Pike pushing

[seienchin]

The Swiss Pikemen fought in a Mixed formation called Gewalthaufen, which the spanish army perfected with the Terzio. They also had lighter troops with missile and heavy troops with hellebards or two handed swords. Also they didnt use any shields. It was an incredible bloody mess, when two armies with pikemen clashed in the renaissance and early barock. The macedonian phalanx battles are believed to be not as violent by many scientists. Pikemen surrendering after their formation was broken seemed to be normal and a pike wasnt a good weapon to kill someon wearing a linothorax or bronze armour und a shield. The swiss like pikemen had nothing to protect themselves so they fought more aggressive and tried to kill the enemy as quick as possible.

PS: Off course when the swiss came up with the Gewalthaufen no enemy used it so they one some battles surprisingly easy (Just as alexander), but after most countries adopted it, it became just as unflexible as in the Diadochi times. Also there are quite a few theories about the end of the pikeformations I like the theory that cannons, advanced cavallery tacticts and the spreading of the bayonett made their formations impossible to hold and useless.

[vartan]

PS: Off course when the swiss came up with the Gewalthaufen no enemy used it so they one some battles surprisingly easy (Just as alexander), but after most countries adopted it, it became just as unflexible as in the Diadochi times. Also there are quite a few theories about the end of the pikeformations I like the theory that cannons, advanced cavallery tacticts and the spreading of the bayonett made their formations impossible to hold and useless.

It's almost always like this. Consider the older examples. The Hyksos Hittites and whathaveyou come south and invade and next thing you know, in the blink of an eye (to use a saying), you have Egyptians and Co. using iron weaponry. Assyrians use cav as a unit of battle and not just to carry supplies, and everyone follows suit. The Sumerians fight in phalanx formation presenting a wall of shield and spear, and many follow suit.
The introductory periods almost consistently see bloody victories on the part of the technologically advanced. When enemies mimic tech, things even out and victories don't kill as many people anymore. Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. At Cynoscephalae, as far as I can remember, the Romans didn't adhere to "rules of war". They massacred many instead of accepting the sign of surrender (raised pikes) by the Makedones. Guess the Romans had larger goals and sights, more ambitious and couldn't afford a resurrection of the Makedonian professional army...

[Cute Wolf]

The introductory periods almost consistently see bloody victories on the part of the technologically advanced. When enemies mimic tech, things even out and victories don't kill as many people anymore. Doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. At Cynoscephalae, as far as I can remember, the Romans didn't adhere to "rules of war". They massacred many instead of accepting the sign of surrender (raised pikes) by the Makedones. Guess the Romans had larger goals and sights, more ambitious and couldn't afford a resurrection of the Makedonian professional army...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's why the Romaioi are actually bunch of cowards and barbarians, as they didn't even honour the rule of war.

BTW, it was worth thinking that the Romans' main infantry was gladius armed legionary... made them looks like an "interlude era" before the pike army rose to prominence again.

[Apázlinemjó]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's why the Romaioi are actually bunch of cowards and barbarians, as they didn't even honour the rule of war.

BTW, it was worth thinking that the Romans' main infantry was gladius armed legionary... made them looks like an "interlude era" before the pike army rose to prominence again.

Let's not forget the Early and "Dark" Middle ages and the armoured heavy cavalry.

[Ludens]

That's why the Romaioi are actually bunch of cowards and barbarians, as they didn't even honour the rule of war.

Maybe because they weren't aware of these rules? For that matter: even modern soldiers have been known to kill captives or surrendering enemies in the heat of combat.

[antisocialmunky]

Nothing compared to that army of a million men that was massacred by the army of Qin that one time.

[Macilrille]

I can recall no source for Romans hacking down surrendering Macedonians. What they did do in general was to not actually bother themselves with silly drivel such as rules of war. Their only rule was that they should fight only Ivs Bellvm, and even that got watered down pretty heavily over time. Apart from that, they were extremely ruthless. Some condemn it, but that is how they were. They also did not adhere to the rules of Hellenistic diplomacy and never negotiated from a point of weakness. And very rarely surrendered, that does not exactly equal cowards to me. In fact quite the opposite.

Wonder how they became supreme...

Ever-raging is the consideration in all armies and wars about rules of war and whether you can fight a monster without becoming one.

Keeley has written a good book on tribal warfare and proved that it was much more total than anything we do today and NOT the "ritual dance-battles" that idealistic and romantic antropologers of post WWII thought.

This is definately wandering off topic though.

Back on Pike Pushing.

[irelandeb]

What they did do in general was to not actually bother themselves with silly drivel such as rules of war.

The romans regularly accepted surrenders from enemies, however usually only once hte general or whoever was in charge had ordered the acceptance, until then they'd just kill anyone who came near.

[vartan]

Maybe because they weren't aware of these rules? For that matter: even modern soldiers have been known to kill captives or surrendering enemies in the heat of combat.

I say they were well aware of the rules. It would have been foolish for the Roman Consul not to have pressed the attack on the retreating Makedones.

As for Pike Pushing, does M2TW have a phalanx feature? Since it is an advancement of the RTW engine, I would assume it takes into account code from 1.9. Pushing should be fine as long as the bug-fix for phalanxes from 1.9 is part of M2TW.

[pikeman]

If greek pike pushing was like the swiss, then I assume they either boiled down into sword brawls or a bloody mess where one side collapses and gets steamrolled...

[antisocialmunky]

It probably wasn't like that but M2TW seems to invariably result in a bloody merge.

[G. Septimus]

If greek pike pushing was like the swiss, then I assume they either boiled down into sword brawls or a bloody mess where one side collapses and gets steamrolled...

Swiss Pike pushing...
Swiss Knife Pushing...

[A Very Super Market]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's why the Romaioi are actually bunch of cowards and barbarians, as they didn't even honour the rule of war.

BTW, it was worth thinking that the Romans' main infantry was gladius armed legionary... made them looks like an "interlude era" before the pike army rose to prominence again.

Not really. Knights in Europe were by far the most effective for most of the middle ages (And definitely the early chaos). The Romans were an anomaly in the fact that their armies were infantry dominated. Alexander relied on his companions to break the enemy, where Rome simply slogged it out with manpower.

[Apázlinemjó]

Not really. Knights in Europe were by far the most effective for most of the middle ages (And definitely the early chaos). The Romans were an anomaly in the fact that their armies were infantry dominated. Alexander relied on his companions to break the enemy, where Rome simply slogged it out with manpower.

I don't think that it was an anomaly, as after the Renaissance we encounter the same: infantry based armies dominating the battlefields.

[gamegeek2]

The dominance of the knight was largely due to a lack of solid middle class to raise an effective infantry force from, as the kingdoms of Europe didn't state-equip their soldiers, at least until Henry V of England, IIRC. The few infantry that were up to the task were usually mercenaries, too few in number to make a significant difference. The occasions where there was such an infantry force, such as at Tours and Coutrai, knights weren't the invincible force they previously were thought to be. Even the Anglo-Saxon fyrd levy was effective against the Norman heavy horsemen thanks to their shieldwall (though they were admittedly on a hill). Dismounted knights and men-at-arms were also effective against mounted knights when organized.

[pikeman]

ahh yes, and the dreaded halberdeirs dragging the poor tin-can slob from his horse to his doom.....