Pike vs Spear

[Lembit Tohver]

With the current system, when a single stand of Pike oppose a stand of Spear Hoplites, the Hoplites are clasified as Heavy Foot with a +4 Combat value vs foot. The Pikes are only a +3 vs foot. A Pike was on average 18' long. A Spear was on average 12' long. This should give the pikemen an advantage being able to contact the spearmen 6' earlier. Even when you add the supporting rank to both, the Pike are now +5 and the Hoplites are +5. I feel that if Spear/Light Spear/HF/Elite foot oppose Pike , there should be a -1 modifier to the them. Spear armed troops did not like going up against pike-men because of their extended contact range the pike-men had. I believe this applied throughout the ages of warfare.

[chris6]

Well, without knowing what made the combatmodifiers as they are, I would like to lead you to the fact that the pikemen normally wear lesser armour than spearmen, espacilly Macedonians vs Hoplites. And wielding that long pike is only useufull as long as all men do their duty. A soon as the spearmen get around the top of the pikes, by deflecting with their shields or something else, the pikemen get slaughterd because pikes are not good at close quarters. That is why the pikes are good as long as they are in deep formation protecting themselves with overlapping pikerows and against charging horses. But against other infantry they can get beaten easily if they become only a little unordered. As the legions proofed.

[Lembit Tohver]

The trained Pike-men of Alexander where very good and had trained to defeat Hoplites otherwise why did Philip and Alexander win against the city-states forces. A single stand of Pike-men already has depth as does a Hoplites stand. I just don't see it valid that the single stand Hoplite stand is better than the trained Pike-men stand which most of Philips and Alexander pike-men were. Agreed that the Hoplite usually had heavier armor, but pike-men had shields and leather armor as well.

[David Kuijt]

Spear armed troops did not like going up against pike-men because of their extended contact range the pike-men had.

You could say the same for sword-armed troops not liking going up against spear-armed troops. So why are Romans rated as Elite Foot? Performance in battles is what matters, not arguments based upon weapon length. In the late Middle Ages there were troops that fought with sword and buckler who were effective against pikes by rolling under the points and getting inside the pikes, then stabbing the pikemen with little bitty swords.

Pikes were much more effective against charging mounted troops -- whether Medieval Knights or Alexandrian Companions. Consider perhaps that it is not coincidence that the abandonment of hoplites in favor of pike happens at the same time as the rise of Xystophoroi and Companions.

[David Kuijt]

The trained Pike-men of Alexander where very good and had trained to defeat Hoplites otherwise why did Philip and Alexander win against the city-states forces.

Alexander won most of his battles using his companions, not his pike, as the primary tool. And the record of his pike against Greek allies or mercenaries is quite neutral in those battles, IIRC.

Regarding Philip --
I love this sort of discussion; please forgive my interjection. With that said, a very common argument is "Why did X win?" That's always a reasonable question, but we have to be very careful not to have blinders on -- blinders focused on perceived tactical advantages of one weapons system over another. Why did Rome win over YYY? (where "YYY" could be any Roman opponent) -- if you are asking a tactical question about one battle, that's good. If you're asking a strategic question about the superiority of Roman arms and techniques over the techniques of YYY (whatever YYY is) you need to be much more careful. Rome had enormous strategic advantages of logistics and of numbers. Rome fought against Hannibal for 10 years in Italy -- and Hannibal won every battle. Rome would just build another army and come at him again. And again. And again. If Hannibal had lost a SINGLE BATTLE the way Rome kept doing, that would have been the end of him and the end of the Punic War. So why did Rome win? Money and numbers. Same is true for Caesar fighting the Gauls -- Julius writes all his battles as victories of Rome when massively outnumbered -- but that is almost certainly false. Very likely Rome had the advantage of numbers in virtually every battle they fought with the Gauls. Why? Because they had an enormous advantage in population and wealth and forces.

So back to Philip. Philip used a huge array of political tools in addition to his armies; his armies were much larger than most citystates in Greece, and it took him more than a year to beat Olynthus -- a relatively small citystate on the Chalcidian peninsula. Even with a much larger army (funded by Chalkidian silver) Philip lost battles as well as won them -- Onomarchus beat him twice. his eventual victories over the Greek citystates were as much because of their division as because of his armies. A major component of Demosthenes' work against Philip was focused on the division of the citystates, not upon their martial equipment. I'm not sure Demosthenes ever mentioned a tactical advantage that pikes had over spears.

So the underlying point is this: it is not good logic to go from "Philip beat the Greeks over several decades of warfare" to "Pikes should be better than Hoplites in battle". The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

[Rod]

It also helps to understand the tactical scale of the situation.

A massive block of pike, very effective if the flanks are supported and it is too big to ignore the front.

A smaller block of pike with weakly protected flanks, less effective.

A single pike man or even a handful of pike armed soldiers vs same small number of hoplites, I will take the hoplites.

It is not just the weapon, but the overall tactics. The Pike blocks were very static and somewhat defensive in nature.

Recent book out Legion vs. Phalanx is worth a read on 6 battles where these forces face off.

[Lembit Tohver]

So why are Romans rated as Elite Foot?

IMHO one answer: The Pilum. The tossing of the pilum into the Pike or Spear block would disrupt the front ranks and further to the rear (its weight allowing it to penetrate through the defenders shield and either wounding or weighing down the shield so the soldier could not fight effectively). With this disorder, the Roman soldier would not have a solid wall of effective pikes facing him and give him time to traverse the short distance into the pike/spear block with his well trained sword arm and begin wreaking havoc on the block in close combat (with the pikeman trying to divest himself of his weighted down shield and prepare for close combat).

Performance in battles is what matters, not arguments based upon weapon length.

The weapons and tactics used in battle are an important part of how the larger mass of troops perform in Battles.

In the late Middle Ages there were troops that fought with sword and buckler who were effective against pikes by rolling under the points and getting inside the pikes, then stabbing the pikemen with little bitty swords.

Yes, an effective tactic that was learned by those troops and formations, so I will not argue the point, other to say that I am focusing on the dynamic between Pike and Spear without including other formation types for which I am not suggesting any adjustment.

Pikes were much more effective against charging mounted troops -- whether Medieval Knights or Alexandrian Companions.

I agree.

Consider perhaps that it is not coincidence that the abandonment of hoplites in favor of pike happens at the same time as the rise of Xystophoroi and Companions.

Yes, that is a definite correlation that I agree is prevalent. But as stated earlier, I am just looking at the dynamic between the Pike formation and the Spear formation.

[Lembit Tohver]

Further note about the Pilum. This tactic of tossing the Pilum as the Roman soldier was charging in also worked well against the Germanic et al. warriors. They would have to either drop their shield because it was weighing their shield arm down, or try to remove it before the Roman soldier was upon them. The Roman soldier would still have his shield and thus an advantage against the Barbarian soldier. This is why I see it valid to rate a good portion of the Roman units as "elite".

[Lembit Tohver]

It also helps to understand the tactical scale of the situation.

I always endeavor to do so.

A massive block of pike, very effective if the flanks are supported and it is too big to ignore the front.

Totally agree

A smaller block of pike with weakly protected flanks, less effective.

True

A single pike man or even a handful of pike armed soldiers vs same small number of hoplites, I will take the hoplites.

So would I.

It is not just the weapon, but the overall tactics. The Pike blocks were very static and somewhat defensive in nature.

They were used offensively in each battle, just by their "perceived threat level" by the soldiers facing them.

Recent book out Legion vs. Phalanx is worth a read on 6 battles where these forces face off.

[/quote]
I haven't read that book, but conjecture that what I have stated earlier has been evidenced in that book.

[Rod]

Legions overcome the pikes primarily because of the the flexibility vs the inflexibility of the Phalanx.

Another interesting thing to look at is the deep formations that the Thebans started to use vs. the traditional hoplite formation. This was part of what Philip of Macedon took back with him from Thebes.

This was the beginning of the Macedonian pike army.