I just wanted to illustrate the various difficulties with attacking a hypothetical formation like the one mentioned.


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
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: 21-Sep-2008 at 21:13
Originally posted by Temujin



you brought up 3 men per 1 horse archer for no reason otehr than "space occupied". of course horses are a living thing but they are not individual fighters but belong to the warrior. horses are available in abundance on the steppe so price is no factor here.
 
My point was that the concentration of arrows would be thicker from the foot archers. I can not explain it in any more simpler terms for you.
 
You can not simply ignore the horse in the balancing factor of this example.
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

thats got nothign to do with each other, how do you come to such a conclusion??
 
Would you prefer to have 10 arrows shot at you or 1? Get it now?
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

Steppe Nomads have a technique where they can fire 3 arrows in close sucession, there is no such technique in any urban culture that had foot archers. taht means horse archers actually have a higher rate of fire than foot soldiers.
 
Actually more then 3 can be done but 3 is an average I suppose. Interestingly enough it is a European that holds the world record for this. In any case the rate of fire is still based on the wheeling about effect which for about 1/4th the time just has you riding about and not shooting.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

no thats actually my argument for the closely packed infantry formation, the Steppe Nomads will not wheel in front of the infantry like in a video game, they will wheel AROUND the infantry! think along the lines of wild west movies where the Indians wheel around the settlers or liek Little Big Horn... Wink
 
It depends on the size of the army. If the army is too large then the horse archers would be too far and few inbetween. Are you sure you aren't the one talking about video games here? Wink
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

first, there's no reason why foot archers will have a greater range, that depends entirely on the bow and the arrows used. second, Steppe Nomads usually carry with them at least two quivers or mroe and from Carrhae we know the Parthians were supplied with arrows from baggage camels. on the otehr hand foot archers usually have only one quiver and their arrows are in a bagge train behind the formation that can easily be cut off by Steppe Nomads.

 
For the most part usually a foot archer will have more range even if they use the same bow simply because of the platform from which they are shooting from. Foot archers can actually wear a quiver or two on their back, one on each leg, and one on the chest as well as having them on the ground as well if you want to get technical.
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

longbows have almost no penetration power when shoot straight, the power of the Bodkin arrow comes from falling from the air. because Longbows are of simple construction and not composite reflex like the bows of the Nomad.
 
Who says the foot archers would be using a longbow?
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin

 

lamellar is as good as plate vs missiles. foot archers can NOT use pavises, only crossbowen can due to the nature of the weapon. please don't invent stuff
 
Please inform yourself better before accusing me of inventing "stuff"
 
 
 
Originally posted by Temujin



sorry but you make it clear with almost everythign you claim that you base your knowledge for most part on Total War games.
 
It is obvious you have no interest in a respectful conversation but would rather make strawmen and accuse me of basing my information on a video game. You have an obvious mongol/steppe centric mentality and a fan-ism of the sort too often encountered blinding you from anything else other then the "absolute superiority of the steppe warrior" notion which you seem to hold dearly.
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: 21-Sep-2008 at 20:47
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

 
A tank and 10 men isn't a good example for medieval combat.
 
Where would 100 horsemen and 50 pikmen as well as 50 archers ever fight? And wouldn't the horse count as a living thing too?


you brought up 3 men per 1 horse archer for no reason otehr than "space occupied". of course horses are a living thing but they are not individual fighters but belong to the warrior. horses are available in abundance on the steppe so price is no factor here.
 

 
Ok let me explain again more simply.
 
If you have more arrows being shot from a more concentrated arrows, the arrows themselves will be more concentrated by default. I know that the source can be spread out and fire can be concentrated too but the distance between archers would also be greater lessening the number/accuracy.


thats got nothign to do with each other, how do you come to such a conclusion??
 
The problem with "wheeling about" is that the rate of fire is much lower even if it is constant.


Steppe Nomads have a technique where they can fire 3 arrows in close sucession, there is no such technique in any urban culture that had foot archers. taht means horse archers actually have a higher rate of fire than foot soldiers.
 
Also foot archer doesn't have to aim at the individual. Imagine 50 mongols wheeling about infront of you. From your perspective you don't see a circle, you see mongols appearing and disapearing. You can just shoot into the centre of the formation. It'll hit someone either at the first edge or the second. You don't have to aim at the specific mongol. What are you waiting your turn "no that's not the mongol i wanted to shoot at. I wanted THAT one!" LOL


no thats actually my argument for the closely packed infantry formation, the Steppe Nomads will not wheel in front of the infantry like in a video game, they will wheel AROUND the infantry! think along the lines of wild west movies where the Indians wheel around the settlers or liek Little Big Horn... Wink
 

More times then not a foot archer will have a greater range. When you are on foot you can also carry more arrows or simply have it on the ground by you.


first, there's no reason why foot archers will have a greater range, that depends entirely on the bow and the arrows used. second, Steppe Nomads usually carry with them at least two quivers or mroe and from Carrhae we know the Parthians were supplied with arrows from baggage camels. on the otehr hand foot archers usually have only one quiver and their arrows are in a bagge train behind the formation that can easily be cut off by Steppe Nomads.


You can shoot longbows straight as well. Try it. My point is that it doesn't have to be shot at a 45 degree angle.


longbows have almost no penetration power when shoot straight, the power of the Bodkin arrow comes from falling from the air. because Longbows are of simple construction and not composite reflex like the bows of the Nomad.
 


The type of armor a pikeman and foot archer can wear is quite different then what a horse archer can wear. Archers can also use pavsives.


lamellar is as good as plate vs missiles. foot archers can NOT use pavises, only crossbowen can due to the nature of the weapon. please don't invent stuff
 

It's basic economic sense. And what is the flaw in the game with this specific example. I'm not basing my statements on the game, I simply provided you with a way to understand it. Please don't change the tone of the conversation into suggesting anything other then that.


sorry but you make it clear with almost everythign you claim that you base your knowledge for most part on Total War games.
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 0.063 seconds.