Explanation: In the 4th century BCE, the Macedonian army stumbled on a winning formula - making spears really, really long, around ~20 feet long. With this new innovation, which was called the sarissa, Alexander’s forces steamrolled the Greeks, then the Persians, and established Hellenic states all across the eastern Mediterranean!
However, the phalangites of this new weapons system were restricted by the terrain they could operate in - rough terrain would break up their formations and leave them vulnerable. For that reason, the more mobile and flexible Roman Legions managed to break up their military monopoly, and with that, the sarissa phalanx fades from antiquity.
Some ~1500 years later, a series of European cultures, including the Swiss, stumbled on a brand new winning formula - making spears really, really long, around 20 feet long. With this new innovation, called the ‘pike’, etc etc etc.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme?
A notable difference between the two is that Swiss pike formations could and did operate in rough terrain (albeit it was most effective in the same terrain of the sarissa phalanx), and could operate quite aggressively, while phalangites typically were restricted to a defensive posture.
The more advanced state of European metallurgy in the Late Medieval Period meant that fully armoring the pikemen was less of a hassle, making a shield - like the small shield that phalangites had to handle with their off-hand - less useful and less necessary. Without a shield, European pikemen enjoyed more flexibility in movement and spacing - though close-combat remained a weakness of pike formations, being able to handle one’s weapon with both hands fully free allowed easier readjustment, or handling of sidearms. European pike formations also often incorporated a small amount of troops with other, shorter, more manageable polearms, like halberds, to poke away any lunatics who managed to get close to the pikemen.
How much do you think was really technology for Alexander’s Greeks versus the tipping point between smaller regional city states and the wealth accumulation and population needed to support larger federated structures with a professional army? How would that perspective mirror in the Swiss?
In terms of why Alexander’s forces overran so many other states, I would put overwhelming focus on material technology/weapons systems over organization. When, under Alexander’s father, the Macedonian pike phalanx met the flower of the Greek Leagues, the hoplites were utterly routed, included the famous (and professionally trained and equipped) Theban Sacred Band, who were utterly butchered despite fighting to the last man. Long spears are a massive advantage - especially in forms of warfare, like that of Greek hoplites, where ranged combat is marginal. For that matter, Macedonia was not particularly rich or large or well-developed.
Secondarily, I would put organization and Alexander’s leadership - the division of command practiced by Alexander, and the use of concentrated cavalry forces as an independent striking arm, were also major contributors to his conquests.
I would say that the failure of the pike to re-emerge for so long was probably more organizational, as you say - the wealth accumulation, population, professionalism required, etc - but that the difference in usage probably owes a lot to the material advancements allowing much cheaper and more effective armor than the Hellenic states had access to.
The re-emergence of the pike amongst the Swiss is the same essential reason for its re-emergence, at the same time period, amongst the Flemish and the Scots. While the three cultures have significant differences and circumstances, all required a cost-effective infantry arm to repel increasingly aggressive and professional aristocratic neighbors, were coherent enough polities to prevent any single victory or defeat from spelling their end, and were heavily decentralized, allowing a variety of solutions to rear their head and be tried or discarded.
As far as solutions go, ‘train a bunch of militia to hold a long pole and move in formation’ is much easier than ‘full lifelong course of horsemanship and/or weapons training’ to meet a professional or aristocratic foe, like the knights, their household troops, and mercenary bands. At the same time, it’s beyond the typical capabilities of a purely decentralized ‘call up the levies/tribes’ style system. Coherent militia units like that do require organization and discipline. It’s ‘prickly’ (ha) enough to make any encounter uncertain for the aggressor, but flexible and cheap enough that relatively small-but-coherent polities (like Flemish city-states, Swiss cantons, or Scotland) can muster reasonably efficient forces of that type.
Why was not the sarissa some prehistoric de facto standard in practical terms? The idea of standing side by side with others holding long sticks seems like basal logic for anyone to arrive at. Any animals that form a ring around their young to defend with antlers or tusks have arrived at a similar fundamental logic. Was there anything remarkable about the technology of a sarissa that I am missing? If not, what was so remarkable about organization beyond financial backing and available human resources beyond a threshold that was not previously available?
A lot of it comes down to needing a large number of people, and needing a reasonable standard of training.
If you can only train a small number of people with the Really Long Spear™, it ends up being not all that useful, as the pike can only point one direction at a time, allowing enemy troops to simply flank or avoid the small unit of pikemen. Or, conversely, as with the Scottish Schiltron, if you make your pikes into a big circle, they can’t fucking move without breaking up the formation, changing them from ‘defensive’ to ‘practically static’, and sitting ducks for enemy skirmishers.
If you have a large amount of people but little training - as with most ancient armies calling up the levies - pikes are much less useful than ordinary weapons, because pike formations require troops to move and act in coordination with the rest of the unit. Failing to do so causes the formation to fall apart, at which point the enemy can get in close and do some butchery.
“Professional army or well-trained militia” is effectively what is needed - meaning either a coherent small polity (like the Swiss cantons or a city-state) or a large and centralized polity (like the Macedonian Empire and the Successor States). Large decentralized polities - like most medieval kingdoms before the 14th century AD - or small polities which lack an ability to organize and direct their resources - like tribal leagues or medieval Italian communes - can’t effectively field such forces.
To make the issue even more severe, such pike formations are most useful in large-scale combat between organized states. If you have 5000 men, but you need them garrisoning a bunch of surly tribes, penny-packets of ~100-200 pikemen are not going to be very effective at meeting groups of scattered tribesmen with blades. Pike formations more or less require the enemy to ‘offer battle’.
And on top of that, pike formations are near-useless in assaults on walled towns and fortifications. While waiting out the enemy is the most common option in such sieges, pike-focused forces all-but-sacrifice the option of taking towns by storm - or at least reduce the number of troops able to participate effectively.
Some of it also relates to certain kinds of wood being difficult to make into sturdy poles of that length; Macedonia has Ash trees, which are rarer in Greece proper, for example.
