>it took centuries until someone realised you can make a longer

>>1802249

>Post 20th century spears are shorter
>Somewhat that means more intelligence.
Spot the retard.

>macedon makes long spear
>gets blown the fuck out by romans using knives and large shields.

>>1802306
How did that happen?

>>1802309
Roman legions were far more independent and versatile than macedonian phalanxes, which required a strong cavalry support not to be completely pointless. Cavalry support is not a given, since it requires specific terrains to be effective. Manipular formations on the other hand can be used regardless of combined arms and terrain.
A macedonian army meeting a legion on a flat field could probably go hammer and anvil and wreck the romans, but why the fuck would the romans accept battle in a situation like that? They're gonna force a battle on uneven ground where the phalanx will be half broken and cavalry can't charge. See: all roman hellenic wars.

>>1802309

because gargantuan sticks are actually unwieldy weapons which offer absolutely no tactical flexibility, would you believe it

>>1802309
Because superior roman steel and Romanitas (roman martial arts) could break through the inferior sarissas like firewood.

>>1802249
the pike square was developed specifically to counter charging heavy cavalry, which had been the dominant force on the battlefield

it was not just a natural evolution of the spearman like in a game of civilization

>>1802469
>the pike square was developed specifically to counter charging heavy cavalry, which had been the dominant force on the battlefield
And then spent as much or more of it's time stomping infantry.

Stop spreading this stupid meme.

>>1802249
>weapon that sucks against armoured infantry coincidentally gets used when weapon that utterly destroys armoured infantry is invented
gunpowder weapons changed warfare who knew

>>1802519
what does that have to do with my point?

>>1802541
Your point is wrong. Full stop.

>>1802588
the development of pikes, and their later use, are not related.

>>1802427
10/10 post

>>1802455
>superior roman steel
fun fact, romans had really shitty iron, not even shitty steel, they had to buy that from the celts. Romans never managed to produce proper steel.

>>1802833
The iron wasn't shitty at all, you retard.

>>1802793
Except it is, faggot. Hence the natural evolution of he hoplite phalanx towards using pikes to enable to better combat the EXACT SAME OPPONENTS.

As well as the later pike squares being better in a pitched battle than the same body of men armed with spears would be.

It's absolutely a natural evolution, given sufficient centralization and focus on infantry and decisive close combat.

>>1802833
>the romans

which ones, over the hundreds of years they were a collective peoples?

>>1802878
slag incursions tell a different story, that stuff was hardly good enough for nails.

>>1802249

>doesn't realise that a longer spear isn't necessarily a better spear

>>1802921
And yet they conquered the world with it.

Roman weapons weren't being made with iron that was noticeably worse than anybody elses at the time, and had enough carbon in it to render it perfectly adequate for use.

>>1802936
Longer always means better you dicklet.

>>1802309

Because as soon ancestors you are past the end of the pike, your opponent can't do anything other than either drop the pike and try and grab another weapon or try to shorten his grip faster than you can get at him. Both need to be done without also getting tangled in the men behind.

>>1802955

Yeah, because you sure can fight effectively with a pike on top of a castle wall, or in a city street, or the middle of a forest, right?

>>1802957

Hmm, no idea why autocorrect decided to put "ancestors" instead of "as" there.

>>1802957
You can't shorten your grip on a macedonian pike, you'd damage the formation more than the enemy.
We do know that they dropped the pikes and wielded swords for close combat.

>>1802968
>you sure can fight effectively with a pike on top of a castle wall
Matter of fact you can. It was a known way to defend against wall assaults. The romans in particular did it to defend their camps.
Of course it's just while they come up the wall, once they're on the battlements you take out your sword.

>>1802957
Fun fact:
Romans NEVER defeated a pike unit in a frontal assault the way you're describing. Ever.

The closest you get is them letting individual units outpace other and ten attacking corners as they grow isolated. Attempts to engage the phalanx frontally were futile wastes of men at worst, or terrible, grinding stalemates at best.

>>1802939
>and had enough carbon in it to render it perfectly adequate for use.
no, that would make it steel.

Now Romans did conquer the known world, but metallurgy was sure not one of their strong sides.
If you check the studies on roman blades you will notice that proper heat treated steel was almost unknown to them. Most blades where piled iron at best, sometimes even just low quality bloomery iron.

They also did not invent cast iron, which makes it safe to assume they never used blast furnaces. Kinda makes you wonder, they sure knew their mechanics and water power.

>>1802833
>fun fact, romans had really shitty iron
No shittier than anyone else in Europe at the time.

>>1803039
What is Ferrum Noricum for $500?

Besides, it is not my point to diss the Romans, I just wanted to point out that ferro-metallurgy was not that advanced in the Roman Empire, which comes a bit as a surprise given their technological expertise, experience with non ferro metals and martial prowess.

>>1803018
>no, that would make it steel.
The term "steely iron" has been used more than once in actual studies of battlefield finds.

Gallic iron was just as good/bad.

>>1803052
>What is Ferrum Noricum for $500?
What romans used to make their weapons since very early on. Noricum gauls were basically the republic's smiths until north east Italy developed a massive ironworking industry in the 1st century BC (and they still used the iron if not the smiths) and then north eastern Gaul in the 1st century AD.

>>1803061
>"steely iron"
It is regarded as a term of courtesy that was used by slightly biased archaeologists and will make metallurgist giggle because there is no such thing.

>>1802309

Polybius, writing in the second century BC, basically agreed with >>1802427


> Why is it then that the Romans conquer? And what is it that brings disaster on those who employ the phalanx? Why, just because war is full of uncertainties both as to time and place; whereas there is but one time and one kind of ground in which a phalanx can fully work. If, then, there were anything to compel the enemy to accommodate himself to the time and place of the phalanx, when about to fight a general engagement, it would be but natural to expect that those who employed the phalanx would always carry off the victory. But if the enemy finds it possible, and even easy, to avoid its attack, what becomes of its formidable character? Again, no one denies that for its employment it is indispensable to have a country flat, bare, and without such impediments as ditches, cavities, depressions, steep banks, or beds of rivers: for all such obstacles are sufficient to hinder and dislocate this particular formation. And that it is, I may say, impossible, or at any rate exceedingly rare to find a piece of country of twenty stades, or sometimes of even greater extent, without any such obstacles, every one will also admit. However, let us suppose that such a district has been found. If the enemy decline to come down into it, but traverse the country sacking the towns and territories of the allies, what use will the phalanx be? For if it remains on the ground suited to itself, it will not only fail to benefit its friends, but will be incapable even of preserving itself; for the carriage of provisions will be easily stopped by the enemy, seeing that they are in undisputed possession of the country: while if it quits its proper ground, from the wish to strike a blow, it will be an easy prey to the enemy.

>>1803079

> Nay, if a general does descend into the plain, and yet does not risk his whole army upon one charge of the phalanx or upon one chance, but maneuvers for a time to avoid coming to close quarters in the engagement, it is easy to learn what will be the result from what the Romans are now actually doing.

> For no speculation is any longer required to test the accuracy of what I am now saying: that can be done by referring to accomplished facts. The Romans do not, then, attempt to extend their front to equal that of a phalanx, and then charge directly upon it with their whole force: but some of their divisions are kept in reserve, while others join battle with the enemy at close quarters. Now, whether the phalanx in its charge drives its opponents from their ground, or is itself driven back, in either case its peculiar order is dislocated; for whether in following the retiring, or flying from the advancing enemy, they quit the rest of their forces: and when this takes place, the enemy's reserves can occupy the space thus left, and the ground which the phalanx had just before been holding, and so no longer charge them face to face, but fall upon them on their flank and rear. If, then, it is easy to take precautions against the opportunities and peculiar advantages of the phalanx, but impossible to do so in the case of its disadvantages, must it not follow that in practice the difference between these two systems is enormous? Of course, those generals who employ the phalanx must march over ground of every description, must pitch camps, occupy points of advantage, besiege, and be besieged, and meet with unexpected appearances of the enemy: for all these are part and parcel of war, and have an important and sometimes decisive influence on the ultimate victory. And in all these cases the Macedonian phalanx is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to handle, because the men cannot act either in squads or separately.

>>1803082

> The Roman order on the other hand is flexible: for every Roman, once armed and on the field, is equally well-equipped for every place, time, or appearance of the enemy. He is, moreover, quite ready and needs to make no change, whether he is required to fight in the main body, or in a detachment, or in a single maniple, or even by himself. Therefore, as the individual members of the Roman force are so much more serviceable, their plans are also much more often attended by success than those of others.

> I thought it necessary to discuss this subject at some length, because at the actual time of the occurrence many Greeks supposed when the Macedonians were beaten that it was incredible; and many will afterwards be at a loss to account for the inferiority of the phalanx to the Roman system of arming.

>>1803064
Yes and no. Ferrum Noricum was actually high quality, low phosphor iron or usable quality steel, made from siderite ore in what is today Styria. The best weapons and tools for the Roman empire was made from this material. Now Rome had much more iron production, inf fact most provinces had it on some scale. And as stated before, most was not very high quality, most was just fit for nails and simple applications.
Thats not that a surprise, ferro metallurgy is complicated, lots of chemistry involved and high temperatures required, it took Europe till the 12th century to actually make (and understand the process, steel was made before, but only on a artisanal level) proper steel weapons.

>>1803111
>Styria
Carintia, sorry, my bad.

>>1803079

This is true, although on the other hand it's worth remembering that the legions got their shit kicked in quite a lot when they tried to fight further east than the coast of the Levant, i.e. in territory that actually is flat and mostly featureless for more than twenty stades.

Even then, though, it was cavalry doing the kicking rather than phalanxes, which leads me to wonder what exactly changed between Alexander's time and the late Roman Empire to make cavalry-heavy armies more viable than phalanxes in Polybius' ideal phalanx country. Stirrups? The Parthian shot?

>>1802897
pikes were not developed to fight spearmen

>>1803175
Stop.
>This is true, although on the other hand it's worth remembering that the legions got their shit kicked in quite a lot when they tried to fight further east than the coast of the Levant, i.e. in territory that actually is flat and mostly featureless for more than twenty stades.
They sacked the parthians capital three times, and nearly conquered the later sassanids more than once.

>Stirrups?
Did not exist in that part of the world yet.
>The Parthian shot?
Not actually unique to parthains at all, and ended up being countered by bringing along large bodies of slingers.

Roman armies struggled to deal with the mobility of their eastern foes for a while, and then significantly adapted their tactics to make better use of terrain and supporting arms to deal with them.

After that, logistics was essentially the only thing keeping them from conquering all the way to india.

>>1803175
It's a matter of organization. You need either a pseudo-feudal setup or a very organized and centralized state to raise heavy cavalry in numbers. The parthians had the first, the romans the second. The diadochi had neither, for the most part.

>>1803196
Phillip literally reformed his army in order to conquer greece and persia.

Greece being almost entirely spearmen, and persia relying in spear armed infantry for close combat, complete with MASSIVE forces of mercenary greeks to supplement them.


Later pikes in europe were devloped to fight literally everything, as they're more effective against both infantry and cavalry than earlier infantry forces.

>>1803198
>Roman armies struggled to deal with the mobility of their eastern foes for a while, and then significantly adapted their tactics to make better use of terrain and supporting arms to deal with them.
This is a meme. Rome rekt the parthians everytime they weren't led into a fucking ambush by traitors since the beginning. People look at Carrhae and Anthony's campaign, while ignoring how thoroughly Cassius and Ventidius crushed the invasion attempts.

>>1803226
I'm referring more to issues not involving pitched battle.

The Sassanids in particular had no issue with shadowing roman forces, killing foragers, burning fields, and generally wearing them down without committing to a battle they couldn't easily win.

>>1802309
Because all the Macedonian leaders after Alexander were retarded

>>1802309
depending on what campaign you're looking at:

>Rome's fuckhuge reserve of manpower
>Lack of adequate cavalry supporting the Phalanx or other auxiliary troops
>retarded commanders

it's also worth noting that the Macedonian Phalanx of the late hellenic period was far heavier and less mobile than that of Philip and Alexander's

>>1802939
>And yet they conquered the world with it.
american please.

>>1802249
>titled Swiss pikemen
>is actually Tercio

>>1805213
Damn you beat me to it.

>>1802833
fun fact, they later conquered the celts and later had great steel

>>1802249
>>1802306

Is there a significant difference between ancient Greek phalanx and Renaissance pike square?

>>1802522
The swiss used long spears extrenely offensive with great success without much support of gunpowder weapons.

>>1802878
>>1803039
>Not recognizing the meme

>>1805704
You mean the Macedonian Phalanx.

Yes. For one thing, the Renaissance pike square had guns.

Sarcasm aside: the Renaissance cunts had no shields, but better armor, Had formations like the Igel (defensive circle), and can live without cavalry support.

>>1802522
Pike dominance predated Gunpowder. It started in the late 1300s and became a norm in many continental European armies by the 1400s.

>>1802427
Well put

>>1805831
Yes, thats why they got destroyed by gunpowder at Carignola

>>1802249
>swiss
>not spanish tercios from "Alatriste"film

>>1802249
Superior armor and more widespread armor availability made shields much less essential to avoiding death by arrows.

>>1805704
Phalanxes are about with, even if the basic unit is a block.

Renaissance units tended to focused on depth and took flank protection far more seriosuly.

>>1802249
So that in the future someone like yourself could shitpost on an anonymous chan.

[spoiler]For Free[/spoiler]

>>1803414
Except Pyrrhus.

>>1809472
He was pants on head retarded.

File: 1476148592426.webm (3MB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 450x253px

Just wanted to post this here

>>1809535
Too bad it's retarded.

>>1805704

Yes. The greeks didn't have arquebuses.

>>1805895

It wasn't dominant yet back then. Just a defensive resource to protect from standard cavalry forces in very specific circumstances.

Otherwise these formation would have been the norm, but it wasn't until the French were repeatedly cucked by the Spanish Tercios in the Italian Wars. After that, everyone tried to imitate it.

>>1809568
>>1805889
I think the Swiss Pike Squares never used gunpowder weapons at all, in contrast to the spanish Tercios.
Thats why the Swiss were routinely btfo during the Italian Wars.

>>1809535
Cool

>>1802249
>Only Europeans realised you can make a longer spear.
Why

File: Ji.jpg (95KB, 920x680px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 920x680px

>>1810864
Well, you are wrong. East Asia says hi. Between Europe and East Asia however are vast lands where cavalry in King, which is why we don't see dense blocks of infantrymen there since that shit is slow and cavalrymen easily raised from huge stocks of horses can just fill them with arrows.

Anyway, going back to Non-Euroes with pikes, East Asians have a tradition of "pike" warfare dating back towards late Warring States China. What is highly interesting is that both in China and in Japan, they have their own take in pike warfare that differs from Europe. One of these is they CHOP with their pikes. In Europe, pikemen not up front just hold their pikes up or at an angle ready to dip them when the front ranks thin or something. In China and later in Japan, the niggas at the back use their pikes in a whacking motion to chop at the enemy's pikemen heads. It's horrifying.

Those Ji "Halberds?" during the warring states to the Three Kingdoms Period? Yeah they also served as pike-heads and were even loaded with extra dagger axes (see pic) so when the pikemen chop with them, something horrifying happens with the victim down below. In Japan, during the late Ashikaga period, long Yari used as pikes were literally short swords on long poles that the Japanese ashigaru use not only to thrust at the enemy, but to chop at them from the back of their frontlines.

File: Oda Yari.jpg (63KB, 401x518px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 401x518px

>>1810902
This is the Japanese one.

>>1803175
>it was cavalry doing the kicking rather than phalanxes, which leads me to wonder what exactly changed between Alexander's time and the late Roman Empire to make cavalry-heavy armies

Except because decisive cavalry charges where what granted Alexander his victories. The phalanx alone didn't do shit, it was just the perfect base for all the other tricks he had at his disposition.

File: Battle of Nuuanu.jpg (122KB, 736x485px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 736x485px

>>1810864
The Hawaiians- of all people- used pikes. Long wooden stakes with fire-hardened tips lined with shark teeth. Utilized by the Big Islanders during Kamehameha's bid to unify the islands.

>>1811053
They had Greek-like crested helmets too?

WTF

File: 1475782425953.jpg (139KB, 1023x682px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1023x682px

>>1811078
Phyrgian helmets?

>>1810908
BIG
ODA
YURI

>>1811137
No, Phrygian helmet are not even crested you ignoramus

>>1811165
You'll find it's ignoramuses

>>1802968
If it's a long enough pike, you could stab the guys on the ground from the castle walls.