Pike & Shot or Line Infantry Better Against Traditional Fantasy Horde?

[jimmy olsen]

Because this forum isn't nerdy enough.

+++++++++++++++
By "traditional fantasy horde" I mean the army of big, dumb and mean monsters that are the muscle of the big bad in Fantasy novels. Whether they're Uruk Hai, Minotaurs, Trollocs, Koloss or what have you, you know 'em when you see them.

Much stronger, faster and tougher then humans, they rely on melee combat. When met in open combat humans have to resort to innovative tactics to win. They typically draw the horde into a trap by harassing them with cavalry and then pin them down with infantry who keep the horde at a distance with pikes or other polearms as archers shower them with arrows while the cavalry delivers the coup de grace.

That's how it works when humans with medieval technology are fighting, but what about more advanced civilizations? One assumes the more advanced the better, but I don't think that's necessarily so. What would work better against a human army wouldn't necessarily work better against an inhuman one.

I was specifically thinking of the armies of line infantry that replaced the pike and shot formations at the turn of the 18th century. A brigade of 18th century line infantry has much heavier firepower then a Spanish Tercio, but it's not enough to stop a determined infantry charge. The firepower to do that reliably wouldn't become available until the advent of the rifle musket in the mid-19th century. A fantasy horde will just wade through the fire, take their losses in stride and then slam into the line and hack the soldiers to bits. Muskets with bayonets just aren't going to enough to stop them.

Wouldn't a 17th century pike and shot army be better equipped to combat a fantasy horde? The pikes would prevent the army from being immediately overrun, while the musketeers continue to fire unharassed and the cavalry does its thing.

What do you guys think?

[Viking]

I do not accept the premise of your silly question here.

[jimmy olsen]

You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?

[Viking]

You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?

That's not the question you asked.

I think that an army of men armed with bayonetted muskets in the Fredrickian mold would be at least as effective in meleé and more effective in fire as a mixed arequebus and pike armed army in the Gustavian mold when faced with a mob of crazed fantasy monster army.

[Viking]

I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.

[Razgovory]

You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?

Worked fairly well in India and Africa.   Romans did pretty well against the Germans and Celts.  Also, Orcs are smaller the humans.

Oh Jeez, why am I even thinking about this stupid bullshit?

[Admiral Yi]

I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.

My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber.  Obviously there were holdouts further east.

[jimmy olsen]

I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.

When did men armed with bayonets ever get into melee with knights in plate armor?

[Jacob]

This thread needs more maps.

[jimmy olsen]

You really think that an army of men armed with bayonets are going to be able to hold their own in melee against nine foot monstrosities?

Also, Orcs are smaller the humans.

I always forget that about Orks. Changed them to Uruk Hai who are at least man sized. The rest of the creatures on that list are big though.

[Neil]

The bayonet didn't falter in the wars against the assorted fiefdoms of India, so I'm going to assume that it's effective.

[fhdz]

This thread needs more maps.

Map sucks.

[The Brain]

No. Just no.

[Habbaku]

I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.

My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber.  Obviously there were holdouts further east.

Lancers were somewhat commonplace in Western European armies well into the Napoleonic Era and beyond.  The Victorian period saw the British use lancers quite a few times.

[Viking]

I'd suggest you look up the reasons for why the bayonette replaced the pike (basically it was just as good against the 18 foot tall monstrosities of plate protected knights on destriers with 16 foot long lances) and why only madmen like Stonewall Jackson and Winston Churchill ever suggested returning to pike use.

My understanding is that by the time the bayonet was introduced the lance had disappeared from Western European battlefields, replaced by the saber.  Obviously there were holdouts further east.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancer

The lancer (called ułan in Polish and Ulan in German) had become a common sight in almost every European, Ottoman and Indian army during this time, but with the exception of the Ottoman troops, they increasingly discarded the heavy armour to give greater freedom of movement in combat. The Polish "winged" lancers were amongst the last to abandon the armour in Europe. There was a widespread debate over the value of the lance in mounted combat during the 18th and 19th centuries and most armies had few lancer units by the beginning of the 19th century, however during the Napoleonic Wars lancers would be seen in many of the combatant nations as their qualities became clear. During the wars the Poles became a ready territory for recruitment by several armies, willingly or unwillingly, and served with distinction in most of these armies, most famously in Napoleon's French Imperial Guard as the 1er Regiment de Chevau-Legers-Lanciers de la Garde Impériale.

At Waterloo, French lances were "nearly three meters (about nine feet, ten inches) long, weighed three kilograms (about six pounds, ten ounces), and had a steel point on a wooden staff," according to historian Alessandro Barbero. He adds that they were "terrifyingly efficient." Commander of the French 1st Corps, 4th Division General Durutte, who saw the battle from the high ground in front of Papelotte, would write later, "I had never before realized the great superiority of the lance over the sword."[2]

In the Siege of Los Angeles, during war between Mexico and the United States, a company of Californio lancers temporarily recaptured the town, expelling a company of U.S. Marines.

Although the lance had its greatest impact in the charge, lancers were vulnerable against other cavalry, as the lance proved a clumsy and ineffective weapon (compared to the sabre) at close quarters. By the late 19th century, many cavalry regiments were composed of troopers with lances (as well as sabres or other secondary weapons) in the front rank and men with sabres in the second, the lances for the initial shock and sabres for the mêlée.