This does raise the question though of why pike-based armies were not dominant in OTL medieval Europe. The Macedonian phalanx went into decline for a few reasons, with the first being that they overemphasized the phalanx at the loss of cavalry, slowly ran out of reliable Hellenes to man the phalanx, and also proved unable to adapt to Rome's flexible units. However, pikes were obviously a valid weapon seeing how they would dominate the battlefield in the early Renaissance.
Separating the argument into two, with the first as the question, the second being the claim:
The claim in the second part does hold value by an empirical view on history, observing the decline of the hellenic warfare against the roman counterparts, as they share relatively close time intervals in the history. Classical antiquity had seen the fall of hellenistic side and the rise of the roman side (or overwhelmed and fused, by romans adopting hellenike language, administration, etc.) when the hegemony is questioned, and certainly it is tied with the military capabilities of the roman organisation.
The first part questions the pike-based armies losing their dominance on the battlefield, in this case post-classical era, yet again exclusive to the mediterranean geography. It does have a relation with the above claim.
However, the above argument has the inherent bias that oversimplifies both the question and the claim due to the effect of twenty and twenty-first centuries. In colloquial terms, that is a result of the fiction, and in this case, of games.
Instead, would claim that, as opposed to above, the importance and the usage of pikes and spears did not diminish in post-classical era mediterranean. Would further claim, on the contrary they were dominant in the warfare, not particularly to mediterranean, but for all cultures.
That is a great question! Especially since they did make quite the comeback in the later Middle Ages. My guess would be lack of discipline mixed with efficiency: you couldn’t efficiently train levied peasants for pike formations and most feudal lords only had a medium to small sized retinue of men-at arms, so preferred to have more versatile mounted soldiers?
comeback is acceptable, but would prefer claiming that their use did not decline at all.
Continuing from above, the fiction for post-classical era devised in later centuries mainly focuses on the hero archetype, depicted in full-plate armor, large shield, helmet, and a sword. Romance of saving the innocent or loved ones, or charging knights, or slaying dragons. This can be considered as the reason for assuming or claiming a decline in pike or spear use in the armies. Dismissing this bias, it can be claimed that their usage did not decline, but instead even increased.
This counter-claim does not have the necessary sources from military history to further support it, but for the sake of the discussion, will continue elaborating it.
Classical era organisation of societies in mediterranean revolves around dynamics between upper class, or citizenry when roman example is considered, and the lower classes, in terms of slavery
- a heavily simplistic summary, can be easily corrected with greater details from actual documentation. It is similar to their influence, the hellenic example.
In the case of classical era, even though the roman society was well beyond its iron age, iron was still not the most common resource, and it would be extremely expensive to arm entire legions with swords. Still, the army was not more than 90 legions in fifth century common era
(max estimate, and consider that they were not in arms and in action together at the same time), and the imperial economy was able to sustain such armament for the majority of the military force.
They consisted ranks based on the classes, and all were armed with swords and spears/ javelin -
gladius and pilum - except the lowest class. Patricians could afford horses, thus the cavalry was entirely upper class. For the hellenic society, the organisation, training were as the phalanx. Due to hellenic influence, they were similar also in roman culture. Sword and spears for upper classes, with nobles as cavalry. On the other hand, considering iron being a valuable source, and the level of metallurgy, the swords were such that, which can be labelled, in colloquial terms, as short swords
- a gladius was in average 80cm.
This structure was disrupted when the imperial hegemony collapsed, but it only transformed into increased number of land owning fiefs and their monarchs
- the upper class, and the formation of aristocracy based on land
- a hyper-simplified assumption; nobility has its roots since from the ancient egyptians, ruling over peasantry
- the lower class, then now forced to plow the fields for the land owners.
Increased capacity of iron mining, improved metallurgy allowed longer swords to be cast, and yet, in post-classical era, the collapse of imperial hegemony certainly had detrimental effects on the economics; large armies were not sustainable. Every fief had to supply its own army, and they had to provide the armies when their ruler-monarch demanded. The peasantry was levied for the campaigns and/or for defending the land. Increased population, and the increased amount of iron requirement would necessitate increased use of spears, as opposed to swords, considering their requirements for raw materials. Thus it is more plausible to expect main armament as spears, instead of forces fully armed with swords
(can be labelled in colloquial terms as long swords - 1m and above) or donning heavy armours.
The only credible case to be further argued remains as the decline in using sarissa
- very long spears (about 6m) as opposed to shorter spears (about 2-3m). In this case, the practical maneuvering advantages can be considered, but that is still a specific but baseless claim. Its ineffectiveness against armies with more heavily armoured cavalry can be considered more plausible, as well as its requirements of raw materials and time to construct. The formation of cataphrachts in the late classical era certainly made an impact. In this case, achaemen dynasty (later teispes dynasty
darayavus - darius), then seleukos, then parthian imperial hegemonies were able in affording armours for even the horses, in full-plate, before roman and roman-influenced remnants.
Rest of the counter-claim consists of examples, and many of them are argumentative, provided without sufficient evidence to support.
At this point comes the fiction. As the fiction affects the design of games, the simulation is heavily encumbered with the bias of the fiction, as well as the design simplifications.
When a phalanx is considered, one conjures the image of half-naked soldiers, wearing only a fabric as armour, wielding a 6m-sarissa, and a shield, due to contemporary games. This can be considered only as fiction, and findings for it are only depictions on pottery, and few books, but translations done in later eras
[*]. There were no units of hoplites but the citizens fighting when war was declared, and they were named as hoplites
[**]. They would bring their own equipment. The name of the formation was phalanx, which was not unique, but was also used by romans, and by any other culture anywhere, as the rectangular formation. Later the shield wall, spear wall, etc. terms were also used.
Spear infantry might be a cool name for a unit in a game, but there were none in history, just as armies full of heavy infantries or such, wearing full-plates, or an army full of cavalry-mounted units, and calling them knights. It can be further claimed that all infantry was armed with spears. A fief could not afford to arm all its subjects -
peasantry - with swords; but spears were cheaper, considering the required raw materials. Castles were associated with the ruling class and protection, amounting relatively higher income for a smaller population
(in comparison to feeding an entire empire), thus they could afford training their subjects, from which sergeant term comes from -
from the latin servientem, a servant. This is considered as the backbone of professional army, whereas this professionality is only a simplification due to viewing from the current age. Only land ownership would allow a subject-fief to afford a horse, thus the knighthood formed, then associated with the romanticised codes and principles but in later eras.
Crossing the donau river and going further east, the fiction becomes even more ridiculous for the games. Suddenly entire armies come up in games with chaps wearing pajamas, armed with only curved swords
(hey, have to attain the plausible realism(!), that is eastern after all), mainly mounted, and therefore unable to siege castles
(total war bollocks, as a mounted soldier cannot dismount and fight; yeah right). And bows. Bows, bows everywhere. Bow-and-arrow was the cheapest armament as opposed to sword, therefore it was heavily employed, particularly for the peasantry, but for all cultures; it was not a specialty of the
east.
When one checks the attributes of units in any game, e.g. heavy infantry, whatever that is, is generally depicted as the one-ironclad bloke, usually given to frankish or british tags, and the rest have the pajama fighters. ck has a certain workaround for this, dismissing such simplifications, and giving all
more or less similar types of soldiers. But ck series also use specific units, in this case cultural retinues. Fun to have, as they seem, yet bollocks, all of them.
Here is the case example in ck
(and similar to many such simulations):
The english and the welsh have the longbow retinues. This type of archery is not unique to the isles, yet they are known for them, and given, but this is because of simplified fiction fantasies. The scottish are given the schiltron. The inspiration comes from the devastating defeat of the english in the battle of bannockburn by the scots under the leadership of robert the bruce, thus such distribution of armaments, in terms of army units.
Back to longbows: They are not a specialty of english, not unique to one culture. They were used heavily in the isles' warfare, yet they were also the primary choice for the armies of all; e.g. of daimyos until nineteenth century, mounted or not, using longbows
- yumi, the asymmetric bows. But the map of ck series never included that much, so case closed. Yet, they are still reserved for the armies of only the isles in games. However, when one checks the bayeux tapestries, the illustrations of post-classical era, hundred-years wars, etc. it is observed that they were used by all, frankish or english. This is because longbow was the normative armament and formation for the era.
Enter the cavalry. Mounted archers of mongols, turks, persians. Except that mounted archery was not a specialty of specific cultures, but was used from iberia to korea, by all.
The conjunction: Mounted archery and longbows were common for all, but mongols, turks, or more generally nomadic cultures did not use longbows; english, frankish, or more generally sedentary-agrarian cultures did. Both had employed mounted archery, whereas english are depicted with longbows, franks with heavy knights, mongols, turks with cavalry archers in ck. The distribution of such composition in the game is only fiction.
The reality for the nomadic cultures is, one cannot use the longbow and ride efficiently; therefore the preferred armament for nomadic cultures was
(often composite) shortbow. Then comes the organisation of society. Agrarian-sedentary cultures had the classes based on the agricultural income, and associated dynamics. Therefore their armies mainly employed their peasantry, often with bows, and spears for infantry, as they were the only affordable choice. The knighthood class developed with the distribution of lands, and in turn they would provide more infantry for the upper class monarchs.
On the other hand, nomadic societies did not have such relations, no dynamics based on agriculture, but based on herding-pastoral relations, thus their upper class-monarch had to ride with the rest. There was still the class distinction, so the armament varied based on wealth.
Such societies had specialised classes based on occupation just as the feudal counterparts, showing similar relations with other classes. The difference between agrarian and nomadic societies was the regular income based on lands, thus farming. The basis class of nomadic society formed the entire composition of the army, bringing own armament based on their wealth, but all hunters or herders etc, and all on horse. And saddles with stirrups.
Therefore the mongols could field an army of completely horse archers. They were still able to siege castles, due to the influence and experience gained in the conquest of song dynasty. The games simplify this in digitised attributes, and makes cavalry vulnerable to spear formations and ineffective in sieges. The reality is, one can flank the formation, and dismount off the horse.
Army formation of spears, and wealthier formations with swords and heavy plate armours declined in importance, when the nomadic cultures - specific example of mongols, turks, etc. fielded larger armies of cavalry. E.g. mongols defeated jin dynasty, then rode to west, maneuvered around caspian sea, defeated rus knyaz at battle of kalka river. In five years.
Yet spears, pikes, halberds, etc. were still used, because they were cheaper to construct and arming large numbers of levied soldiers. Phalanx name was not seen post-classical era, but the formation was always in use.
The gunpowder, on the other hand, is entirely different story, which changed the situation completely.
[*] If the depictions on potteries are considered as basis for a simulation, then this is not even as ridiculous as the trojan era: The well-known example of Akhilleus against Hektor; they are depicted as completely naked blokes on potteries, fighting with spears. No armours. The game designers thought only that to be too far to use. Fortunately.
[**] The myth of three hundred spartans against countless foes. A noble of city-state fighting a war would mean a noble, and hundreds of slaves of that household fighting in that war. Common for all city-states before and after hellenic era. Fiction of romanticism distorts such knowledge, and presents hyper-unreality.
- err... filcat, what are you doing?
- joining the discussion and-
- mate, check the length of what you are writing. You butchered the thread.
- Oh. Oooh. Sht. Sigh. I was about to give references and-
- filcat, please stop.
- Ok.
