What did the Swiss have that the Macedonian Phalanxes did not?
Guys, whenever somebody gets into how awesome the phalanx was there's always somebody who kinda tries to take you down a peg by mentioning the Roman legions. What really irritates me is how, even if they are generally correct: Romans beat Greeks, they are ignorant of the fact that the Roman auxiliaries, horsemen, light or ranged footmen, slingers and archers, played an equal role as the citizen infantry did in bringing down the Hellenistic war machine. Also, it also seems to escape them that the phalanx was also not alone, albeit in defeat, and it's own cavalry and more flexible infantry share the blame for the losses of Macedonian armies. For if one were to examine those battles pitting legion vs phalanx, specifically in head on clashes between the two "representatives" of their respective styles of military, the phalanx was superior. It had nothing to do, however, with Macedonians being "innately better warriors" or Romans being "weaker", but due to the fact that weapons that are 2 or more meters longer than a gladius, arrayed in a deep, ever-moving, hedge of pike points create an insurmountable advantage - from the front. The so called tipping point into the phalanx's decimation was usually begun by those ranged, projectile wielding infantry or cavalry, and only exploited by the heavy legionnaires after. Also, the tipping point could only ever have happened once the phalanx was deserted (even if it was for a few moments) by it's allied cavalry and faster infantry, either because they were overeager and left the field of battle chasing down fleeing foes, or they were destroyed or routed themselves, again by the Romans' own auxiliaries. The havoc a gladius could inflict up close among broken lines of phalangites holding weapons too long for close combat is not to be understated. However, this damage done to broken or flanked armies - is it not the same no matter what type of weapon used or what race or style of combat utilized by the eventual victor? The crucial moment, the disruption of the phalanx lines, was done thanks to excellence of Roman auxillaries or allies (e.g. Attalus of Pergamon), the fighting spirit as a whole by the Romans, and the lack of support and cohesion internally of the Hellenistic army.
Now, going to my question. What did the Swiss pikemen have that the phalanx did not? Aside from steel weapons and partial armor of steel, which is not an advantage in the Swiss time period as everybody was using steel at that point, what was the key to Swiss success? Swiss were described as FAST (primitive gunpowder artillery was useless against them), unstoppable in their charge, disciplined, capable of fighting effectively when enveloped, capable of flanking and encircling (as pikemen!) combined arms adversaries, and destroying those combined arms adversaries, when they themselves generally stuck to one form of combat. It's as if the Macedonian pikemen mega-evolved or something, and washed away were their negative traits: crucial need of support, slowness, vulnerability in flanks and back, inflexibility, etc. I'm not saying that the Swiss were able to completely get rid of problems inherent in the usage of pikes in large blocks of men, but they were able to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses. Of course, the Swiss were ultimately defeated by concentrated volleys of bullets, and fortifications, and higher ground, and more competent artillery, but it's not as if Roman legionary style infantry would have fared any better if faced against such odds! So, HOW, did the Swiss do it?
Reply With Quote
I also learned a thing or two. Thanks for these replies, you guys! 
Originally Posted by Cohors_Evocata
