Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Intranetusa t1_j1kbaxg wrote

I'd say it was less of a weapons advantage and more due to a tactical advantage of better army composition and more flexible troops. The Roman pila could double as a 7 foot thrusting spear, and many of the Macedonian or Successor State troops also had short swords as backup weapons.

At Pydna and other battles, the Macedonian or Successor state armies had their formations fall apart due to poor tactics and/or inflexible formations that broke apart chasing after the enemy or broke apart due to rough terrain. They also had an overreliance on pike infantry and neglected their supporting troops and cavalry wing that were crucial to a successful mixed unit formation. Alexander's army was less than 1/3 pikemen iirc and was mostly non pikemen.


ThoDanII t1_j1lnx36 wrote

Exactly Weapons are less important than their use, skill, Organisation, tacticst and operations