Early Mycenaen Pikes

[Philip McBride]

I am wondering why the core infantry in the Early Mycenaean list are rated as 'pikes,' while the Later Mycenaean infantry are rated as 'heavy foot' while both are described in the two lists as 'spearmen.' The second part of my question: The Early Mycenaean pikes are listed as supportable by archers. Does this mean the front stand of pikes can be supported by both a rear stand of pikes and 'invisible' archers with the tactical bump for both supports against mounted troops, warband, and warriors?

I am looking at the very attractive 28mm Mycenaean figures by Newline, although I'm not sure about painting naked slinger skirmishers. Regardless, before I jump to invest in enough figures for an army, I'm hoping for clarification since the Early Mycenaeans list appears to be very dependent on the success of their pikes without any 'quality' auxiliary troops protecting their flanks. This makes me think 'spears' would be a more flexible self-defending core in a 48 pt army. But I'm more interested in playing Early Mycenaeans because of their chariots fighting as chariots. What a dilemma.

[David Kuijt]

I am wondering why the core infantry in the Early Mycenaean list are rated as 'pikes,' while the Later Mycenaean infantry are rated as 'heavy foot' while both are described in the two lists as 'spearmen.' The second part of my question: The Early Mycenaean pikes are listed as supportable by archers. Does this mean the front stand of pikes can be supported by both a rear stand of pikes and 'invisible' archers with the tactical bump for both supports against mounted troops, warband, and warriors?

1) This isn't the only case where "spearmen" is a descriptive text used for troops that aren't heavy foot. Spear, Light Spear, Heavy Foot, Pikes (Scots, for example), Warband, Light Foot, and Horde are sometimes described as "Spearmen". A spear is a long pokey thing, perhaps the most common weapon in historical armies ever. Mycenaean dudes were classed as pike because we thought it was a better simulation of how they fought.

2) Sure.

I am looking at the very attractive 28mm Mycenaean figures by Newline, although I'm not sure about painting naked slinger skirmishers. Regardless, before I jump to invest in enough figures for an army, I'm hoping for clarification since the Early Mycenaeans list appears to be very dependent on the success of their pikes without any 'quality' auxiliary troops protecting their flanks. This makes me think 'spears' would be a more flexible self-defending core in a 48 pt army.

Maybe! With 650 army lists, though, I can tell you that fine-tuning army lists so they would have a more flexible self-defending core was never a concern. I've got an Ancient Libyan army, for example. There's no flexible self-defending core in those dudes. Last night I took Sarmatians out -- 9 knights, 1 horsebow, 2 skirmishers. Defense is for weenies.

But I'm more interested in playing Early Mycenaeans because of their chariots fighting as chariots. What a dilemma.

I should put up some pics of my own Early Mycaeans. Love those guys.

[Philip McBride]

Defense is for weenies, indeed. I really like that thinking. Even if I lose a lot.

Thanks, David, for the very prompt reply and candid answer.