spears and pikes

will the difference be big? hwo will you differentiate ( not a real word probably) the two?

hoplites will have short_pikes and phalangites long_pikes ( read that )
-will unit mass be altered? since the (example) armoured hoplite will be a lot heavier than any phalangites.
-will teh hoplite shield be bigger in rtw since the spear are shorter?
-will pikeman actually be able to beat hoplites ( unlike in vanilla)?
-what spear will the hypaspistai have?

about teh last. if the hypaspistai have long_pikes then macedon will have two
equal units. the silver shields and the hypaspistai.

~:confused: I thought the Silver Shields were Seleucid, not Macedonian. The units wouldn't really be the same, as long as there is a difference in stats.

silver shield will be for both, at least, i thought i read that.
but still, there is so little evidence for teh equipment of hyspastistai that EB ahs free room to do whatever they want. so a hoplite-model will make MAcedon my favorite faction: pikemen, phalangites, 'heavy' peltast, 'companion cav', to be honest I'was already jumping up and down when I read macedon will have silver shields.

I doubt hypaspists will have sarissas(I assume these are the long_pikes).If you look at the pictures of the macedonian and seleucid hiypaspistai in the news thread, they look more like hoplites: the large aspis and armor; also their spear is one-handed so I assume it will be shorter than the sariisa.

yeah you're right. i'm still in rtw where even sarissa's are onehanded. the shield is too big for pikemen, but the spear looks long... but you're right. they also have heavy armor. thnx

Hypaspists will use the same method of fighting as regular hoplites for the Greek.

Pikemen will be represented like pretty much everything else, historically. Pikemen were not overwhelmingly superior to regular hoplites or Iphikrateans for that matter.

Are they superior at all though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furious Mental

Are they superior at all though?

---

Yes : their pikes should quite likely possess a clear superiority over the shorter Hoplite spears when engaged in the singular feat of being long .


























:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

Hypaspists will use the same method of fighting as regular hoplites for the Greek.

Pikemen will be represented like pretty much everything else, historically. Pikemen were not overwhelmingly superior to regular hoplites or Iphikrateans for that matter.

---

I thougt phillip designed the pikemen to counter teh hoplites, so it should be superior, HOW will you amke it superior. because in RTW the pikelength doesn't seem to matter. hoplites still get in range and still win ( head to head, 1 vs 1)

We don't really know exactly how effective Phillip thought his pikemen would be.

The most popular theory that I've heard is that he wanted troops who could stand up to hoplites, and he took Iphicrates reforms a step further to achieve this.

So basically the pikemen were hoplite-equivalents - but much cheaper, and without the need to reorganise Macedonian society along Greek lines.

AFAIK when hoplites and pikemen met the pikes won only after all the rest of hte hoplite army was defeated and the hoplites isolated - such as at Granikos and Issos. This implies that hoplites and pikemen were evenly matched.

Hakonarson explains it as I would. Cost-efectiveness and cultural reasons, led to the pikeman. It also allowed to maintain a semi-professional army.

I might also point out that at Chaeronea the hoplitai were driving the Macedonian left flank phalanx off the heights, and only Alexander´s Hetaroi were able to save the day. One can argue that if the Thebans and Athenians had been more experienced and a joint command they would have been able to win.

Pikemen and hoplites were at least evenly matched, like Hakonarson said.

Sarcasm

On additional thought on Chaeronea (although I agree that Athens and Thebes blew it on command), It's quite possible Alexander exploited the fact that the Hoplites in the center were probably the least well trained or experienced (Allied units from Corinth for example), of any on the Greek side.

hey, nice to see you on the board man!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by conon394

On additional thought on Chaeronea (although I agree that Athens and Thebes blew it on command), It's quite possible Alexander exploited the fact that the Hoplites in the center were probably the least well trained or experienced (Allied units from Corinth for example), of any on the Greek side.

---

Or probably a real gap between both allied forces, probably with light troops only (cavalry was almost absent from the fight for some reason).

spear vs pikes will be equal. but how?
hoplites have better armor/weaponry and pikes have longer spears.
if pikemen cant hold of hoplites how coul dthey possibly win? bigger atk?

Pikes have more men, longer range......so it should come down to quality of troops I guess....

Nobody's arguing that hoplites would be equal to pikemen in frontal combat (I think). They'd get beaten, badly. However, the idea is that hoplites can maneuver better than pikemen, who rely absolutely on the integrity of their formation to win. Same deal with pikemen vs. legionaries: legionaries are more maneuverable, so they can try flank attacks.

Actually, is EB going to be using the phalanx formation for hoplites? I think it's a very poor representation of the hoplite shield wall—decent to represent a wall of pikes, but the hoplites didn't use that. Plus, it would allow hoplites to run, which would represent their increased maneuverability in a game where pikemen can turn on a dime. And the spears are way too long, and AFAIK there's no way to adjust the length of phalanx spears (although I could certainly be wrong there).

-Simetrical

Quote:

---

Nobody's arguing that hoplites would be equal to pikemen in frontal combat (I think). They'd get beaten, badly.

---

This is incorrect. Pikes could not consistently defeat organized hoplites without the help of a heavy cavalry arm.

i concur with Sim on the topic of hoplites and running

Yes, the hoplites at Marathon had actually charged the Persian army at a run from two-three hundred yards out the moment they came under archer fire. Whereas the same thing happening in RTW would mean you'd be taking a slow promenade while flaming arrows whistle to you and turn your banners white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

Actually, is EB going to be using the phalanx formation for hoplites? I think it's a very poor representation of the hoplite shield wall—decent to represent a wall of pikes, but the hoplites didn't use that. Plus, it would allow hoplites to run, which would represent their increased maneuverability in a game where pikemen can turn on a dime. And the spears are way too long, and AFAIK there's no way to adjust the length of phalanx spears (although I could certainly be wrong there).

-Simetrical

---

what? ~:) running? are there any acounts on this except marathon?
phalanx formation? what should be the new hoplite formation according to you? overhead stabbing etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarcasm

This is incorrect. Pikes could not consistently defeat organized hoplites without the help of a heavy cavalry arm.

---

In a direct head-on fight, I said. No maneuvering or flanking by either side. How could the hoplites possibly get past five rows of pikes? They might have an easier time than the Romans due to their larger shields and tighter formation, but it would still be very difficult. Was there a battle where hoplites broke through a Macedonian phalanx from the front?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

what? :) running? are there any acounts on this except marathon?

---

It was accepted as normal behavior, at least by Polybius for Macedonian phalanxes (which should show you that it's probably possible for hoplites as well). See his Histories, Book 18, Chapter 29 (online at LacusCurtius):

Quote:

---

when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can . . . withstand [its] charge . . . [the pike] must extend ten cubits beyond the body of each hoplite when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands. . . . these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jerby

phalanx formation? what should be the new hoplite formation according to you? overhead stabbing etc?

---

Just the square formation, with the hoplites arrayed in close order with shields overlapping and spears overhead.

-Simetrical

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simetrical

In a direct head-on fight, I said. No maneuvering or flanking by either side. How could the hoplites possibly get past five rows of pikes? They might have an easier time than the Romans due to their larger shields and tighter formation, but it would still be very difficult. Was there a battle where hoplites broke through a Macedonian phalanx from the front?

---

I already mentioned this, but at Chaeronea, the Athenian hoplites were driving the Makedonian left-flank back, until a gap between the Athenian and the Theban phalanx opened (no cavalry, only peltasts) and allowed Alexander to rout the entire Allied army. That´s head on. I don´t think a hoplite line can flank an army with a heavy cavalry force on their flanks.

The Lamian Wars had also a number of victories against Macedonian armies by Athenian and Aetolian League hoplites.

Sorry, sarcasm, but according to quite a few books I've read, including the generalship fo alexander the great by jfc fuller, the macedonian left wing was not driven back by the athenians. They could have held their own, after all why didn't the Theban phalanx drive the right wing back?

The moving back was expressly ordered by King Philip precisely so that the gap between the Athenians and the Thebans that you mentioned could be opened for Alexander to charge through. There was no other way else that the gap could have occurred.

Ergo, hoplites < pikemen. Further substantiation: no hoplite could have managed to make his way through the pike hedge. Roman scutums were recorded to have been punctured by sarissae at Pydna, against Perseus' phalanx. I doubt Greek hoplons could have held out for long either under the strength of sturdy wood and a powerful two-handed thrust.

pikemen>hoplites, Hów could EB do this ín gáme? hoplite shave better def. so killing much before they break trough isn't possible. does anybody know anything baout kinetic energy? what does more damage pike or spear?
Would pikemen be able too outreach hoplites? in game?

Back in Ancient Civ class, our teacher had us make spears from newspaper and shields from cardboard. The next class, he took us to the wrestling/self-defense gymnasium and divided the class into two groups. The teacher's assistant gave us our objectives, and the teacher took the other groups outside to brief them.

My newspaper weapon was replaced by a plastic sword and the student teacher proclaimed me the commander of our twelve-man (and woman) unit, prompted by an argument about the effectiveness of the phalanx.

Anyway, the first exercise involved my unit forming a phalanx, and the other unit slowly managing to surround us, but my unit won out by use of the middle rank (I had ourselves arranged in three ranks of four), managing to score more hits because of the extra men taking potshots.

The second "battle" involved my unit getting longer spears. When it came time to fight, the other unit formed up in a phalanx as well, and we lined up facing one another. As the two units approached each other, the other unit began to back up in unison, much like their unit marched forward. I immediately ordered a halt, and then began the advance again once everything had come to a standstill.
Within a short time, the other phalanx began to lose its cohesion, and try as they might, their spears could barely touch us, since we had two sets of longer spears keeping them at bay. The other unit was "slaughtered".

After the exercise was finished, the teacher explained that Philip of Macedon had implemented these two tactics in order to increase the formidability of his phalanxes. The first was the lengtening of the spear, which eventually became very, very long, and the other was the synchronisation of a phalanx' movement in a backwards way, apparently to confuse the enemy and draw them into charge, breaking formation. Plus, it would be nasty shock if an enemy slowly marching backwards suddenly lunge forward and caught you off guard.

With these two things in mind, I would think that hoplites would operate just like other soldiers in the sense that pike phalanx > everything, especially since there would have been some historical implementation of the "walking backwards" idea in order for it to have been written down at some point.

/parabol.

Quote:

---

Sorry, sarcasm, but according to quite a few books I've read, including the generalship fo alexander the great by jfc fuller, the macedonian left wing was not driven back by the athenians. They could have held their own, after all why didn't the Theban phalanx drive the right wing back?

---

I´m not saying that hoplites are superior to pikemen, I´m saying they´re evenly matched. Superior terrain might explain why Athenians drove back that flank and why the Thebans did not.

Quote:

---

The moving back was expressly ordered by King Philip precisely so that the gap between the Athenians and the Thebans that you mentioned could be opened for Alexander to charge through. There was no other way else that the gap could have occurred.

---

This feigned retreat is based on accounts of the time, made after the battle was over. He can pretty much have said anything he wanted...he won.

I meant the Macedonian right-flank btw...I was watching the battle from the greek side. ~;)

Quote:

---

Ergo, hoplites < pikemen. Further substantiation: no hoplite could have managed to make his way through the pike hedge. Roman scutums were recorded to have been punctured by sarissae at Pydna, against Perseus' phalanx. I doubt Greek hoplons could have held out for long either under the strength of sturdy wood and a powerful two-handed thrust.

---

Unarmoured Galatian light infantrymen destroyed the Macedonians with small shields and short-swords......Spanish sword and buckler (!) infantry consistently beat the Swiss pike formations. So I don´t see where you´re going with the shield argument.

I´m not going into this debate....by experience we just go back and forth and no one will really budge from his own opinion.

ok. so dont debate each other. i assume EB already decided, so how will EB implement this stand-off? head-to-head, equeal terrain, regular hoplites vs regular pikemen no flanking etc. how will win in EBTW?