Pikemen vs Hoplite....Who Wins?

[Glowboy]

Hi, I was wondering what is better the hoplite or the pikemen in RTW?

[HeroSK]

It depends, but hoplite units can penetrate trough pikes in my experience. The surrounded either pike or hoplite loses in any circumstances.

[Confederate Jeb]

Hoplite usually, I believe.

[movemove]

to tell the truth, pikemen are pure . hoplites anyday

[GeneralChaos]

Hoplites, unless there's a huge difference in quality/stats

[Legio]

Theres an interesting thread about this in Vestigia Vetustatis secion.
Hoplites usually because they had more maneuverability and armor. But head-to-head, it would be a real treat to watch.
But if phalangites were supported, there would be another Chaeronea.

[Glowboy]

Theres an interesting thread about this in Vestigia Vetustatis secion.
Hoplites usually because they had more maneuverability and armor. But head-to-head, it would be a real treat to watch.
But if phalangites were supported, there would be another Chaeronea.

?? Didn'tunderstand a single word sorry.

[Legio]

The thread is here.
What I meant by the rest was that most commendars of pikemen knew the thoplites would break through just pikemen. Thus they also emphasized supposrting troops such as peltasts thuerophoroi, and of course cavalry.
This happened at Chaeronea. If it wasn't for the Macedonian cavalry, the Greeks surely would have carried the day.
But one on one, the hoplite will win.

[fourganger]

The thread is here.
What I meant by the rest was that most commendars of pikemen knew the thoplites would break through just pikemen. Thus they also emphasized supposrting troops such as peltasts thuerophoroi, and of course cavalry.
This happened at Chaeronea. If it wasn't for the Macedonian cavalry, the Greeks surely would have carried the day.
But one on one, the hoplite will win.

Accounts of the battle differ. Some hold the opinion that the Athenians routed the Macedonian pikemen opposite them and it was in this pursuit that they were caught by Alexander and his cavalry. So here is perhaps evidence as to hoplite superiority.

the funny thing is that the hoplites are in the macedonian phalanx.

Huh? Alexander backed up his phalanx with a line of hoplites. But hoplites are very different from Phalangites. They wore more armour, had a bigger shield, were not usually professional soldiers, etc.

[Glowboy]

But how would the hoptilites win wouldn't they be help back by the pikes?

[Legio]

The saem way legionnaries later got past pikes. The sarissa was long but unwieldy-ish and could not be swerved fast to meet a new foe, and teh hops had far better armor and mobility. THe hop would get past the sarissa and the pikeman was dead. Also, without supporting troops to cover teh Macedonian flanks, the hops would simply outflank the pikemen.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Hoplites

[FreshDunks101]

Hoplites!
Better armor and flexibility!

[Phalanx300]

Hoplites! If given enough time they will crush the Phalanx from the front, I'm quite sure of that .

[Legio]

Absolutely!
And besides the close quarters combat favors hops rather than phalangites.
At first the pikemen would have an upper hand but eventually as more hops came they would be overwhelmed.

btw aren't we all just saying the same thing over and over again?

[Celsius]

hoplites, they actually have some sort of protection with shields.

[Magno]

Hoplite wins when fighting and equal or weaker pikemen, Hoplite vs. Hoplite of same stats defending hoplite wins

[aznflea]

its kind of paper scissors rock thing because the phalanx would crush lighter infantry whereas hoplites would eventually get overwhelmed by them in an outnumbered battle

[Yojimbo]

pikemen as they can attack first and kill first unless the hoplites outclass the pikes like armored hoplites vs levy pikes. Pikes also outnumber the hoplites

[darthbane7]

Well, I think that one on one, the superior armor of the hoplite and its better short distance fighting power will kill the more lightly armored, unwieldy sarissa phalangite.

However, that isn't how a phalanx is supposed to work. It works as a body, not every man for himself. And if we are talking the actual game rtw here , then there certain advantages the pikemen have over the hoplites:

1) I think it's got about 30% more men then the hoplite unit (i.e. 120 to 80).

2) The longer sarissa kinda compensates for the pikeman's weaker armor, and because the pike is about twice as long as the hoplite's spear, so the men behind the front row can protect the row in front and so on. In reponse to the hoplite's "shield wall" and armor, the pikemen can form a "spear wall".

3) The pikemen, as Forlornhop3 said, get to kill first due to extended length of sarissa (pike).

4) Esp. in vanilla, the pikemen factions tend to have much better supporting units than the hoplite faction, like macedon's companions.... up against .... greek cavalry? Carthage, however is an exception, as elephants change to whole dynamic of phalanx warfare, ugh! Not to mention sacred band cav. Although an extreme example of pikemens' superior support in faction units would be the seleucids, with catas, ellies, legionaries AND companions. What more could one ask for? :hmmm:

5) Farrrrr more cost effective. 120 Pikemen for 600 denarii, or 80 Hoplites for the same amount? I think I'd choose the pikemen.

But the hoplites' advantages are just as good, if not better in some cases:

1) Less vulnerable to missile fire. The lighter, peltast-like shields of the pikemen/phalangites will not hold up against heavy arrow fire, while the much stronger hoplite shields will hold.

2) Superior armor. A hoplite vs phalanx pikemen.... eh, I'd have to say the hoplites, fyi 16 armor against the pikemens' 13, and only one less attack value, 7 to 8. Not to mention this partially makes up for the deficit in number in comparison to the pikmen.

3) Standard formation fighting! When the phalanx faces off against swordsmen and is forced to sword to sword, the armored hoplites are much better off than the lightly armored pikemen.

(In other words, the hoplites might win or lose if they go sword to sword with an equally good sword unit, and the pikemen most likely will die in heavy sword to sword combat.)*

4) Flexibility? Eh, I personally enjoy Romans, so I can't say anything on that matter, so say what you like, as romans enjoy far more flexibility than any kind of phalanx formation, they're all less flexible, esp in vanilla.
(Now, XGM is a different matter)

*Not to mention the fact that most hoplites have superior morale levels compared to pikemen. Excellent or merely good? I think I excellent too.

Now, being a partially sword faction player (ok, on RTR I like playing as Macedon and Carthage), I like the hoplite's better sword fighting ability, but HATE how the Greeks, as the primary phalanx faction, have nothing more in the form of cavalry, except generals (which are too valuable) and greek cavalry, oh joy.

I think both are good, but in a slugging match, I'd have to say pikemen, for their longer pikes and superior numbers. The two closest value hoplite units against Macedon's royal pikemen? Sacred band and Armored Hoplites. Armored hoplites? Not a chance, weaker attack and lower defense skill. Sacred band? Now that's something different. Due to superior attack, and defense skill that's probably going to be sacreds. But they're more expensive and harder to get anyways.

Meh, the part I like best is superior numbers (the spartans are the exact opposite, but their killing power and great defense skill more than make up for that). However, for pike users, be wary! The spartans and Sacred band are the best hoplites one can use, and pikemen will almost NEVER hold up against those killing machines, unless the pikemen in question are royals and have silver chevrons or higher. Players who rely too much on pikes will get killed by hoplite users. Pikemen need a combined arms approach to fighting. Which is why I listed that advantage of pikes: good support. Again, Companions or greek cavalry? I think Companions.