How to defeat pikemen

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.

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 one 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 him and the klibanophoroi would have the archers in the center and they would shoot while they charged and since a pike takes both hands you can't take a sheild  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.

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

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

Originally posted by Count Belisarius I think a klibanophoros would an excellent choice for pikemen, armored lancers and horse archers all in one 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 him and the klibanophoroi would have the archers in the center and they would shoot while they charged and since a pike takes both hands you can't take a sheild

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.

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

I think the answer has been thrashed out to a suitably definite: "it depends."

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.