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

[The Brain]

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.

Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?

[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.

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

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

Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.

[The Brain]

Anyway the advances in artillery would seem to make the 18th century armies superior for monster killing.

[The Brain]

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?

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

Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.

Ironically many Swedes had pikes.

[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?

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

Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.

I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.

[Admiral Yi]

Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?

This is my understanding (and there's nothing in Puff's article to rebut it).

I've never heard of lancers in the Seven Years War, or Spanish Succession, or all those other 18th century wars in Western Europe.

Prussia had ulhans, Russia had cossacks, Poland had lancers, and everyone else had a saber.

[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.

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

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

Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.

I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.

Well, whatever your assumptions about monsters might be, the fact remains that you asked which would be better arquebus+pike or bayonette musket infantry would be against a monster horder. It seems that the musket infantry is at least as good in meleé and better at fire.

[Viking]

Is this really true? Wasn't there a rebirth of lance cavalry around Nappytime? Did Western armies use lance cavalry in the earlier 18th century?

This is my understanding (and there's nothing in Puff's article to rebut it).

I've never heard of lancers in the Seven Years War, or Spanish Succession, or all those other 18th century wars in Western Europe.

Prussia had ulhans, Russia had cossacks, Poland had lancers, and everyone else had a saber.

The Hungarians had lancers as well..

Yes and the enemies of the Prussians, Russians, Poles and Hungarians - the Austrians, Prussians, French and Swedes had bayonetted musket wielding line infantry. 

[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?

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

Has the armoured hussaria ending in 1705, during the Great Northern War when Swedes armed with Bayonettes invaded Poland.

I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.

Well, whatever your assumptions about monsters might be, the fact remains that you asked which would be better arquebus+pike or bayonette musket infantry would be against a monster horder. It seems that the musket infantry is at least as good in meleé and better at fire.

...against people.

You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people.

If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.

[Neil]

I'm sure most hussars killed by Swedish foot soldiers were shot. Furthermore, I don't think that a man on horseback is a good fill in for a bipedal creature. Horses are going to balk at charging a row of bayonets. Monsters won't and they'll be able to parry thrusts at them more effectively than a man on horseback could.

You're forgetting the single most important fact about monsters:  They hate being stabbed.  They're still not going to be thrilled about charging a row of bayonets, still less when they're being shot to death.

[The Brain]

Why not let science settle this? Train and equip two different midget armies and have them fight a horde of normal-sized folk.

[The Brain]

Of course it will be a double blind test.

[Viking]

You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people.

If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.

OK, so to boil down your question here.

Which is preferrable when fighting a horde for LOTR monsters; which is preferrable a force consisting of 50% Pike and 50% Arquebus or a force consisting of 100% Line infantry with Musket and Bayonette?

1 - naturally the flintlock musket has twice the range and rate of fire of the matchlock arquebus, plus fantasy battles usually have nasty weather and rain to set the scene for the despairing humans.
2 - while the extra 12 feet of reach the pikes may have the bayonette muskets are 8ft long from hilt to tip may be useful, unless the monsters are using pikes themselves the bayonetted muskets would have sufficient reach.
3 - if the monsters are using pikes then they will be defeated in precisely the way the first line infantry defeated the last tercios.

So I gotta say, Line Infantry FTW.

[Razgovory]

...against people.

You seem to be missing the point that they're not fighting people.

If you're going to fight creatures significantly larger and stronger than you, a row of pikes seems preferable to a row of bayonets.

Being 9 feet tall wouldn't really be that useful in a war.  You would have to eat a lot more, you can't ride horses, logistics are a nightmare, and if you fall down you are likely to do a great deal of damage to yourself.  Another thing that monsters are is often covered in fur or lots of hair.  Hugely inconvenient in battle.  You'll overheat within an hour.

[jimmy olsen]

Why not let science settle this? Train and equip two different midget armies and have them fight a horde of normal-sized folk.

You're so awesome Brain.

And in response to the earlier point on lances, they seem to have made a comeback after the disappearance of the pike from the battle field. I don't think that's a coincidence.