Swords vs. Pikes

length

ffs, half the time Rome actually faced a professional army they got BTFO.

>Or, were the Romans incorrect to have their soldiers use the sword as their primary weapon

What the fuck are you even saying? How can an army be 'incorrect' about their weapon choice? Anyway, sword is a very broad term, and the gladius was effective because it was short and a perfect match for the large scutum shield for closing distance.

The reason the Romans defeated the Macedonians is because the Macedonian armies at that time consisted mainly of just phalanx pikemen with little skirmisher or flexible infantry support. This is a far cry Alexander's usage of combined forces with skirmishers, hypaspists (flexible heavy infantry guarding the flanks), and light/heavy cavalry. Not only this, but the Romans were able to force the Macedonians into unfavorable terrain as they plundered the country, forcing the Macedonians to attack. On uneven terrain, the pikes were less effective and harder to keep organized.

Pike blocks in the late medieval/renaissance period would've been a combined force of pikes, halberds, muskets, crossbows etc within the formation to support it. I suppose you can see the similarities as to why they were effective. The highly successful Macedonians of Alexander's period, also had "attached forces" of skirmishers and other heavy infantry that kept the flanks safe.

I could argue that a spear is the same length as a spear.

I see your point, but don't you think a spear would best resemble a spear in both usage and appearance? Also a spear is always a spear when it comes to being a spear.

Romans didn't beat pikes frontally, and medieval and renaissance pikes are armed and deployed in a way that was far less vulnerable to being flanked or otherwise disrupted.

is...is that a rifle?

No, an early handgun probably.

A rifle has rifling.

>How can an army be 'incorrect' about their weapon choice?

I'd say marching on a rival country armed with spoons would be pretty incorrect

Try moving around the wall of pikes then

That isn't true.

"Tactics and the Face of Battle,” by Clifford Rogers in European Warfare, 1350-1750 covers a lot of this.
A few different things such as improved plate armour made bows almost useless and the increase in professionalism and drills made the pike square more viable which elimanted most of the threat of being flanked by cavalry.

The army of Alexander was not the army of the diadochii.

By the time the diadochii kingdoms were facing Roman armies their doctrine was "all pikes, all the time" and that was not Alexander's doctrine. Alexander's army had combined arms; the phalangites held the center and provided a fixed position around which the other arms operated and could retreat to with general safety if the need arose. Skirmishers, peltasts and toxotes, enticed the enemy to attack the center by annoying them and get stuck in and thus allow the hetairoi and hypaspists to exploit the openings this enemy-focus/distraction allowed.

By the time the diadochii rolled around their armies were mostly levied peasants with sarissa. Perhaps there were hetairoi cavalry for the general but the chance of them performing a tactically dynamic role in a battle was low, and required a general of the boldness and personal skill that hearkened back to Alexander himself. Arguably the only such diadoch was Mithridates 6 Eupator. Now, this tactical inflexibility was not, necessarily, the diadochii's "fault" but instead a more-or-less conscious reaction to a Greek nobility ruling a decidedly non-Greek peasantry. About the only thing they would want to trust those stinking peasants with *was* a pike. It bit them in the ass, but it *was* an understandable decision all things considered.

The Roman legion had the tactical flexibility of combined arms as doctrine from the aftermath of the Samnite Wars *and* engaged the diadochii armies in terrain and circumstances that were not conducive to an all-pike army. As they should have.

>even though formations using it like the Greek phalanx were defeated by Roman armies using swords?
Because the Successors dumbed down the Phalanx by just fielding shitloads of semi-professional troops and have a small cavalry/light infantry arm to support it, as per classic Macedonian Phalanx.

The *only* time Rome faced a proper Macedonian Phalanx was when it fought Pyrrhus of Epirus. It wasn't pretty for the fucking Romans.

>Pikemen proved essential in defending against heavy cavalry
You mean halberds. Pikes became essential in warfare after heavy cavalry was already on the decline and infantry became plentiful.

it was due to the mounted heavy shock cavalry, there was no such thing during the Roman era however during antiquity there were chariots which is why there were phalanxes around, to counter them

>Pikes became essential in warfare after heavy cavalry was already on the decline
...1300s?

Knights were pretty fucking dominant at the time.

Not to mention pike tactics were developed by Urban societies since it makes the otherwise semi-professional urban militiaman a battlefield force against professionals like knights.

Historical fighting techniques and styles were not that scientific, and were mostly a matter of cultural military tradition - or having veterans pass on their fighting skills and preferences to each successive generation. The Romans used swords and javelins because the Celtic forces that threatened them were considered dangerous enough to copy, and since then the Roman army kept passing on this style of fighting because it was the most expedient way to train new recruits given how many trainers who understood how best to fight in that way were around by then.

>The *only* time Rome faced a proper Macedonian Phalanx was when it fought Pyrrhus of Epirus. It wasn't pretty for the fucking Romans.

It wasn't pretty for fucking Pyrrhus either

youtube.com/watch?v=IcMCVHJkSPA

The Flemish militia used earthenworks and large spiked clubs to beat down heavy cavalry forces. And urban societies were like mountain tribal ones in that they developed pike tactics to use against their rivals - other infantry militia - and fighting professional knights was rare by comparison.

Fucking hell. The battle is incomplete. Here is the good one.

youtube.com/watch?v=CTYuYxmICGo

probably a matchlock smoothebore musket

>...1300s?
Which is when cavalry were beginning to decline as the dominant force of warfare, with the rise of Swiss halberds, English archers, Italian crossbowmen, and Flemish militia - who were more famed for their goedendags than their pikes. Its only later, when professional infantry mercenaries were all over Western European battlefields, that you start seeing dedicated pikemen in overwhelming numbers when before they were always a small contingent of a larger force.

You're retarded.

>with the rise of Swiss halberds
The Swiss actively switched to using the pike because the halberd is outreached by heavy cavalry lances. "swiss halberdiers" is literally a medieval me
>English archers
Got blown the fuck out by heavy cavalry, unless supported by heavy infantry AND fighting from a prepared position. Something that cannot be relied upon.

>Flemish militia - who were more famed for their goedendags than their pikes.
They were famed for two things: winning a single battle by virtue of french stupidity and a carefully prepared position, and then losing the war.

>Italian crossbowmen
Had no fucking impact on how anyone thought. The proper response to crossbows was for heavy cavalry to run them down. They became popular because of their ability to do great harm to infantry.

>Which is when cavalry were beginning to decline as the dominant force of warfare
Because states were centralizing and armor had advanced to a point that you could stand against a lancer on foot and not be guaranteed a horrible death anymore. Centralized states could raise larger armies of infantry of better quality and armament. The infantry revolution consisted primarily of men at arms CHOOSING to dismount because their arms and armor now made this advantageous, not because of people raising silly meme units that magically beat cavalry like a fucking total war game.

this

It's worth noting that Romans were using the spear as their primary weapon again by the late 2nd century. People always seem to forget that and I have no idea why.

The Romans used the short stabbing sword/large square shield heavy infantry combo for a time because it was the most effective way to fight for the hyperaggressive expansionist style of warfare they practiced during that period. When they started to fight more defensively, their tactics, unit composition, and weapons changed to reflect that.

Stop thinking of the late Republican/Early Imperial legions when you think of Romans, that was only how they fought for a short time.

You are doing a confusing.

When the Romans were being most offensive strategically they fought the most defensively.

When being the most defensive strategically they fought the most offensively.

Non-pike infantry only really managed to beat pikes when the pike formation was disrupted by the terrain or some other factor. At least all defeats of pike wielding infantry I know of rely on either terrain (natural or man altered) or some other random factor causing the formation to fall apart.

Almost certainly an arquebus which were smoothbores.

Rifled guns did exist but were used in hunting and shooting competitions rather than war.

>The Swiss actively switched to using the pike because the halberd is outreached by heavy cavalry lances. "swiss halberdiers" is literally a medieval me
Wrong. The Swiss crushed Burgundian, Italian, and Austrian cavalry with their halberds, and only began using more and more pikes once they began facing dismounted knights using their lances as pikes, like at Sempach.

And who are you arguing with here? My point was never that you can raise an 'anti-cavalry' force. It was the opposite, that pikes were NOT an anti-cavalry force because their rise in dominance occurred in an era where infantry warfare was becoming increasingly widespread. I never said anything about why infantry was becoming more popular in this period, only that they were and mentioned several examples who were not pikemen.

Bad reproduction of the pike. They were not that springy.

>Alexander the great conquered the world with pikes

He conquered the world with his cavalry. His pikes were mostly there to distract the enemy line and he had to repeatedly wheel around to go save their asses from being overrun.

Aaaaactually it had a lot more to do with the loss of an effective cavalry wing and the depletion of manpower in the Diadochi kingdoms owing to the literal constant warfare and (in Makedonia's case) migration to the east.

Yeah, you're right, I didn't explain that very clearly.

Only because the fucking Romans just united the middle portion of the Italian Peninsula and had more fucking guys to spare than Pyrrhus.

Pyrrhus didn't call Rome, "a hydra" for nothing. Kill one Italian cunt, 10 takes his place.

Actually in Antiochus III's case, it was his retarded inability to turn down a good cavalry charge that fucked him at Magnesia. Talk about seizing defeat from the jaws of victory.

I absolutely love how everyone on this board will argue the same point back and forth by literally stating you're wrong NO YOURE WRONG without a single shred of credibility.

Welcome to the internet

The Seleukids were major fuckups who routinely squandered the blessings of their massive territory; that does not invalidate the point I made that the diadochii suffered from a retraction of Alexander's flexible doctrine, in fact it would follow the theme.

No, we're actually in agreement, though I maintain that citing "Italian crossbows" is retarded. Italians and crossbows are a result of a number of factors that have nothing to do with cavalry, and they were obsessed with them long before the infantry revolution began.

>His pikes were mostly there to distract the enemy line
No.

>he had to repeatedly wheel around to go save their asses from being overrun.
Because they were fighting very high quality troops who massively outnumbered them in a head on meatgrinder.

Yes, but unlike the Makedonians, the Seleukids were able too maintain a very effective cavalry arm that included cataphracts and other light forces.

They had effective cavalry, but the best cavalry in the world won't help you if it sits and watches the battle instead of participating.

While the Flemish would shill the Goedendag, they still used pikes and spears typical of any Urban militia at the time. I just posted a picture of a guild militia from around the time of the Golden Spurs, taken from a tomb etching.

Anyway trenchworks were bog standard for spear wielding formations as early as the 1100s. Good way to shit up cavalry. Pic related: Northern Italian infantrymen did the same versus Imperial Knights in Legnano.

>No, we're actually in agreement, though I maintain that citing "Italian crossbows" is retarded. Italians and crossbows are a result of a number of factors that have nothing to do with cavalry, and they were obsessed with them long before the infantry revolution began.

But I never cited Italian crossbowmen as having anything to do with cavalry in the first place, only that they presented a clear and visible rising popularity of professional infantry after an era of heavy cavalry domination. You're being completely unfair and rude.

I don't see what we're arguing, I say, "The diadochii focused on the sarissa phalanx and did not pursue quality combined arms doctrine. There were a few diadochii kings who did have one or two arms of quality, a few diadochii who had Alexander's personal skill and balls, but not all those things at once."

You say, "This one diadoch had a quality arm, but he was a personal fuckup."

What is the dispute?

>The Swiss actively switched to using the pike because the halberd is outreached by heavy cavalry lances. "swiss halberdiers" is literally a medieval me

Actually the Swiss actively started switching to the pike as their main arm of battle when their halberds were outreached by lances used by dismounted knights specifically as pikes. At battles like Laupen, Sempach, and Arbedo, the Swiss were a mostly halberdier force that absolutely crushed heavy cavalry, and only suffered setbacks when their enemies started using their cavalry lances like pikes on foot.

If Swiss halberdiers were a meme, then they literally memed Burgundy off the face of the Earth.

It is most likely supposed to be an arquebus but it seems the painter used a mauser as his/her model.

>Pike formations of Alexander were every bit as flexible as Roman maniples
What the fuck are you talking about? Name one of Alexander's battle that required extreme flexibility on part of the phalangites. Alexander's success was pinning down enemy infantry with his phalangites and then flanking them with the heavy Companion Cavalry.

Archers!!!

> The Flemish militia

lost the damn war pretty clearly.

This is what happened when the French had an actually competent commander;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Saint-Omer

And that only happened because his Greek allies in Southern Italy didn't fucking deliver the troops they promised. Same shit with Hannibal, Italians didn't deliver and Carthage didn't give him enough reinforcements.

>Go around wall of pikes
>pikemen all die
Double lol

correct answers

Well given it's a reasonable weapon of the period I'd say you can't necessarily be 'incorrect'. Obviously spoons don't quite fit into this category.

Ideally, getting around a properly accountered, positioned and supported syntagma should be pretty much impossible. The best way to take down a syntagma or tercio, even a good one, is with better ranged weapons (up to field pieces, antique or early modern) and mobility.

Taking it head on is a meat thresher even if you win, taking it in the flanks with infantry is a meat thresher, even if you win. Even when swashbucklers "won" engagements with tercios the casualty ratio was stupidly high.

No it's some kind of smoothbore handguns and also one of the main answers to OP's question.