Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Can someone tell me why pike armed troops become disordered when they are
pushed back. I mean what is the rational?

Thanks,
David in S.A.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/17/2003 12:46:16 Central Standard Time,
DAVBEE217@... writes:

> Okay, Let me try to ask this another way. I understand that a tightly
> packed formatiom of pike armed troops if pushed back would become
> disordered. They do get the bonus of the 3rd and 4th rank because of
> this formation. However, why would pike armed Mycenaeans get the
> negative of being disordered but not the benefit of the 3rd and 4th
> rank?
> Anyone? Anyone??
>

Ok, I feel like I am being seriously baited here, but I so *hate* to see a
customer not get an answer to his question.
First, remember that tactical factors and combat results moves are designed
to reflect how FORMATIONS fought, not replicate exact actions
figure-to-ground-scale.

Pike armed formations traditionally stood their ground when pressed by foot,
losing some of their cohesion but stopping the momentum of the enemy. This
was enough across time periods not to warrant a list rule for those spearmen
we chose to give some P 'capabilities' to.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks Jon,
I didn't mean to bait, I was just hoping for an " X " rule that might make
the lowly Mycenaean competitive at a tourney.

After talking to some of our local guys, no one could remember even the
Romans beating Greek pikes in a head up fight on good ground. What do you
recall?

David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[joncleaves]

In a message dated 1/17/2003 13:37:05 Central Standard Time,
DAVBEE217@... writes:

> Thanks Jon,
> I didn't mean to bait, I was just hoping for an " X " rule that might make
> the lowly Mycenaean competitive at a tourney.


It's the general that makes the lead competitive, but that is another
soapbox....lol

You must mean in an open tourney, because these guys have a great Fast
Warrior list and also do well against biblical lists.

>
> After talking to some of our local guys, no one could remember even the
> Romans beating Greek pikes in a head up fight on good ground. What do you
> recall?
>
> David
>

It is tough to remember such a thing, I mean it was 2100 years ago after
all...lol

Hmmm, seems I have a couple books around here with loads of pila/gladius
kills pike battle stories. I'll have to dig around. There certainly isn't
any question in my mind that I could find some.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jon,

Thanks one more time. I did not about the fast warrior Mycenaeans.

I agree with you about the general. As you know, a good general is always
looking for any edge that might be available.

Please let me know about the pike vs pilum question. I recall the pilum
winning in broken ground and in night attacks, just not in a "stand up/good
ground fight."

David


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, DAVBEE217@A... wrote:
> Can someone tell me why pike armed troops become disordered when
they are
> pushed back. I mean what is the rational?
>
> Thanks,
> David in S.A.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Okay, Let me try to ask this another way. I understand that a tightly
packed formatiom of pike armed troops if pushed back would become
disordered. They do get the bonus of the 3rd and 4th rank because of
this formation. However, why would pike armed Mycenaeans get the
negative of being disordered but not the benefit of the 3rd and 4th
rank?
Anyone? Anyone??

david, i don't have my books handy, but the romans
beat the macedonians handily in 'the macedonian wars.'
pharsalus is the battle that comes to mind, but i may
not have the name right.
also, the mycenaens fought with javelins. i wouldn't
whine too loud just because the lists stiffen them up
a bit (they may have fought in a dense formation).
hawgs and kisses.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

[Ed Forbes]

Taking the first summary at hand: The Art of War in the Western World by
Archer Jones;

Main points:

1) The Romans almost always fought the Macedonian system with allies.
At Magnesia (190 BC) the Roman ally King of Pergamun supplied a powerful
cavalry force, playing an important role in the Roman victory. The
Romans used the Alexandrian method of combined arms, flexibly, and
reserves, where the Macedonians seemed to move away from the Alexandrian
method to a more inflexible style.

2) In the Macedonian campaign of 197 BC, the Macedonians increased the
pike length in the 5th rank to 21', shorting the pike with each rank
forward to present a solid block of pike heads at the front of the
formation. The additional 11 ranks behind this first 5 ranks had no real
role in the actual combat. Under "optimum" conditions, each front rank
Roman faced 10 spears ( 2 x 5) due to 2 pikemen in the same frontage as 1
Roman.

3) Polybius states "The Phalanx requires level and clear ground with no
obstacles such as ditches, clumps of trees, ......., all of which are
sufficient to impede and break up such a formation." Gaps would enable
the Roman swordsman to come to close quarters with disastrous
consequences for the phalanx.

4) Even on level ground the Phalanx was vulnerable. In either being
pushed back, or pushing back, the phalanx exposes its flank to the Roman
reserves which "by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the
Phalanx"(Polybius, Histories, X VIII as cited in Paton's translation,
5:153-57

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

[Harlan Garrett]

Ed,

Great information.

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@...]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:32 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Disordered Pikes


Taking the first summary at hand: The Art of War in the Western World by
Archer Jones;

Main points:

1) The Romans almost always fought the Macedonian system with allies.
At Magnesia (190 BC) the Roman ally King of Pergamun supplied a powerful
cavalry force, playing an important role in the Roman victory. The
Romans used the Alexandrian method of combined arms, flexibly, and
reserves, where the Macedonians seemed to move away from the Alexandrian
method to a more inflexible style.

2) In the Macedonian campaign of 197 BC, the Macedonians increased the
pike length in the 5th rank to 21', shorting the pike with each rank
forward to present a solid block of pike heads at the front of the
formation. The additional 11 ranks behind this first 5 ranks had no real
role in the actual combat. Under "optimum" conditions, each front rank
Roman faced 10 spears ( 2 x 5) due to 2 pikemen in the same frontage as 1
Roman.

3) Polybius states "The Phalanx requires level and clear ground with no
obstacles such as ditches, clumps of trees, ......., all of which are
sufficient to impede and break up such a formation." Gaps would enable
the Roman swordsman to come to close quarters with disastrous
consequences for the phalanx.

4) Even on level ground the Phalanx was vulnerable. In either being
pushed back, or pushing back, the phalanx exposes its flank to the Roman
reserves which "by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the
Phalanx"(Polybius, Histories, X VIII as cited in Paton's translation,
5:153-57

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1394046/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3936_580
2,FF.html> HGTV Dream Home Giveaway

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1394046/rand=758891110>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Harlan D. Garrett"
<Harlan.D.Garrett@W...> wrote:
> Ed,
>
> Great information.
>
> Harlan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@j...]
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:32 PM
> To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Disordered Pikes
>
>
> Taking the first summary at hand: The Art of War in the Western
World by
> Archer Jones;
>
> Main points:
>
> 1) The Romans almost always fought the Macedonian system with
allies.
> At Magnesia (190 BC) the Roman ally King of Pergamun supplied a
powerful
> cavalry force, playing an important role in the Roman victory. The
> Romans used the Alexandrian method of combined arms, flexibly, and
> reserves, where the Macedonians seemed to move away from the
Alexandrian
> method to a more inflexible style.
>
> 2) In the Macedonian campaign of 197 BC, the Macedonians
increased the
> pike length in the 5th rank to 21', shorting the pike with each
rank
> forward to present a solid block of pike heads at the front of the
> formation. The additional 11 ranks behind this first 5 ranks had
no real
> role in the actual combat. Under "optimum" conditions, each front
rank
> Roman faced 10 spears ( 2 x 5) due to 2 pikemen in the same
frontage as 1
> Roman.
>
> 3) Polybius states "The Phalanx requires level and clear ground
with no
> obstacles such as ditches, clumps of trees, ......., all of which
are
> sufficient to impede and break up such a formation." Gaps would
enable
> the Roman swordsman to come to close quarters with disastrous
> consequences for the phalanx.
>
> 4) Even on level ground the Phalanx was vulnerable. In either
being
> pushed back, or pushing back, the phalanx exposes its flank to the
Roman
> reserves which "by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the
> Phalanx"(Polybius, Histories, X VIII as cited in Paton's
translation,
> 5:153-57
>
> Ed Forbes
>

Thanks to all, this has been fun.
> ________________________________________________________________
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=1
7050590
>
80:HM/A=1394046/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3
936_580
> 2,FF.html> HGTV Dream Home Giveaway
>
> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?
M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmai
> l/S=:HM/A=1394046/rand=758891110>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[scott holder]

It is tough to remember such a thing, I mean it was 2100 years ago after
all...lol
Hmmm, seems I have a couple books around here with loads of pila/gladius
kills pike battle stories. I'll have to dig around. There certainly isn't
any question in my mind that I could find some.

>The initial Roman battles against the Hellenestic military construct (against
the Macedonians and Seleucids after the end of the 2nd Punic War) resulted in
Romans beating up phalanxes head to head......although many other factors con
tributed to that. I've pontificated here before about how Roman *maniples* co
uldn't stand up to a massive pike phalanx simply because of sheer numbers. Th
ey key for the Romans was to not let the phalanx roll over their frontal oppon
ents too quickly (which was possible) in order to give other maniples time to
blow away the phalanxes flank support and then attack from 3 sides.

>In FW, Roman armies from this period routinely whomp the crap out of historic
al pike opponents. At our recent tourney, of the 3 battles we ran, Romans vs
Macedonians, Romans won 2 of the 3 (I was the lone Roman *loser* and that's pr
imarily because my idiotic Spanish rolled way down on their impertious charge
into the pike block and I never recovered.....ah yes, the excuse of the lame,
"I rolled down", heh heh heh).

scott

[scott holder]

Yea, thanks for encapsulating this. FWIW, this period is probably my stronges
t academically which is why I'm looking forward to working on Imperial Warrior
(at least in terms of the later Republican aspects of the Roman Military mode
l and it's encounters with the last of the Hellenistic systems and the early m
ongo-cav systems.

>>> Harlan.D.Garrett@... 01/17/03 05:39PM >>>
Ed,

Great information.

Harlan
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed C Forbes [mailto:eforbes100@...]
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 5:32 PM
To: WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [WarriorRules] Re: Disordered Pikes


Taking the first summary at hand: The Art of War in the Western World by
Archer Jones;

Main points:

1) The Romans almost always fought the Macedonian system with allies.
At Magnesia (190 BC) the Roman ally King of Pergamun supplied a powerful
cavalry force, playing an important role in the Roman victory. The
Romans used the Alexandrian method of combined arms, flexibly, and
reserves, where the Macedonians seemed to move away from the Alexandrian
method to a more inflexible style.

2) In the Macedonian campaign of 197 BC, the Macedonians increased the
pike length in the 5th rank to 21', shorting the pike with each rank
forward to present a solid block of pike heads at the front of the
formation. The additional 11 ranks behind this first 5 ranks had no real
role in the actual combat. Under "optimum" conditions, each front rank
Roman faced 10 spears ( 2 x 5) due to 2 pikemen in the same frontage as 1
Roman.

3) Polybius states "The Phalanx requires level and clear ground with no
obstacles such as ditches, clumps of trees, ......., all of which are
sufficient to impede and break up such a formation." Gaps would enable
the Roman swordsman to come to close quarters with disastrous
consequences for the phalanx.

4) Even on level ground the Phalanx was vulnerable. In either being
pushed back, or pushing back, the phalanx exposes its flank to the Roman
reserves which "by a lateral movement on the flank and rear of the
Phalanx"(Polybius, Histories, X VIII as cited in Paton's translation,
5:153-57

Ed Forbes

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!

 Visit www.juno.com


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupweb/S=17050590
80:HM/A=1394046/R=0/*http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/pac_ctnt/text/0,,HGTV_3936_580
2,FF.html> HGTV Dream Home Giveaway

<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=241773.2861420.4212388.1925585/D=egroupmai
l/S=:HM/A=1394046/rand=758891110>

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[Kelly Wilkinson]

Michael,
I know I'm jumping into this late but........... I recall the Romans
winning because of numbers and organization. Not due to head to head encounters.
Livy for the most part backs up dave by relating that the legionaires had much
difficulty in a head to head fight. where the Romans should have the advantage
is their superior organization in having smaller units. ***Perhaps a list rule
could be made for Late Republican, Marian, and Early Imperial Romans whereby
they can purchase their command points at a reduced cost to allow for more units
versus historical enemies. I've always been suspicious about why Phil Barker had
HTW verses P at a standstill on an even die roll in the first bound.... Scott?
Jon? Jake?

Kelly
michael forbes <ragingbullmf@...> wrote:david, i don't have my books
handy, but the romans
beat the macedonians handily in 'the macedonian wars.'
pharsalus is the battle that comes to mind, but i may
not have the name right.
also, the mycenaens fought with javelins. i wouldn't
whine too loud just because the lists stiffen them up
a bit (they may have fought in a dense formation).
hawgs and kisses.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
WarriorRules-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]