Philip and Alexander took over the ancient world by inventing a longer stick

>Philip and Alexander took over the ancient world by inventing a longer stick
Literally how did nobody find a counter to this, or not think it up themselves?

t. John Green

It was more about the training and organization to use the pike in formation.

This.
All the Macedonians did was perfect the style of organization and discipline that had been standard for centuries.

It's not the pike itself

it's the trained professional troops holding it, in addition to Alexander's innovative cavalry tactics.

The cavalry was the important but, also the Macedonians were known for being taller and larger than their Greek counterparts, an important factor in push warfare

>How did nobody find a counter to this, or not think it up themselves?
They did, once everyone is using pikes though you're back to the same stalemate, you needed something to counter the phalanx directly.
You needed mobility, smaller units that were more flexable. The Romans perfected this with their maniple and cohort systems.

It wasn't just that

the Phalanx was almost unassailable from frontal assault. The Seleucids almost beat the Romans like that. The problem is that the Phalanx was dependent on the professional soldier, and the Diadochi couldn't maintain losses unlike the Romans and their citizen soldiers.

Same thing happened with Epirus and the Pyrrhic war. Pyrrhus won the battles but lost too many men.

This, its amazing how many times Rome was saved by having more men to throw in the meat-grinder, Cannae is a perfect example.

Isn't it more about how Rome had alliances with other cities/towns and so had more man power to draw upon?

It's more diplomatic superiority than simple population superiority.

Phyrrus victories over the Romans have more to do with his use of the Elephants than with anything else. Romans had the Greek phalanx too, but they soon realized that it was useless against large numbers of light armored javelin throwers in the hilly landscape of Italy.

They were just their anvil. You are dismissing the importance of their cavalry, hypaspists, etc. They were so effective because they deployed combined arms so effectively, rather than just relying on a specific troop.

Citation needed

It's just the triumph of the professional army, not of pointy long sticks.

But Rome wasn't just a meat grinder nation with shitty troops, they had endless troops AND they were well equipped and trained.

Thats why they did so well.

>Isn't it more about how Rome had alliances with other cities/towns and so had more man power to draw upon?
>It's more diplomatic superiority than simple population superiority.

If you are refering to the italian allies then they were basically vassal states. The probably unrelated quote "Conquerer we conquer" tells you alot about the roman military capacity. IIRC roughly half of the military might of Rome consisted of auxillaries levied from such allied states.

*Conquered we conquer

>Isn't it more about how Rome had alliances with other cities/towns and so had more man power to draw upon?
Same difference desu

WE

A longer stick weighs more, making it unwieldy and more difficult to use.

There was also things about successors cavalry arm that degenerated and Romans getting successor style troops9and elephants) from allied Greek states.

i thought it was more the war machines, logistics, and supply lines and such desu
see
>balista

>push warfare
sounds like something you'd do on facebook lel

I read that Caracalla had a contingent of Spartan men assembled to form a classic phalanx and sent them to war just for shit and giggles.

How would a pike formation fighting along a peak Roman legion work? I somehow think it could have a lot of potential.

It certainly coulf have its uses, but in an open field battle it would probably not be worth it as it would need too much baby sitting.

>Literally how
feeble minded fuckwits like you for a start

>How would a pike formation fighting along a peak Roman legion work? I somehow think it could have a lot of potential.

Like , you know...Triariii....

The Triarii didn't use pikes. The fought as classic hoplites.

Quite simply they wouldn't function any differently from pikemen in any other army.
In order for pikemen to function properly they need to be supported by more flexible infantry. Roman legionaries are basically the definition of flexible, so the two would mesh pretty well, in fact some forms of Hellenistic infantry resembled legionaries quite a bit (although they were more likely ripping off the Galatians than the Romans).

You may ask then why the Romans didn't also use pikes at this time, the answer probably is that they didn't consider them worth the effort, possibly mixed with the issues regarding flexibility.

Point being, within a Roman army pikemen would function similiar to hoplite like Triarii: As a rally point

What makes you say that? Wouldn't some sort of Pyrrhus-thingy work better? Or even put them in the front line with the hastati on the flanks.

Don't think that the Roman army actually had the means to force opponents to charge their pikes head on instead of just outmaneuvring them, especially since they are just a single isolated element.
Triarii are the closest thing to a pike block we have in the Roman army, so I think it's sensible to go by that example-

Well your reasoning is kinda flawed imo. We all know that the romans didn't adopt the pike style phalanxes. If they did do it it would only be reasonable to presume that it would come with some pretty drastic changes to their military traditions.
The triarii were after all just a vestigial remain of the old and abandoned form of roman warfare.

We were talking about one single unit. I really doubt that it's feasible to tailor your whole military structure about one single unit. No, it'd be best to hand this one unit a very specific task.

>We were talking about one single unit.
I wasn't. It would pretty much make no sense to just have one unit of pikemen in your field army. A syntagma did only consist of 256 men after all, which is not even half the number of triarii in a legion.

>Anons talk about B
>outsider joins conversation midway through and talks about A, because he likes that topic more
errytime goddamnit...


The OP was talking about a single contingent, which is what I was naturally referring to then. Please learn to follow to read through the whole discussion, instead of opening up another can of worms clandestinely.

My bad. I thought the word formation refered to the whole collection of units rather than the individual one.
And I didn't join midway through either, it's me that you've been having the conversation with since your first reply in . I even answered before you. Besides, a macedonian phalanx would be wasted taking up the same duty as the triarii. If you want to include the unit in your army, atleast make use of it.

This isn't as trivial as it sounds. A longer stick is heavier, and harder to manoveur around. Because it is heavier, the front row had to be changed more frenquently. And it because it was more complicated to maneuver, the soldiers needed to be better trained in handling it. E.g. for something as trivial as "longer stick" you needed stronger, better trained soldiers.

Not to mention that it heavily effects the manueverability of the unit.

>ayo we iz smahtah dan dem aynshents innit, progress an dat like
When will this meme die?
It's not just a matter of giving your men longer spears and suddenly winning.

>The emperor Caracalla enrolled a cohort from Laconia and Sparta in c. AD 214, for his Parthian war. See Herodian 4.8.3. Alexys unit were employed against Parthian (or Persian – the gravestone actually refers to his death in a Persian War) heavy cavalry in the same way as later Roman clubmen fought cataphracts and clibanarii at Emesa or Singara.

>Caracalla also raised a “Macedonian” phalanx. Perhaps the Spartans, were for show and symbolism more than effect. Caracalla becomes both Alexander and Leonidas by leading them. The Spartan clubs might have had no specific tactical function, but were to link them to the tradition of being descendants of Heracles.

But it was a combined arms effort sweetie.

>Philip and Alexander took over the ancient world by inventing a longer stick

The Spartans weren't the descendants of Herakles... that was the Agiad and Eurypontid monarchs.

funny that clubs were actually appropriate counter to cataphracts

>On the battlefield where it is virtually invincible from the front, it would need too much babysitting

Are you actually real? Is this real life?

Invincible in the front, extremely vulnerable on the sides means it needs 2 units on either side to protect it's flanks at all times.
Might as well just have 3 regular units, at least a regular unit is more flexible and you can replenish losses more easily.

What's funny about it?

What said + the fact that if it wasn't on flat ground it would be vulnerable from the front aswell.

They were meant to be ceremonial junk imstead of specialist anti armor weapons

Even so it's not exactly extraordinary bright to come to the realisation that a heavy crushing force might be good against armour you can't cut through.
And if it was ceremonial junk why did they go into battle with it?

a mad emperor want them

This

A single unit would have no trouble, its large formations of pikes where uneven terrain changes their movement speed (uneven terrain made the Macedonian lines at Cynoscephalae fall apart so the Romans defeated them). Even then, uneven terrain was not as much of a problem for well-trained and well led phalanx armies

The kings of Sparta, and pretty much all of the Dorian state rulers, considered themselves Heracleidae.