spears and pikes

**jerby** · 04-20-2005, 13:17

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?

**Sarcasm** · 04-20-2005, 14:39

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

**Simetrical** · 04-20-2005, 23:14

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

**Sarcasm** · 04-20-2005, 23:33

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.

**runes** · 04-21-2005, 00:58

i concur with Sim on the topic of hoplites and running

**pezhetairoi** · 04-21-2005, 08:30

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.

**jerby** · 04-21-2005, 09:31

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?

**Simetrical** · 04-21-2005, 21:54

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?

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):

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

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

**Sarcasm** · 04-22-2005, 05:02

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.

**pezhetairoi** · 04-22-2005, 07:10

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.