Did Islamic armies ever have Pikemen?
Don't think so.
>>410248
i've never seen any sources for it but its odd that such a integral infantry strategy was never utilized by such a large part of the world
>>410205
Sure they did.
That's like asking if the Africans ever used bows.
>>410265
but i've never come across a battle account of Muslims using Pike formations.
>>410259
When the pike was in fashion in Europe, the Islamic world was dominated by cavalry armies supported relatively small numbers of musketeers.
The rule seems to be that you don't need pikes when most of your army is cavalry.
I can't think of any muslim armies that used pikes.
My five minutes of Google research says no.
>>410401
>It was used by the early Ottomans and Mughals
Have you got any sources bro?
>>410400
this i think. Cavalry dominated armies generally focused more on mobility.
>>410205
Yes, having copied Byzantine tactics. The Almohads were also a pike based army as the core of their formation was a square of hardy long spears.
What made the Swiss pikemen or Scottish pikemen any good compared to the Macedonian? How come an out dated fighting formation and technique managed to come back without immediately being btfo?
>>410584
The scotts can use terrain to neutralize cavalry.
As for the swiss, they were supported by awesome cavalry, the failures of the pike wall against rome can be attributed to a failure to properly secure the flanks. They solved that problem in the middle ages with knights. Add muskets to the equation and you hqve pike and shot formations, the bane of any cav army.
>>410584
>>410596
What made the Swiss excellent pikemen was their aggression and discipline, which effectively made them a large, slow, but unstoppable cavalry charge. The pike came back at a time when solid infantry began to retake dominance from cavalry, and an effective means of fighting said disciplined infantry was needed.
The pike didn't fail against Rome, Hellenic army organization did.
>>410411
I remember reading about the early Ottoman pikemen somewhere, but can't recall.
As for the Mughals, they likely used pikes themselves because the confederacy called the Baro Bhuiyan (Twelve Captains) that rebelled against the Afghani Mughal vassal definitely employed pikemen.
The source is from a book (the one I have is in Bengali, dunno if there are English translations) called History of Bengal: Mughal period by Abdul Karim.
>>410205
>>410259
Define "integral."
Most Middle Eastern/Central Asian infantry are ranged infantry. We're talking bows. Infantry spears have a place, but anything the length of a pike is too burdensome.
Pike formations are simply too slow for the very mobile warfare that was in the Middle East/Central Asia. Even Christian entities like the Russians never used pikes there and always brought massive amounts of cavalry more than infantry.
In the Middle East/Central Asia. the Role of Infantry is to pretty much attacked anywhere that was fixed and in the field, provide covering fire for your cavalrymen and anchor your guys on the field of battle, so to speak.
So basically there's this huge area of the world without pike combat until you hit either Western Europe or China in the East.
Albert Pike. Albert the fishman. Albert the pisces.
>>411531
I doubt the arabs had a pikeman. The whole world did.
>>410584
>Writing a paper on the Pike in Europe
>Decide to take a break
>Go on 4chan, first thing i see
The biggest thing was that the time period was different. Swiss, Flemish, Welsh and Scottish pikemen came at a time when cavalry were the dominating force in warfare. By taking a fortified area, such as a hill or pass, and most of the time fortifying it more (dig ditches etc.), disciplined pikemen can basically withstand any sort of charge. Its the missile that cause them to lose.
In Greece, the soldiers were hardly disciplined at all. Furthermore, they often made little attempt to strengthen their postions. Finally, when they did do that, the Roman infantry were practically tailored to fighting pikemen; they used very little cavalry, and theyre infantry were meant to both use ranged weapons and to get close and personal, where the spear/ pike fails.
>>410596
Switzerland has always been unsuitable for cavalry, and therefore they hardly ever used it. The successes they had were due to their discipline, and that they would pretty frequently catch forces off guard by doing things normal soldiers wouldnt (march through the night, through dense woods, etc).
>>410888
This
>>411120
thanks m8
>>411282
>underrated post
>>411604
an entire paper just on Pikes. damn. I do not miss college essays
>>411604
pls post paper
sounds interesting and you seem to know your shit
>>410596
>swiss
>awesome cavalry
Are you fucking drunk?
The swiss, on their best day, would have a tiny cavalry force without a single man of note.
Most of the time they fielded none at all.
The swiss won their battles through speed and raw aggression.
>bane of any cavalry
Tell THAT to the Bayard and the Gendarmes.
>swiss
>slow
they would advance so fucking quickly that cannon couldn't get more than a single volley off. They quick marched and then RAN to contact.
>>411604
You REALLY need to do more reading on the first macedonian war.
The romans had to get across a dried up river that was covered by artillery and peltasts. The Macedonians lost because their cavalry decided to not do their jobs.
Additionally, the Hellenes typically used a lot of cavalry, and of good quality-the Romans were just smart enough to bring their own hellenes on horses to beat them.
>>411282
China had no pikes
The failure of the Hellenic pike phalanx against the Romans had nothing to do with a lack of discipline. The Phalanx of the later successor kingdoms had changed a great deal from the rough-and-ready formations of Alexander. The armies of the successor kingdoms were drawn from a small pool of recruits, people descended from the conquering Greeks and considered politically and militarily reliable, typically the property-owning classes. The trend had been to increase their armoring, give them heavier shields, and generally do everything in their power to keep the soldiers from dying as they were hard to replace and played a significant role in civil society when they weren't fighting. Thus they became much less mobile and more inflexible, tactically. This put them at a severe disadvantage when faced with the mobile and tactically flexible maniples of Rome.
Roman manpower was bottomless by comparison and they fought to win, to annihilate their foe. Many hapless phalangites were slaughtered once the battle had been lost because they would raise their pikes as a sign of submission. A hellenic ruler would have seized the opportunity to recruit them for himself, and as they were a precious resource they were not fighting to annihilate anyone, just to take possession of the field and with it the prestige of a decisive victory.
They were fighting in very different ways and we will never known how the heydey phalanx of Alexander, which was a lot more flexible, might have fared against the Romans. Obviously the qualities of one's generals played a role, too.
The phalanx was not inherently worse, but it was not used well in clashes with the Romans, and they simply weren't able to absorb the kind of of defeats that would give them time to adapt. A couple of crushing losses and you were out of men and out of time.
>>413913
>China had no pikes
Their spears could often get as long as pikes. 1974 excavation of Qin Dynasty tombs found both 3-meter spears and 6.3 meter spears, the latter of which basically is about as long as a swiss pike, but it appears subsequent use of spears led to their shortening.
>>413913
>China had no pikes
They had.
>>413913
>>414200
Period evidence (from the 1560's)
The spear-wall was the most basic Chinese formation since antiquity. Of course they'd had the brainwave down the road for longer spears.
The one you see in Wuxia movies are like smaller spears so they can do those fancy Wushu shit. Also perhaps the influence of the Qing Dynasty which did away with longer spears in favor of shorter ones due to predominantly steppe fightan. Pikes were only ever useful within China.
>>414171
>3-meter spears
Weren't most pikes this length, with only Macedon and 16th century pikemen having even longer ones?
