Print Page | Close Window

How to defeat pikemen

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: De Re Militari: The Society for Medieval Military History
Forum Discription: Official forum for the academic society De Re Militari: News about the society, its website and forthcoming publications; Discuss medieval warfare as well as ar
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24979
Printed Date: 06-Dec-2022 at 13:07
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: How to defeat pikemen
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Subject: How to defeat pikemen
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:32
Can anyone tell me about any battles where cavalry defeated pikemen? I know of one battle where the french defeated flemish pikemen by shooting them (I'm pretty sure this was after agincourtWink) since a pike requires both hands to hold you can't use a shield, until the pikeman charged (something pikemen were'nt good at) and when their formation came apart, which happened a lot when pikes charged, appearently. the french Knights swept in and slaughtered themLOL.   

-------------


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





Replies:
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:43
Are you specifically referring to later era pikemen?  For example, are you excluding the Macedonian phalanx of Philip / Alexander?
 
Some basic ways that the pike formation could be defeated were by firepower, by 'forcing' the formation to move over 'rough' terrain or simply by 'breaking' the morale of the troops.  Of course, situations were the pikemen themselves break formation (for instance the example you gave of the pikemen 'charging' to the attack) were also opportunities, although difficult to arrange by the other side. 


-------------
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana


Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:48
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Can anyone tell me about any battles where cavalry defeated pikemen?

Battle of Kircholm 1605

until the pikeman charged (something pikemen were'nt good at) and when their formation came apart, which happened a lot when pikes charged

Actually pikemen are really good at charging if they are drilled accordingly. Swiss are good example. Look up battles with Swiss participation in Italians wars.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:59
Thanks Roberts, and yes DeadKenny I'm talking about pikemen from all eras, and how you would defeat them with troop choices from said era. And pikemen are slow and they've got flanks (evil laughter), and they don't have shields, and if you cut the head off a pike it becomes nothing more than a long stick, (more evil laughter) I wonder what a ballista would do to a pike formation, Hoo Hoo Hoo Hoo Ha Ha Ha Ha Ah Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!!!!!!

-------------


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




Posted By: Turenne
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 14:04
Historically, Pikemans formations such as the greek and mecedonian phalanx or the spanish Tercio all became obselete when their opponents developt an other armored force with more flexibility (such as the Roman legions or the Sweedish and French regiment formations).  They became officially obselete when artillery became too effective to keep such large masses of soldiers in a compact formation.

-------------


"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

Ferdinand Foch


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 14:32
One word.....horsearchers.


Posted By: Turenne
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 14:39
True, horsearchers are very effective, but this was usually countered at the time with light cavalry.  The spanish army's core at the time was undeniably the Tercios, but they were always supported by other units, such as light cavalry.
 
Horse archers proved their effectiveness when they were used by the Parthians to crush the Romans at the battle of Carrhae, but I doubt that it would have proven effective if the Romans had the time had a reliable cavalry, which was not the case in that battle.


-------------


"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

Ferdinand Foch


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 14:47
Well the thread was about pikemen. Not an amry with many different regiments.

It's all about combining arms. Horsearchers fire on the pikemen, light cavalry runs after them and if the general is clever falls in an ambush of heavy cavalry and is eliminated. then horsearchers repeat.


Posted By: Turenne
Date Posted: 11-Sep-2008 at 15:27
Point taken

-------------


"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

Ferdinand Foch


Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 13-Sep-2008 at 07:22

For some odd reason, Rome Total War came to mind when i saw this thread.



-------------
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 03:16
No offense Penelope but thats not much help

-------------


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




Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2008 at 19:04
Originally posted by Penelope

For some odd reason, Rome Total War came to mind when i saw this thread.



As any sensible person should. Wink

I'm currently hooked on Medieval 2 - there are some amazing mods for it knocking about.

Go my longbowmen, go!


-------------
Know thyself


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 17-Sep-2008 at 05:40
If you're assuming cavalry from the time before gunpowder and armed with close-range weapons rather than bows, against a well-trained and disciplined mass of pikemen...

well, it'd be very, VERY hard. On the other hand, pikemen are fairly easy to outmaneuver, and bows have been known to work.


-------------
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



Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 01:08
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by Penelope

For some odd reason, Rome Total War came to mind when i saw this thread.



As any sensible person should. Wink

I'm currently hooked on Medieval 2 - there are some amazing mods for it knocking about.

Go my longbowmen, go!
 
LOL


-------------
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 01:49
Could we please stay on topic? there is a whole other forum for gaming and information technology

-------------


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




Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 09:02
One can defeat pikemen with combined arms approach. For example episode from Italian wars in 16th century. French used their heavy gendarmes cavalry to halt advance of enemy pikemen squares. Once they were halted and gendarmes retreated - the artillery opened fire against stationary pikemen squares.
Another way to defeat pikemen was to have opposing force made up from mixed pikemen, musketeer (earlier in 16th century - swordsmen and halbardiers were included too). Musketeers fire at advancing pikemen block and when the two blocks colide in melee, the musketeers with daggers or swords attack enemy pikemen formation's vulnerable gaps.

Her is video clip from movie "Alatriste", which can give you an idea how these combined arms approaches worked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZhoenHqP4 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_ZhoenHqP4


Posted By: Turenne
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 13:42
It is true that the end of the mighty spanish Tercio is probably the most factually demonstrated way to break a pikeman formation.  The battle of Rocroi is one of the first moment where firepower has taken more importance than shock.

-------------


"Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."

Ferdinand Foch


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 15:57
Originally posted by TheARRGH

If you're assuming cavalry from the time before gunpowder and armed with close-range weapons rather than bows, against a well-trained and disciplined mass of pikemen...

well, it'd be very, VERY hard. On the other hand, pikemen are fairly easy to outmaneuver, and bows have been known to work.
 
Hey the early romans did it... wiht great ease I might addLOL


-------------


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




Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 19:49
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

 Hey the early romans did it... wiht great ease I might addLOL


That's probably because of better maneuvering, training, leadership and  weaponry, rather than some sort of magical roman-cavalry powers. But in general, never charge your horses at a wall of pikes. You can ride around them, but go straight and you're toast. And contrary to popular belief, horses will NOT run straight into long sharp point sticks just because their rider tells them to. At least, they won't usually.


-------------
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



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 18-Sep-2008 at 21:54
I never said anything about the roman cavalryLOL there was a battle that a member mentioned where heavy cavlary charged pikes, what about a klibanophoros? and if you train a horse properly they will go where you want them to go

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 00:59
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I never said anything about the roman cavalryLOL there was a battle that a member mentioned where heavy cavlary charged pikes, what about a klibanophoros? and if you train a horse properly they will go where you want them to go
 
Animals never loose animal behaviors and instincts, no matter how well you train them.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Mercury_Dawn
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 01:25
Calvary can easily defeat pikeman who are not operating as part of a coherent group, as they are ment to be.  A far better use for calvary instead of a head on attack would be shadowing a pike army, observing and denying them communications, doing harassing raids, especially if they had missile cav or lancers.... which were in use well into the 19th century in some theaters by western powers like England.

Of course, the best use of calvary outside of harassing hits against a WELL formed pike formation would be a blitz though a weaker type of unit or oblique attack against the oppositions' hopefully weaker tail or it's logistical support..... be it a wagon train or supply base, or denying the pikemen, be it before or after a battle that was won or lost, pikemen who existed in a era prior to MREs, the ability to forage....... in which the calvary would of seemed most formidable against the dispersed pikemen and could most seriously hurt the oppositions ability to carry on operations.

This all assumes the calvary are not shooting with either Javelin, Missiles or rocks or arrows, or gunpowder weapons of some sort. A tactical synthesis is capable of varying very much on this point..... given the Chinese and India had similar units in their long history, and it wasn't unknown to have these combinations in the Americas after the Indians got a hold of horses. As to Africa, in the Sudanic regions I do not know much about other than they have spear and calvary, both horse and camel.... contradictions to western held beliefs may very well be found in these theaters.

However, all in all, unless the army immediately infront of you has suffered from crushing morale, or is unsuspecting a sudden hit in a night battle, I would avoid hitting a pike formation from ANY angle, cause they can hold their own on any front.... and if they are hollow in the center, can do internal reinforcements from any interior and or file the commander so chooses. Having said all this, I doubt the Mongols would of blinked a eye at a prospect of facing off against a pike unit.




Posted By: TheARRGH
Date Posted: 19-Sep-2008 at 04:14
Originally posted by Mercury_Dawn

Having said all this, I doubt the Mongols would of blinked a eye at a prospect of facing off against a pike unit.


Partially because missile weapons were extremely prevalent among the mongols, and despite their barbaric reputation, they were quite militarily astute; historical proof that just becuase your culture is more militaristic and your technology is simpler than your competition, you are not necessarily an undisciplined thug who wins his battles using sheer fury.


-------------
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



Posted By: Penelope
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 08:45
Count, you have no need to worry, no one has appeared to have gone off topic.

-------------
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 17:19
Originally posted by Penelope

For some odd reason, Rome Total War came to mind when i saw this thread.

 
LOLI think that counts as off topic, hwo does a vidoe game even remotely contribute anyhting useful to this thread?


-------------


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




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 17:21
Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin

Originally posted by Penelope

For some odd reason, Rome Total War came to mind when i saw this thread.



As any sensible person should. Wink

I'm currently hooked on Medieval 2 - there are some amazing mods for it knocking about.

Go my longbowmen, go!
 
The same goes for that, how does a post on a video game help? 


-------------


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




Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 18:08
Count Bel just let it go. No harm no foul.
 
"Having said all this, I doubt the Mongols would of blinked a eye at a prospect of facing off against a pike unit."
 
I'm sure they'd do more then blink of it was pikemen AND foot archers which would have better accuracy and range. Then they'd be screwed because you had archers that can shoot further and you couldn't charge in at them either.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 18:25

That and the mongols had briagandine armor which an arrow or crossbow bolt could punch right throughLOL 



-------------


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




Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 20-Sep-2008 at 21:30
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Then they'd be screwed because you had archers that can shoot further and you couldn't charge in at them either.


doesn't matter, even if there were archers they could through speed come fast enough to disable this advantage. densely packed formations are still an easy prey, foot archers shoot in volley but Horse Archers wheel around individually, so the same number of horse archers can concentrate their fire on one spot while the foot archers need to shoot at all directions at fast moving targets.


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 17:55
"That and the mongols had briagandine armor which an arrow or crossbow bolt could punch right throughLOL "
 
The effectiveness of the armor in that sense is false.
 
"doesn't matter, even if there were archers they could through speed come fast enough to disable this advantage. densely packed formations are still an easy prey, foot archers shoot in volley but Horse Archers wheel around individually, so the same number of horse archers can concentrate their fire on one spot while the foot archers need to shoot at all directions at fast moving targets."
 
It's very mathematical. In the space of one horse and a rider, can fit 3 archers. Not to mention that the horses wouldn't ride right next to each other. So over a smaller area you have more arrows coming from it. You simply have more arrows, that can go further and be more accuratly shot.
 
Archers don't have to fire in volleys. Where is the rule of this? They can shoot straight across in which case running in a circle just posses a big target when shooting straight.
 
As for the pikemen unless armored well yes they would fall to pieces being so packed, but by the time they got through all the pikemen the foot archers would just kill all the archers.
 
Here as an experiment try this. If you have Medieval 2, have one side take pikemen of any sort. Unarmored if you want the mongols to even have an advantage, and then take foot archers/crossbowmen and set them up just infront or behind the pikemen. Then take some horse archers for the mongols and have them run circles infront trading shots. I KNOW it's a game but it's fairly accurate in the mechanics for what limits it has and probably the closest to anything we can use to test.
 
Even Tacticus writes that when fighting steppe nomads (Turks) what you have to do is set up archers infront of spearmen and outrange the horse archers while using your own light cavalry or horse archers to harrass the enemy if you could.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 19:51
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

It's very mathematical. In the space of one horse and a rider, can fit 3 archers.


whats that got to do with anything? the space of one tank can be occupied by 10 men, so what? we're talking about equal numbers and that means for example 100 Horse Archers vs 50 foot archers and 50 pikemen. which way do you want?


Not to mention that the horses wouldn't ride right next to each other. So over a smaller area you have more arrows coming from it.


again, point being? it doesn't matter anything at all from where the arrows come from, the target si that matters, Horse archers that wheel around a dense formation will pretty much always hit even without much aiming while the foot archers need to aim at individual moving targets and horses can definately take an arrow without going down immediately.


You simply have more arrows, that can go further and be more accuratly shot.


how did you come to such an conclusion. foot archers don't have a higher range by default and they don't have more arrows by default. are you talkign about a video game or something?
 
Archers don't have to fire in volleys. Where is the rule of this?


they don't ahve to but it was commonplace.

They can shoot straight across in which case running in a circle just posses a big target when shooting straight.


they don't shoot straight, crossbows and composite reflex bows shoot straight, english longbows for example shoot at an angle.
 
As for the pikemen unless armored well yes they would fall to pieces being so packed, but by the time they got through all the pikemen the foot archers would just kill all the archers.


also armoured they can be killed easily, if the pikemen are armorued, then let the Horse Archers be armoured as well.
 
Here as an experiment try this. If you have Medieval 2,


Sleepy that's a game and it toally does NOT work in a realistic way.
 



Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2008 at 20:28
"whats that got to do with anything? the space of one tank can be occupied by 10 men, so what? we're talking about equal numbers and that means for example 100 Horse Archers vs 50 foot archers and 50 pikemen. which way do you want?"
 
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?
 
"again, point being? it doesn't matter anything at all from where the arrows come from, the target si that matters, Horse archers that wheel around a dense formation will pretty much always hit even without much aiming while the foot archers need to aim at individual moving targets and horses can definately take an arrow without going down immediately."
 
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.
 
The problem with "wheeling about" is that the rate of fire is much lower even if it is constant.
 
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
 
"how did you come to such an conclusion. foot archers don't have a higher range by default and they don't have more arrows by default. are you talkign about a video game or something?"
 
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.

Video game? Confused
 

"they don't ahve to but it was commonplace."
 
My point stands, you don't have to.
 
"they don't shoot straight, crossbows and composite reflex bows shoot straight, english longbows for example shoot at an angle."
 
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.
 

"also armoured they can be killed easily, if the pikemen are armorued, then let the Horse Archers be armoured as well. "
 
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.
 
"Sleepy that's a game and it toally does NOT work in a realistic way."
 
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.


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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"
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavise
 
 
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.


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbow - 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_bow#Disadvantages - 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



Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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.


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


Posted By: Yiannis
Date 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


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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.


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date 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



Posted By: Temujin
Date 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


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Roberts
Date 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.


Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date 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


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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?


Posted By: TheARRGH
Date 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.





-------------
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



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Husaria
Date 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.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Husaria
Date 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.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date 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)




Posted By: Roberts
Date 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.
http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us">

You can read about them in wikipedia too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_%28historical%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_(historical)


Posted By: Husaria
Date 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.


Posted By: Husaria
Date 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.


Posted By: ataman
Date 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.).


Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date 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.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 16:47
Originally posted by Husaria

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.
 
Yes cataphracts feinted in fact it was one of their primary tactics you ever hear of the parthian shot?Smile which in the battles I've read about  was carried out by cataphracts


-------------


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




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 16:51
Originally posted by Roberts

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.
http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us"> http://imageshack.us">

You can read about them in wikipedia too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_%28historical%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gendarme_
(historical)
 
 
Can you tell what that side plate is called?Smile and thanks for the link and the picsSmile
 
However the klibanophoros and his horse had the same amount of protection only his horses barding hung down to the horses kneesSmile     


-------------


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




Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 17:16
Originally posted by Count Belisarius


Can you tell what that side plate is called?Smile and thanks for the link and the picsSmile

 

However the klibanophoros and his horse had the same amount of protection only his horses barding hung down to the horses kneesSmile     

Side plate? on horse? Sorry but i don't know the names for horse armour parts, well only that "champhron" is head protection.
Klibanophoros couldn't have the same protection, because they didn't have plate armour technology back then.



Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 17:37
Yeah but recent tests showed thta lamellar provided the same amount of protection as plate armor keep in mind that the klibanophoros owuld alos be wearing chain mail and they had plate since the days of the romans there are sevaral reliefs which show officers with cuirasses and chest plates

-------------


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




Posted By: Husaria
Date Posted: 24-Sep-2008 at 20:43
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Originally posted by Husaria

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.
 
Yes cataphracts feinted in fact it was one of their primary tactics you ever hear of the parthian shot?Smile which in the battles I've read about  was carried out by cataphracts


Could they have done it yes but my point is why use heavy cavalry best used as heavy cavalry when you have more than enough horse archers to do the same task if not better.


-------------
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2008 at 16:36
Well what do you mean by heavy cavalry? do you mean that they were somehow slower? remember what doomed heavy cavalry in the first place? they didn't have missle weapons how would a horse archer be better? thats what a cataphract is, and klibanophoroi rode destriers which were bred for speed, maneuverablity, and agility,despite their massive size and a horse archer won't do you any good if his arrows can't get through his opponents armor and the byzantines used horse archers, also the byzanitnes used feint tactics with great sucess

-------------


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




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2008 at 22:25
Here are some links that may be of helpSmile be careful of the last one ti doesn't have nay inline citations so its sources are unclearSmile
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_battle_tactics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_battle_tactics
 
http://en.%20wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract - http://en. wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract


-------------


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




Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2008 at 22:31
Basically the Roman Cataphracts of this period were just as good at using a bow as the steppe nomads or good enough. Cataphracts could shoot arrows over at nomads at their leizure while their arrows did little or nothing to them because of their better armor. If the nomads wanted to attack head on, the Cataphract would again out due the steppe nomad because of the armament. So there is a point to having a bow on a Cataphract. You wouldn't use it like a harrasser, probably wouldn't need as many arrows but the bow could be used against other horse archers that did want to harrass.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2008 at 23:10
I agreeSmile Procopius also says that roman cataphracts could shoot with either hand were extremely accurate if somewhat slow (unlike the aprthians who could fire lots of arrows but they were hideouly innacurate and they didn't have much power) however the romans later added speed shooting to their abilities and they were very good at harassment (by all accounts)

-------------


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




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 16:23
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

I never said anything about the roman cavalryLOL there was a battle that a member mentioned where heavy cavlary charged pikes, what about a klibanophoros? and if you train a horse properly they will go where you want them to go
 
Animals never loose animal behaviors and instincts, no matter how well you train them.
 
You ever hear of a warhorse?Smile
 
Allow me to refer you to this excellent linkSmile
 
http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32367#32367 - http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32367#32367


-------------


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




Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 16:29
Originally posted by Roberts

Originally posted by Count Belisarius


Can you tell what that side plate is called?Smile and thanks for the link and the picsSmile

 

   

Side plate? on horse? Sorry but i don't know the names for horse armour parts, well only that "champhron" is head protection.

 
Here's a quick run through of barding terminologySmile Chanfron, the plate for the head. Crinet, the plates for the neck. Peytral, the plate for the chest. Crupper, the plate for the horses back. Frouchards, the plates for the horses flanks which were connected to the crupper


-------------


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




Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Sep-2008 at 19:00
Originally posted by Carpathian Wolf

Basically the Roman Cataphracts of this period were just as good at using a bow as the steppe nomads or good enough. Cataphracts could shoot arrows over at nomads at their leizure while their arrows did little or nothing to them because of their better armor. If the nomads wanted to attack head on, the Cataphract would again out due the steppe nomad because of the armament. So there is a point to having a bow on a Cataphract. You wouldn't use it like a harrasser, probably wouldn't need as many arrows but the bow could be used against other horse archers that did want to harrass.


Roberts already mentioned that Cataphracts shot at a halt and those Byzantine troops who fought like Steppe Nomads were Steppe Nomads as the byzantines employed numerous mercenaries of all kinds. and why again you assume that Steppe Nomads had no fully armoured horsemen themselves? would you please stop your anti-horse archer/steppe army bias?


and btw, the discussion at the moment is about Cataphracts in a thread about defeatign pikemen. this thread itself is already of low value, unless it doesn't come back to the topic i'll have to move it to historical amusement.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 00:29
I agree with Temujin, there was a topic started a long time ago for cataphracts if you want to talk about them I sugggest you hunt it down post in that one, by the way Temujin cataphracts also fired at a run and they harrassed and feinted 

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 01:24
[/QUOTE]
 
You ever hear of a warhorse?Smile
 
Allow me to refer you to this excellent linkSmile
 
http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32367#32367 - http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32367#32367
[/QUOTE]

I stand by what I said. It is impossible to get rid of their instincts and behaviors.


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 01:32
Did you check out the site? you have to train them my dad grew up around horses so my granddad and since there aren't warhorses around today we may never know, trust me you can get a horse to charge a person you can get them to charge together in a charge only the front rank of horses will see the enemy formation and since there are a bunch of other horses behind them charging at a run they will move or get crushed and since horses are herd animals they will stay together and follow the leader, another thing to keep in mind is that even though they lived five hundred years ago these people weren't stupid

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 02:29
Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Did you check out the site? you have to train them my dad grew up around horses so my granddad and since there aren't warhorses around today we may never know, trust me you can get a horse to charge a person you can get them to charge together in a charge only the front rank of horses will see the enemy formation and since there are a bunch of other horses behind them charging at a run they will move or get crushed and since horses are herd animals they will stay together and follow the leader, another thing to keep in mind is that even though they lived five hundred years ago these people weren't stupid


You cannot train any type of animal to loose its instincts.  Horses would not want to charge a wall of axes and spears, as they would not want to charge straight into a thorny bush. And I am not going to respond to that last sentence...


-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:04
Did you anything I said? did you check the link? what about warhorses? and a horse does not percieve a human to be a solid object per se, trust me I've been charged by a horse

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:11
I did look at the link.  And you got charged by the horse not because someone told it to, but because it felt frightened. This is an example the instinct taking command of it.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:14
No the horse was not frightened I assure you of thatSmile

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:16
Well something sparked its mind into thinking that way.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:20
What sparked its mind was the horse is an evil minded four legged she-demon hwo looks like Queen Latifah (really she doesSmile) but my point is she did not perceive me to be a solid object

-------------


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




Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 03:30
I did not say it did.

-------------
What is the officer problem?


Posted By: Husaria
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 04:25
Count you were charged by a horse and your still able to type the message saying you were?WinkLOL

-------------
"The best tank terrain is that without anti-tank weapons."
-Russian military doctrine.


Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 06:37
I can move at a high rate of speed when I wish and I was standing by a truck with the cab door open

-------------


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




Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 29-Sep-2008 at 13:03
I think it is time for everyone to consider returning to the topic at hand.  In the mean time, I am moving it to Historical Amusement because there is a clear mixture of fact and alternative history going on!


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: GR3Y077
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2008 at 13:36

With 50 pikemen and 50 archers vs 100 horse archers, 100 horse easily archers win. Iirc in Asia maybe a 4 to 1 footbased to cavalry ratio or more would be required. afaik, the ancient Han Dynasty militarily defeated horse archers often, by relying on immense armies of crossbowmen (including 'repeating crossbows') probably mixed with pikemen and alot of heavy cavalry.

The primary reasons for the horse archer, were logistical, tactical, and mental not mathematical. Food is easier to recieve when you have a larger radius to get from. Messages could be relayed much faster, wihtout the use of fire. Tatically, nomadic armies typically were much more flexible. They knew where the enemy was better, were able to hide its intentions, and able to react more quickly to changing circumstances. Pikemen might be more low level relatively recently trained recruits, whereas horse archers are brought up fighting with bow and horse.

Mountainous regions: Favor nomads. Pikemen have had a much harder time getting resources and getting to strategic locations. Its easier for cavalry to retreat and reappear at another corridor or hit vital supplies. Nomads often grew up in terrain having many mountains, e.g. Afganistan, Uzbekistan, western China. The fall of the Chinese Jin dynasty took place in a battle within a mountainous region against a smaller nomad force.

Mud: how many places actually have a lot of mud all over? The only reason horse archers would fight in swamp is in support of an infantry force having to march through swamp. Since horse archers are nomads, there rarely is such an infantry force.

Forest: If there's just one heavy forest hiding an army, the nomads will definitely set it on fire as armies always would. Ok if all the important towns actually are in forests (maybe like Vietnam for example) pikemen could win.. other than that..

Water: Probably, the terrain argument only holds when it involves water (but then we're not talking about pikemen :) )

:)



Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 15-Oct-2008 at 13:45

Penny for your thoughts. It has been said above that nomads would be favored in mountainous regions for reasons of logistics and strategy. Yes and no. Depending on the terrain. When it came to actual battle the army that hides the best (ambush) and can slow down the opposition may have the upper hand. Thus that hand goes to the footies.



-------------


Posted By: Choranzanus
Date Posted: 17-Oct-2008 at 21:51
Originally posted by Darius of Parsa

Originally posted by Count Belisarius

Did you check out the site? you have to train them my dad grew up around horses so my granddad and since there aren't warhorses around today we may never know, trust me you can get a horse to charge a person you can get them to charge together in a charge only the front rank of horses will see the enemy formation and since there are a bunch of other horses behind them charging at a run they will move or get crushed and since horses are herd animals they will stay together and follow the leader, another thing to keep in mind is that even though they lived five hundred years ago these people weren't stupid


You cannot train any type of animal to loose its instincts.  Horses would not want to charge a wall of axes and spears, as they would not want to charge straight into a thorny bush. And I am not going to respond to that last sentence...

This is wrong and one of the most common misconceptions about knights, that horses would not charge solid objects or spear lines.

In fact in Bohemia, one of the most common ways of knightly training was to charge a wall and break a heavy lance against it.

Medieval military theory gives one knight to be the equivalent on a battlefield of as much as 10 or 12 footmen. Those numbers seem very large if you do not take time to understand why knights dominated warfare in Europe for such a long time. If you tried to stop knights with infantry armed with axes, they would get annihilated , literally.


Posted By: Nick1986
Date Posted: 03-Dec-2011 at 19:06
The easiest way for cavalry to defeat pikemen would be to dismount and pick them off from a distance with carbines. If the troopers lay close to the ground or used walls, trees and ditches as cover it would be very difficult for the enemy musketeers to effectively return fire

-------------
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!


Posted By: soulmagi
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2014 at 11:21
The main thing you need is a good general. Infantry are slower than cavalry and can outmanuver a unit of pikemen. Take Alexander The Greek and his companion cavalry. They maneuver till the Persians expose a flank charge through the gap created and attack from the rear.

-------------


Posted By: Mountain Man
Date Posted: 27-Apr-2014 at 18:14
You...get...a...bigger...pike.  Ermm

The days of massed formations of pikemen died with the advent of cannon.


-------------
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 28-Apr-2014 at 09:30
If by some chance you would encounter a formation of massed Pikeman, remind them that they are 300 years out of their time line.  And then cycle through 200 rounds on your "Squad Assault Weapon".

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com