Difference between styles
- Thread starter gran_orco
- Start date
GianniVacca
Mongoose
Loz said:
Actually this argument has proved (to me at least) that battles are better modelled by war games than by role-games
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
You can roll your eyes as much as you want, but, I will say again, read posts you wish to reply to.
Your points, once again, are in error. Read my posts. Simple.
You think the Swiss and the Macedonian pike had the same tactial concerns?!
You neglect to offer any kind of importance to the presence of gunpowder, the billmen, the Swiss deployment method and the fact that their enemies offered different tactical problems. Man, the renaissance Swiss are closer to the Taliban in terms of history. To think that they possessed anything but a passing resemblance to the Macendonian infantry is crazy.
And, once more stay on topic. My initial posts concerned ancient warfare. You seem to have WGR approach to anachronism.
Listen once again...
No one has said that it is impossible for a pike unit to move or charge. Once again, it would be extremely beneficial for you to reread the past couple of pages.
What has been said is this, (and Im going to spell it out, solely for your benefit):
That ancient pike units from Phillip of Macedons time, through to the Successors, were used primarily as an anchor and as the anvil on which the cavalry and lighter troops would force the enemy to breaking point UNTIL such a pivotal time in the battle, where it was expedient to force a rout by pressure of the heavy line troops, UNLESS the line was poorly commanded and the individual units suffered a communication breakdown so that they operated individually, often to the detriment of the army as a whole. These doctrines were important ESPECIALLY when confronted by a greater (but inferior quality), force, as at Issus.
Now, if the enemy refuses to move, say, over a river such as the Persians at Issus, it is important not to just stand there and take it, absorbing casualties. When confronted with such tactics, Alexander ordered his entire line over the Issus, attempting to close with the enemy. This is your idea of pike charging. The pike suffered terrible cohesion problems doing these maneouvers over anything other than flat ground, the river having deep banks. This tactic was in extremis however, as an answer to the tactics of the enemy, and their unwillingness to close. He still maintained the line in echelon, hoping to puncture the Persian line at a specific point.
The genius of Alexander was his use of combined arms, whereby he would use the line to pin the enemy, and use his more mobile troops to outflank. These ideas are WELL DOCUMENTED and easily researched. The lack of genius of the Diadochi is well understood too.
You seem to be using the strawman that I have said pike never moved or charged, and are attempting to defeat this easier argument with a few well-placed quotes. Much more difficult, obviously, to read properly the posts, understand the points being discussed and attempt to formulate a thoughtful reply, isnt it?
:roll:
Your points, once again, are in error. Read my posts. Simple.
You think the Swiss and the Macedonian pike had the same tactial concerns?!
You neglect to offer any kind of importance to the presence of gunpowder, the billmen, the Swiss deployment method and the fact that their enemies offered different tactical problems. Man, the renaissance Swiss are closer to the Taliban in terms of history. To think that they possessed anything but a passing resemblance to the Macendonian infantry is crazy.
And, once more stay on topic. My initial posts concerned ancient warfare. You seem to have WGR approach to anachronism.
Listen once again...
No one has said that it is impossible for a pike unit to move or charge. Once again, it would be extremely beneficial for you to reread the past couple of pages.
What has been said is this, (and Im going to spell it out, solely for your benefit):
That ancient pike units from Phillip of Macedons time, through to the Successors, were used primarily as an anchor and as the anvil on which the cavalry and lighter troops would force the enemy to breaking point UNTIL such a pivotal time in the battle, where it was expedient to force a rout by pressure of the heavy line troops, UNLESS the line was poorly commanded and the individual units suffered a communication breakdown so that they operated individually, often to the detriment of the army as a whole. These doctrines were important ESPECIALLY when confronted by a greater (but inferior quality), force, as at Issus.
Now, if the enemy refuses to move, say, over a river such as the Persians at Issus, it is important not to just stand there and take it, absorbing casualties. When confronted with such tactics, Alexander ordered his entire line over the Issus, attempting to close with the enemy. This is your idea of pike charging. The pike suffered terrible cohesion problems doing these maneouvers over anything other than flat ground, the river having deep banks. This tactic was in extremis however, as an answer to the tactics of the enemy, and their unwillingness to close. He still maintained the line in echelon, hoping to puncture the Persian line at a specific point.
The genius of Alexander was his use of combined arms, whereby he would use the line to pin the enemy, and use his more mobile troops to outflank. These ideas are WELL DOCUMENTED and easily researched. The lack of genius of the Diadochi is well understood too.
You seem to be using the strawman that I have said pike never moved or charged, and are attempting to defeat this easier argument with a few well-placed quotes. Much more difficult, obviously, to read properly the posts, understand the points being discussed and attempt to formulate a thoughtful reply, isnt it?
:roll:
PrinceYyrkoon
Mongoose
It took time to reply, so I missed your post Loz.
I will retire...
I will retire...
