Quote Originally Posted by NeoSpartan View Post
I am no expert on ancient history, but from the very FEW things I've read.... the long pikes were not THE desisive element in winning battles in ancient Greece.
The lengthy sarissae did make a difference as it was able to keep the enemy at a longer distance in a close combat situation. When it comes to weapons, there are different levels when it comes to manuverability and range. Swords are highly manuverable weapons, able to be wielded in different fashions and can change direction during a swing. They do however lack the range that spears do. Spears keep an enemy at a further distance, sacrificing manuverability (it is difficult to parry and block other attacks with a spear, let alone a lengthy sarissa). When the phalanx formation was used, it presented more spears to protect the wielders from close range attacks by swordsmen. One person with a sarissa can easily be killed by a skilled swordsman by dodging the spearpoint and charging past to the attacker. But when there are several ranks to pass through, success in engaging the spearman in close combat without injury becomes decreased.

The sarissa was useful because it gave survivability to soldiers of the line. Enemies would be very preoccupied when encountering a phalanx because the spears would be a very tough defense to break through. And when the phalanx advanced, the opposing force would be put on a defensive, which in battle is a terrible thing to have happen. It is not as much the decisive element that you think of, but half of the "hammer and anvil" equation. The survivability allows the cavalry much more time to advance around the flanks and attack from the rear in comparison to other units. If you don't believe that the spear length was THAT important though, try the Makedonian campaign, but replace your Phalangatai Deuteroi with Hoplitai Haploi or Classical Greek Hoplitai. You'll notice the difference in the amount of time the lines last before breaking.