|
Post by dpd on Jul 30, 2022 17:25:16 GMT
Pike formations from the two different eras were trained and armed differently and performed different tactical functions. As such they should be considered to be two distinct unit types.
Hellenistic Pike (Alexander, Successor, Epirote, etc.) acted as an anvil in their classic "hammer and anvil" tactics, cavalry being the hammer. It was a solid wall whose function was to pin down the enemy down. As such they were heavily armored including small shields and did not operate or maneuver independently. It was very vulnerable on the flanks or if gaps appeared in its solid front.
Renaissance pike (Swiss pike, Scottish schiltron, Spanish tercio, etc.) were created to win battle on their own by being aggressive and maneuverable. Sub units could operate and maneuver independently in block formations that could defend in all directions if hard pressed, no need to worry about gaps or flanks. As such they lacked shields and were lightly armored (except maybe the first few front ranks).
So my suggestion is simple: Designate Hellenistic pike as standard 4PK while reserving fast 3PK for renaissance pike.
Thoughts or comments?
|
|
|
Post by martin on Jul 30, 2022 18:11:12 GMT
Renaissance pike as 3Pk would now be weaker, not stronger - they’d recoil from solid foot on a draw, unlike 4Pk.
|
|
|
Post by timurilank on Jul 30, 2022 19:03:05 GMT
Pike formations from the two different eras were trained and armed differently and performed different tactical functions. As such they should be considered to be two distinct unit types. Hellenistic Pike (Alexander, Successor, Epirote, etc.) acted as an anvil in their classic "hammer and anvil" tactics, cavalry being the hammer. It was a solid wall whose function was to pin down the enemy down. As such they were heavily armored including small shields and did not operate or maneuver independently. It was very vulnerable on the flanks or if gaps appeared in its solid front. Renaissance pike (Swiss pike, Scottish schiltron, Spanish tercio, etc.) were created to win battle on their own by being aggressive and maneuverable. Sub units could operate and maneuver independently in block formations that could defend in all directions if hard pressed, no need to worry about gaps or flanks. As such they lacked shields and were lightly armored (except maybe the first few front ranks). So my suggestion is simple: Designate Hellenistic pike as standard 4PK while reserving fast 3PK for renaissance pike. Thoughts or comments? Dpd, There are a number of Book IV armies listing pikemen as 3Pk; the Portuguese, Spanish and Free Canton. Historically, the first two later employed mercenary pikemen (4Pk) to replace their own and redirect their effort to increase the use of arquebusier and artillery. The late medieval and Renaissance would see the rise of infantry and the employment of combined arms; pike, arquebusier and artillery. Further, the late 15th century manuals that have survived, such as Seldeneck’s, describe close formation for pike. In addition to Martin’s remark, solid pike would repel mounted on even scores in combat.
|
|