/his/ - History

>>29371

You don't have to hold the enemy, the phalanx is too slow to effectively counter flanking. That's why Alexander used his Companion cavalry to shield the flanks of his phalanx.

Trying to approach the front and keeping them fixed should be done with skirmishers, using peltasts, arrows and stones. Never directly, since that'd be suicide.

>How do you fight against a giant pointy wall of death when you aren't in one?

Either shoot them or fight someplace other than a flat open field so they can't make a giant block of pikes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cerignola

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marignano

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Flodden

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Falkirk

>>29410

This, also flanks.

The Romans have shown that a Shield formation can take a pike formation head on, albeit they would take massive casualties once they are able to get in close it fucks up the phalanxes formation and trying to use those long ass Pikes when the formation is broken is really hard, of course the general strategy what to switch to the side-arms usual something similar to a Falcata, but those are shit to the Scutum and Gladius. Not tying to say Legion is best formation but Legion is best formation.

>>29371

>How do you fight against a giant pointy wall of death when you aren't in one?

With your own pointy sticks, or with armor. Preferably both.

>>29371

I'd use a tank

Romans handled them pretty well.

Whit Balistas, catapults and using harassing offesives

>>33596

yep, flanking tactics by marines or special forces

If we're already talking about pike formations: Were pikes really as devastating against cavalry charges as video games or movies like Braveheart portray them?

I get that galloping headlong into a sharp stick is fairly unhealthy for horse and rider, but I'd also argue that you need well-drilled people to prevent the formation from breaking apart when an entire wall of flesh and steel closes in on you.

>>33631

I've heard that horses with heavy armor did charge into pike formations in order to cut glades into the formation which were then used by infantry to engange them directly. If I remember correctly they mentioned it in some documentation about an emporer of the HRE but I can't tell for sure.

>>33649

Sounds odd to me. I would imagine it the other way round, with specialized infantry such as doppelsöldners or rodeleros used to push through the pike formation.

A head-on cavalry charge followed by an infantry charge. They'll never see it coming.

>>33686

Put the horses on the back of the infantry and you'll really stump them.

>>33631

Cavalry did not gallop when they charged a dense formation, they trotted. If two horses collide at galloping speed they'll both die. If a galloping horse collides against a human the horse is likely to at least trip. The rider wanted to stab woth his lance or hit people with his sword, not use the horse as a battering ram like in Total War or Lord of the Rings.

There were lots of times during the Italian Wars when cavalry charged into pikes and came out okay. In one of the most famous battles a combination of gunners and heavy cavalry charges defeated the pike blocks.

>>33718

The best part is that would probably work because the enemy is to fucking baffled at the sight to do anything

>>33863

pikes are dense in formation and have armour and shields; the amount of ammunition needed to take down one, if not all, of the pikemen would be tremendous. Also, bows are not as powerful as TW may make you believe.

>>33914

>MTW II: Stainless Steel 6.4

so there is finally a mod that fixes the common total war historical warfare inaccuracies? is it good?

>>33916

It's great

>>33928

>it's great

how great? castles are still just small cities whit interior walls instead of being a fortification constructed favorable topological place for defense?

>>29371

fight them on difficult terrain, that nullifies phalanxes

>>33914

>implying phalangites didn't use metal armor too

>using bodkin points against linen

Confirmed for having learned history from video games.

Speaking of historical memes, can a mass of upright pikes really deflect arrows?

>>33930

That doesn't really change i think, the engine has always had problems with sieges, so castles have to be unrealisticly big to accomodate the units, i don't think it's possible to make them realistic enough.

The fun factor of SS though, that's great.

>>29371

The Phalanx formation had begun to die when Ballisti had become more prominent and warfare was beginning to be more Marine based.

But yeah, Giant crossbows on wagons are more than enough to make a weak spot on the opening were melee skirmishers or other infantry can really destroy the formation from inside out literally, and then you have all the flanking going on.

tl;dr Ancient warfare was more than Melee and Arrows, there was a fuckton of Artillery during the period.

Greek fire

>>33942

It can deflect the arrows that hit the pikes. I can't imagine anyone trusted their life to that though.

>>34029

it just provided a little of protection, not total protection, they ran the test on those history channel documentaries, can't find the video though

If an arrow is defected by your pike it probably wasn't going to hit you anyway.

>>33942

well the surface area of a pike is small compared to a man, so I think it's likely that people wouldn't put all their money on a thing pike blocking a only slightly thinner arrow.

Also, if archers saw that firing straight was simply hitting pikes and / or armour, I doubt they'd give up, instead they'd probably shoot in an arc to kill the people in the pike formation.

>>34044

>history channel documentary

The question is settled then :^)

>>34046

But it was going to hit someone several ranks behind you.

Anyway speculation is useless, serious tests and primary sources are needed.

>>34055

now that image makes me wonder how do you deal whit a roman turtle formation

>>34142

catapult round straight into it would be devastating.

also, attack from behind or the vulnerable sides.

>>34142

Roman shields are huge, but thin, so that they would be light enough to carry. Shoot enough shit into them, like the Parthians did at Cannae. At that engagement they brought extra ammo, and the Romans sat in place. Not a normal battle, in other words, but it worked. The heavy cavalry charges actually failed to break the Romans, but they kept bringing in camels loaded with ammo and eventually broke them with missiles.

In a normal battle, actually engaging in melee would break the turtle, because they'd have to fight back or they'd just be knocked over.

>>34142

another roman turtle formation

don't forget to bring the javelins with you

>>29371

Artillery. Even the best of armors have gaps, and pikemen didn't wear full plate as far as I know.

Also, pikemen are good at standing there and defending the position, but they are horrible at attacking other pikemen. A pike formation can do nothing against another pike formation. Attacking would be suicide.

Long weapons like halberds and big two-handed swords supposedly were good for deflecting multiple pikes at once as well.

Shields would also help, if we are talking about soldiers that do not have full plate. Closing in with a shield and a more nimble weapon would force them to drop their pikes and draw their swords.

>>34163

>The heavy cavalry charges actually failed to break the Romans, but they kept bringing in camels loaded with ammo and eventually broke them with missiles.

Actually, according to Cassius Dio "if they decided to lock shields for the purpose of avoiding the arrows by the closeness of their array, the pikemen were upon them with a rush, striking down some, and at least scattering the others; and if they extended their ranks to avoid this, they would be struck with the arrows. Hereupon many died from fright at the very charge of the pikemen, and many perished hemmed in by the horsemen."

So heavy cavalry broke the formation, making the Romans vulnerable to arrows.

And you mistyped Carrhae.

>Artillery. Even the best of armors have gaps, and pikemen didn't wear full plate as far as I know.

Non sequitur man, cannons don't need gaps between plates.

>A pike formation can do nothing against another pike formation. Attacking would be suicide.

You make it sound as if when a pike formation attacks another, they don't do anything and everybody dies.

In Hellenic and Hellenistic warfare it was standard practice for the respective heavy infantry formations to lock each other, until cavalry (and/or elephantry etc.) if present decided who won or one of the two taxeis routed.

You probably have Renassaince-era pike and shot squares in mind, and the situation changes, but then push of pike happened often at the time.

>>34166

Whoops, forgot to quote >>34163 before the second paragraph.

>>34166

I didn't misspell it, I just typed the wrong battle.

>>34166

>>34163

The problem with two pike formations facing on another was that the outcome was quite unpredictable, one side could devestate the other or the whole thing could turn into a slaughter for both, putting up a tactic with this seems rather unreasonable so it probably didn't happen all too often

>>34443

Exactly, it just depends on the discipline and skill of the attackers. Whilst not exactly pike men, you could tell an army was not disciplined in Ancient Greece and in shield-walls by observing the shields; shields were meant to partially or fully cover the man to your right, this meant that a shield wall / phalanx could often slope right, then when people attacked the shield wall / phalanx, the defenders would pull back their shields to protect themselves, effectively making the shield wall / phalanx useless. I guess there would be tell-tale signs in pike formations also, such as pikemen forming loosely.

>>34044

>they ran this test on those history channel documentations

So Hitler fired the arrow and the guy with the pike was an ancient alien?

>>34466

no, the just put a bunch of spears fixed on the ground, imitating a phalanx formations, later the just shoot some arrows to some hay bales placed behind the spear lines to see if they stoped the arrows

anyways the idea that a bunch of stickscan block a volley of arrows is too fantastical, even if that worked onl the ones at the rear of the fomrations would be safe just for a moment because as the ones on the front are dyiing they would have less spears on their front to protect them

>>34447

>>34483

>>34443

I'm pretty sure it's common knowledge that battles in antiquity that had two pike formations attack eachother ended in routs which is where the real damage is done. I think that >>34166

has the right idea about pike formations cancelling out the movement of other formations as to force a situation where one routs. my two cents

>>34443

>The problem with two pike formations facing on another was that the outcome was quite unpredictable

If two similar formations face one another (two cohorts, two hoplitic phalanxes, two Viking raiding parties, whatever) obviously there isn't a tactic that gives a significant advantage (if there was, both would use it). So yes, ceteris paribus the outcome would be unpredictable. But first of all, ceteris are usually not paribus, and opposing armies can differ in discipline, generalship, moral, number, terrain etc. other than in armament (and those are 'deciding factors anyways). Second, othismos, push of pike etc. are not rare historically. Besides, if the outcome of a battle were predictable beforehand, I wouldn't expect the side predicted to lose to show up.

>roll under frontal spears

>take out knives and sword

>start chopping legs

>fin

>>34678

>be in pike formation

>see enemy formation stop drop and roll

>wtf.claypot

>simply lower spears

>watch as they become impaled

>don't take pleasure from it, just feels like killing a retarded child

>>34686

What if they roll too fast and your pike just stabs into the ground

checkmate, Greek

>>34690

>second wave approach

>hard ass looking mother-fuckers

>our shields start to overlap as we unknowingly push to the right to get away

>suddenly they start rolling, extremely quickly this time

>persianthehedgehog.claypot

>they attempt to zoom through our lines

>like a blur

>a very retarded blur

>quickly impaled by either the people at the front or the people behind

>I never liked sonic anyway

>>34708

>get shin level balls

>attach small spikes

>fire from a shin level ballista

>watch as miniature cannon balls shreds legs

checkmate Macedonian

>>34711

>repelled the second attack

>look at Crismus Bonus to my left and raise my eyebrows

>they can't be anymore stupid

>large wooden artillery pieces are brought in

>oh shit shit shit shit

>they're quickly destroyed to make smaller artillery pieces

>a few hours pass by before they start shooting at our shins

>"JUMP LADS, JUMP" our Lord Alexander shouts

>jumping like shitting rabbits

>continue to jump

>we are still jumping

>please send help

The archaeologist looked up from the clay pot and removed the magnifying glass from his eyes slowly. He placed the pot down, pushed himself gently away from the study-table before exhaling. He stared at the pot, realising that it was green and much more herb-like than he previously thought.

"Jesus Christ, I need to get off this stuff", he said, attempting to close his eyes and ignore the thousands of jumping Macedonians in his head.

Launch a bunch of arrows at it

>>35282

Shit, should've added OP's post, too.

>>33863

I remember reading somewhere that some nomadic cultures used bows way stronger than even the English longbow. Not to mention that they were on horses. Longbowmen would be no match for them.

>>35369

well compact bows are powerful but have pretty short range while longbows have a large range and are also pretty powerful.

>Longbowmen would be no match for them.

yeah they would, horse archers could harass but longbowmen could pepper them long before the horse archers were in range. also, logistics: longbowmen would have wagons full of arrows nearby, horse archers would not.

>>35456

>Oh right, Carrhae!

How exactly do you get from British Longbowmen to Roman Heavy Infantry? It's not rocket science to understand that slow heavy infantry has no chance against mounted archers because they can't get in range, but fighting other archers is an entirely different thing, doubly so when they are static and possibly fortified behind paveses, mantlets, and the like.

Horse archers excelled in situations where they dragged slow-moving enemies out into the open where they superior mobility permanently kept them out of range of their enemies while also allowing them to fire salvos at their foes. Conversely, their use against fortified positions is more limited because fortified enemies will simply refuse to play the cat-and-mouse game they're so good at.

>>35468

Yeah, defending fortified/difficultly accessible positions were about the only thing longbowmen were really good at. They weren't that all that versatile. Horse archers would have significant strategical advantage as they'd be the ones in control of the situation while the longbowmen would just have to wait and see what happens.

(I case anyone wonders than yes, I did not proofread it.)

>>35487

Again, your mongolfetish is overtaking you. What good would the horse-archers mobility would have done them if the English longbowmen could have simply taken cover behind their fortifications only to fire salvos against the mounted archers next (or before if you decide the range argument in favor of the longbowmen) ?

As mentioned above, horse archers were extremely effectively against slow heavy infantry, but much less effective against fortified positions, doubly so when said positions could be maned by archers with superior range.

Mongolfag go home.

>>35468

>fighting other archers is an entirely different thing

No it's not, if said archers are stuck on a hill or something. They have no way of preventing their enemies from getting supplies.

>>35497

>What good would the horse-archers mobility would have done them if the English longbowmen could have simply taken cover behind their fortifications

And die of starvation while the horse archers go on a chevauchée.

>>35449

Mongols were known for scouting out the batlefield beforehand and hiding supplies in strategic locations to be used in he middle of battle by the mounted archers.

>>35517

mongols sound like mary sues tbh.

>>35497

>As mentioned above, horse archers were extremely effectively against slow heavy infantry, but much less effective against fortified positions, doubly so when said positions could be maned by archers with superior range.

Reminds me of that play-through I did in Rome:TW as the Scythians. Shit was ridiculously easy to win on open battlefield with horse archers being the basic unit, but holy fuck you can't do shit against cities. My strategy was to spam horse archers and lay siege until the enemy is forced to concede, and shoot as many as possible every time they sally out.

>>35544

That's kinda the point. Arrows can be very nasty against soldiers, but will not break down stone walls.

Of course, you could always besiege fortified positions (in the traditional sense of simply preventing any food to get into the castle/city until they surrender or starve to death), but this is not exactly a sustainable tactic if you're a cavalry horde with limited supply routes.

>>35514

Could you please make up your mind regarding whether we are talking about a direct one-on-one battle, the siege of a town/ castle or Longbowmen actually being Roman heavy infantry?

>>35548

>Could you please make up your mind regarding whether we are talking about a direct one-on-one battle, the siege of a town/ castle or Longbowmen actually being Roman heavy infantry?

It makes no difference actually, horse archers do whatever they want because no one can stop them. Anyway I was thinking of longbowmen on a hill, behind earthworks and palisades, since that's the bare minimum for them to survive.

>>35548

The mongols had pretty decent artillery too, walls didn't do much to stop them