Felix Wang wrote: |
Infantry with shorter weapons have historically had trouble with pikes, at least on a small-unit level. |
I think that's a rather upside-down statement of the case. The Roman got the worst of frontal fights between two large unbroken formations, but the rough terrain at Pydna opened up gaps in the Macedonian phalanx that the Romans were able to exploit because of their better small-unit coordination.
Anders Nilsson wrote: |
In roman days and in the battle of hastings the charge with lance was not used by knights.
In the Bayuo (Whats that spelling?) tapestry itīs clearly shown that the knights was throwing spears ay Hastings, not charging with a lance. And to make matters worse, they where fighting uphill. Same goes for the roman era. Cavalry was not used to charge. If so, weapons would have been found. They used spears, not lances. |
Er...I think I don't need to speak about the Bayeux Tapestry, but the idea of ancient cavalry not being able to charge is totally false. Alexander the Great's Macedonian cavalrymen often willingly charged their enemies, especially opposing cavalry; against infantry they usually charged against the flanks or rear, but it's charging all the same. And you don't have to read much of Livy to see that the Roman cavalry often mounted ferocious charges against weakened enemies--there was even a specific drill for an infantry formation to open gaps through which the cavalry would charge, probably in a deep column. Such a charge would have had devastating effect at the beginning of a lull in the fighting, when the opposing lines were edging away from each other and a swift, decisive action can dramatically alter the balance.
Now, to address the sword/spear issue against cavalry, remember the battle of Tours-Poitiers? The Muslim chroniclers unanimously state that the Franks, armed with swords, stood like a "wall of ice" and repeatedly repulsed Muslim mounted charges. There is some dispute about whether these swordsmen were only a small contingent of guards or formed a sizable portion of the army, and whether they were foot or mounted--but most historians today seem to favor the interpretation that this "wall of ice" was made up of either foot or dismounted men (or both) because it was said to have simply "repulsed" the Muslim horsemen instead of counter-charging and then pursuing them.