Forgive my hubris and unabashed arrogance. I haven't played M2:TW yet... I bought it, got it up and running, and then my nine year old motherboard decided that the BIOS chip had done enough in this life and gave up the ghost. While I've been waiting on parts to build a new, massively more powerful machine (yay!), I've been reading everything I can about the game, the units, tactics, etc etc. I've learned that pikes are broken. Only... it seems to me that those complaining they are broken are trying to use them in a way they weren't actually used. So, a primer on the historical use of pikes seems in order, since it sounds to me like they work as they should...

Now, I already mentioned that I haven't played the game yet. So I can't speak to the actual mechanics in-game other than what I've read from others. That said, I've put hundreds of hours into MTW, and I actually wore out the CDs on my first copy of RTW - mostly playing RTR6.

Oh yeah, and I've been (or I am, since I don't think one can stop being) an ancient and early (read: dark age) medieval historian, specializing in military equipment and practice (currently trying to write a novel and break into acting... but that's another story). Does that mean I know everything? No. The high era of pike use (14th-17th centuries) is outside my (former) professional interest (800 BC - 1000 AD), so I can only make claims to amateur status here.

But enough of that... and onto the meat!

I. Pikes are not sarrisas.

I love the Macedonian phalanx. In RTR, nothing was more satisfying to me than playing as Bactria and facing off phalanx to phalanx against the Seleucids. In ancient times, with sufficiently trained men, and with the right supporting forces on the flanks, and on flat ground the Hellenistic phalanx was unbeatable - if it kept in good order.

Let's examine that statement, though... men have to be well trained, the right supporting forces have to be present, the ground has to be right, and the men have to stay in good order... that's a lot of 'ifs', and that's for the time period that inspired later tacticians to re-invent pike formations!

It wasn't until the 15th century that the Swiss and the Flems really began to achieve the necessary level of training to employ pikes effectively. Later the Spanish would dominate the field, but the point is that the average run-of-the-mill pike unit in the Middle Ages shouldn't be as affective as the phalanxes of RTW (and especially RTR). So if the frame of reference you are using is RTW experience, stop.

*A note on Scots pikes: Yes, the Scots scored some amazing victories with pike-based armies a century and more earlier than the Swiss and Flems, but let's talk about the two main encounters... The victory at Stirling Bridge had more to do with local superiority of numbers and the force of a downhill charge at disorganised troops than with the weapons used. Likewise, I think de Bruce was the Man, but his victory at Bannockburn was due to good use of the terrain, good fortune in demoralising the English army the day before with his axe-on-pony stunt, and the horribly inept leadership of Edward II - without those things, the schiltroms would have been swept from the field, and it was a close run thing as it was.

II. There are swords and then there are swords!

Technology does not stand still. Even though a lot of knowledge was lost at the end of Antiquity, the art of manufacturing implements of destruction barely had a speedbump. Advances in metalworking during the early medieval period and after meant that swords could be longer, sharper, and more durable. A longer sword means more kinetic energy at the end of the blade, and a sharper sword means more PSI at the point of impact. What does this matter?

When facing the phalanx, the Roman Legionary had to dodge around the pike heads to get in close. When facing a pike formation, a German Landsknecht armed with a zweihander just chops the pike heads off. That was the purpose of two-handed swords (the exception being Scotland, but despite being two-handed, the claymore is a smaller, and MUCH lighter sword than the zweihanders). After closing with the pikemen, zweihander armed soldiers would usually switch to a smaller weapon.

Of course, dodging around the pike heads was still a viable option given the more plentiful and better quality armour that was around in the mid-late middle ages, and was the primary purpose of sword-and-buckler armed soldiers. Most countries, led by the Swiss as innovators, used pikemen, zweihanders, short spearmen, and sword-and-buckler men in large mixed units in order to offset the pure pike formation's near total vulnerability to heavy infantry attack. The swordsmen would fight in front of the pikes, with the pikes supporting from the rear, unless a cavalry charge was expected.

The point is, unsupported pike formations should be vulnerable to sword-armed units and other well-armoured infantry. And really, the exact same thing was true back in Hellenistic times, which is why phalanxes were only successful when used as the anvil to a cavalry or elephant hammer. It was just that the swordsmen of that era had shorter or lower quality swords, and tended (with exceptions like Rome) to be less well armoured than in later centuries, which meant the phalanx could fight unsupported in the front for a time, while the cavalry got into position - provided the men were well-trained, and the ground was flat, etc etc.

III. So... why did pikes become so common?

They were cheap! And deadly effective against mounted knights.

BUT... as mentioned before, pikes got chopped to bits by dismounted swordsmen (if left unsupported) and at battles like Halidon Hill, one can see what happens when the other side has missile superiority (not pretty). Basically, pikes were a bust when used defensively, because they can't stand and take fire. Pikes were most effective as an offensive weapon. Yes, that's right... offensive.

There were two main variation of successful offensive pike formations. The Swiss pioneered the first: large, deep, bodies of men advancing in column and preceded by zweihanders to break enemy pike formations and protect the front row of pikemen. And by large, I mean LARGE: 5000 men in a block, not uncommon. Perhaps 80% pike, the rest swords and halberds.

The rise of field artillery and arquebusiers spelt the end of the deep attack column, and the rise of a new formation invented by the Spanish - the tercio. Let me make this clear... 'tercio' is a name for a formation and tactic, not a unit - historically. As long as this is, I don't want to go into a detailed description (but you can read one under 'Tercio' on Wikipedia that is decent ) but suffice to say it's a complicated formation that is half pike, 1/3 arquebusier, and the rest sword and buckler and javelin infantry. Total size: 3000 men. This flexible combination dominated field warfare for more than a century, due to its firepower and invulnerability to cavalry attack.

IV. The End (whew!)

The point, I would gather, for in-game use is that units of pikemen, swordsmen, and later firearms, should be grouped into divisions and used as a whole. When fighting other infantry, the swordsmen should form the front line with the pikes 'pushing' from behind them. Later, with the addition of firearms, the pike divisions should be stand-off formations with the guns causing most casualties - the pikes are only there to shield the guns from assault. The pikemen should form the front line only when fighting cavalry! Otherwise, let them push from the rear and use their pikes over the heads of well-armoured swordsmen. Used this way, historically, pikes are a cheap force multiplier and nothing I've read suggests to me that this tactic won't work in M2TW.

I should get my parts Monday, and be able to test it out for myself Monday night (provided nothing arrives DOA!). In the meantime, if someone wants to test for themselves and let us all know, please do!