WI: Native Americans and Meso Americans Armies Develop Pike/Spear Formations?

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

1) Although spears did exist in Native and Meso American Civilizations, they seemed to be heavily underutilized with said tribes, city states, etc. preferring clubs, axes, maces, bows, and atlatls (javelin launchers).

2) Old World armies for thousands of years had used spear formations, such as Greek hoplites or Swiss pikeman. Before the age of gunpowder and even during the early part of it, these formations of mass spears had several distinct advantages.

3) My questions are:
- If they had the ability to make spears, then why didn't they utilize them in warfare in the same way their old world counterparts did?
- If they did adopt spear formations, how would this affect Native/Meso American Civilizations?
- Would said tactics be more or less effective against early European firearms from the 1500s (not that it matters in the end)?

 

[PeterEzgo]

I think the answer to this is relatively straight forward. They did not have advanced metallurgy. Bronze was only starting to be played around with by the Purepecha, western neighbors to the Aztecs. Stone, bone, or (most expensively) obsidian tipped spears are just not as useful as metal spear points. They break more easily and do not penetrate as well. So, spear formations would not have been useful without metal spear points.

 

[Lalli]

And one thing is that speciality natives on Northern American prairies didn't see even such formations being needed. They rarely met other tribes speciality hostile ones and had not such warfare what was in Old World on Bronze Age.

And for Mesoamericans they didn't fight for territorial expansion nor power at least not such way as on Old World but for getting gifts for their bloodthirsty gods. Such spear formations probably would had been pretty pointless.

If on whatever reason natives manage to create such formations, it might help bit at least during 15th century but since Spaniards and others can get more cannons such formations would are really pointless and probably more dangerous for natives themselves since it would be easy to kill lot of natives with few shoots.

 

[Arkenfolm]

One big reason would be lack of cavalry. No need for spear formations if the idea of someone riding an animal into battle is considered preposterous. The other reason is the fighting style. In both North America (in the Eastern Woodlands at least) and Mesoamerica, warrior culture had certain virtues that would make fighting in a disciplined shieldwall formation unappealing. Why would you want to make it easy for someone else to capture and scalp the enemy when that's YOUR rightful victim and thus opportunity for advancement in society?

The Andean cultures are probably the most likely to adopt them since they had the most complex metallurgy and lacked the sort of warrior societies found in Mesoamerica or eastern North America. Maybe the Northwest Coast natives too since although they lacked metallurgy (besides copper working), they had complex armor, a fairly militarized society, and a lack of warrior societies. Most other places in the Americas to my knowledge either did not wear armor or did not/rarely have large wars.

 

[Maburo]

Why would you want to make it easy for someone else to capture and scalp the enemy when that's YOUR rightful victim and thus opportunity for advancement in society?

I might be wrong, but wasn't scalping introduced to the Americas by Europeans?

 

[Arkenfolm]

I might be wrong, but wasn't scalping introduced to the Americas by Europeans?

Nope, it's well known in archeological sites as a marker of violence (i.e. the Crow Creek massacre of the early 15th century) and traditions associated with it appear in Mississippian art. You're probably thinking of scalp bounties Europeans paid their native allies (or their own settlers).

 

[PeterEzgo]

One big reason would be lack of cavalry. No need for spear formations if the idea of someone riding an animal into battle is considered preposterous.

This might have contributed but I don't think it would be the main reason. Spear formations were also effective against other infantry formations.

The other reason is the fighting style. In both North America (in the Eastern Woodlands at least) and Mesoamerica, warrior culture had certain virtues that would make fighting in a disciplined shieldwall formation unappealing. Why would you want to make it easy for someone else to capture and scalp the enemy when that's YOUR rightful victim and thus opportunity for advancement in society?

I am also skeptical of this. Form tends to follow function in warfare, considering that it is literally life and death. If one side is using a more effective tactic that doesn't get scalps and the other side is using less effective tactic that gets scalps then the side without scalps wins. Having a chance to get a scalp doesn't matter if the other side kills you before you can.

Ancient Greek and Roman armies used shield walls all the time but managed to find ways to identify and promote good soldiers. If shield walls were an effective tactic then pre-columbian societies would adapt so that scalps might not be such a big deal.

The Andean cultures are probably the most likely to adopt them since they had the most complex metallurgy and lacked the sort of warrior societies found in Mesoamerica or eastern North America. Maybe the Northwest Coast natives too since although they lacked metallurgy (besides copper working), they had complex armor, a fairly militarized society, and a lack of warrior societies. Most other places in the Americas to my knowledge either did not wear armor or did not/rarely have large wars.

This I find more persuasive. The Inca had bronze working (on a limited level at least) and used peasant conscript armies anyway. If they can mass produce bronze spear points, they would be well placed to create large armies of peasants armed with spears. Spears don't take too much training to use effectively in a mass formation. They also don't use a lot of metal, which is important because metal working would be expensive and difficult.

Of course, the Incan army was so much more effective than its rivals it begs the question of why they would bother. Maybe civil wars? I don't know.

And for Mesoamericans they didn't fight for territorial expansion nor power at least not such way as on Old World but for getting gifts for their bloodthirsty gods. Such spear formations probably would had been pretty pointless.

While flower wars (wars to get captives for human sacrifice) were a thing, there were plenty of wars over territory in mesoamerica.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

And for Mesoamericans they didn't fight for territorial expansion nor power at least not such way as on Old World but for getting gifts for their bloodthirsty gods.

This is somewhat of a myth. The Aztecs did have flower wars to catch sacrifices but they also did normal killing people in battle and definately did fight for expansion.

 

[TRH]

We should also consider that pikes fell in and out of fashion even in places where they saw use. They weren’t a weapon for all seasons, by the look of it.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I am also skeptical of this. Form tends to follow function in warfare, considering that it is literally life and death. If one side is using a more effective tactic that doesn't get scalps and the other side is using less effective tactic that gets scalps then the side without scalps wins. Having a chance to get a scalp doesn't matter if the other side kills you before you can.


Ancient Greek and Roman armies used shield walls all the time but managed to find ways to identify and promote good soldiers. If shield walls were an effective tactic then pre-columbian societies would adapt so that scalps might not be such a big deal.

But the enemies they fought were culturally similar, so both sides desired scalps. It's cultural inertia that would take society being shaken up to reform, since scalps were used for religious ritual (and in some groups this included women's rituals, thus tying women to the act of warfare). Outside of Mesoamerica with its greater social complexity, I don't think you really have the impetus for that cultural change. In eastern North America, battles rarely had more than maybe 200-300 on either side and it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of battles were ambushes in the wilderness buffer zones between chiefdoms/tribal confederations (since you'd have to march through them to reach an enemy, De Soto expedition noted these wildernesses). If the best tactic is to leap out at the enemy to drive him off, that could preclude more complex innovations, especially when those innovations would disrupt existing ceremonialism.

This I find more persuasive. The Inca had bronze working (on a limited level at least) and used peasant conscript armies anyway. If they can mass produce bronze spear points, they would be well placed to create large armies of peasants armed with spears. Spears don't take too much training to use effectively in a mass formation. They also don't use a lot of metal, which is important because metal working would be expensive and difficult.


Of course, the Incan army was so much more effective than its rivals it begs the question of why they would bother. Maybe civil wars? I don't know.

Doesn't necessarily have to be the Inca, but other Andean cultures who did the same thing. Or the Inca themselves before their vast waves of expansion.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

1) Although spears did exist in Native and Meso American Civilizations, they seemed to be heavily underutilized with said tribes, city states, etc. preferring clubs, axes, maces, bows, and atlatls (javelin launchers).

Who says they didn't? Mesoamerican armies typically used spears as probably the primary weapon, Maya warriors in art for example are almost always depicted with spears and even the Aztecs used them heavily. I don't know where the idea that they barely used spears comes from.

- Would said tactics be more or less effective against early European firearms from the 1500s (not that it matters in the end)?

I don't see why spear formations would be any more effective against firearms than non-spear formations.

 

[kholieken]

We should also consider that pikes fell in and out of fashion even in places where they saw use. They weren’t a weapon for all seasons, by the look of it.

Seconded this. Pike is rather rare historically. Good, disciplined infantry is difficult to create and maintain.

Shieldwall is more common, but still rarity.

 

[PeterEzgo]

But the enemies they fought were culturally similar, so both sides desired scalps. It's cultural inertia that would take society being shaken up to reform, since scalps were used for religious ritual (and in some groups this included women's rituals, thus tying women to the act of warfare). Outside of Mesoamerica with its greater social complexity, I don't think you really have the impetus for that cultural change. In eastern North America, battles rarely had more than maybe 200-300 on either side and it wouldn't surprise me if the majority of battles were ambushes in the wilderness buffer zones between chiefdoms/tribal confederations (since you'd have to march through them to reach an enemy, De Soto expedition noted these wildernesses). If the best tactic is to leap out at the enemy to drive him off, that could preclude more complex innovations, especially when those innovations would disrupt existing ceremonialism.

I don't think we are really disagreeing all that much. My point is just that military pressure will cause cultural change. If the military necessity was there, the culture would have to change or be destroyed.

Doesn't necessarily have to be the Inca, but other Andean cultures who did the same thing. Or the Inca themselves before their vast waves of expansion.

Fair enough.

 

[CHKeeley]

From looking into the Aztecs, it does seem that the geography and the lack of horses in combat fostered a loose fighting formation and an emphasis on blunt or slashing weapons rather than the spear-points commonly used across the Atlantic.

The following is taken from Ross Hassig’s Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control

As mentioned, spears were manufactured and used. From what we know of them based on descriptions and surviving images though, they had a very long point with cutting edges on either side and were used equally for slashing and for piercing/thrusting. More of a halberd than a traditional spear really. This perhaps gels with the loose fighting formations noted in the quote above. It seems that instead of solid ranks of spears separated from the shock troops, the spear-bearers were interspersed with shock troops in order to provide cover and to intervene in the melee opportunistically. Given the environment, this makes some sense. It’s probably also worth noting that there were other types of spears very commonly used, just in a different sense: atlatls. Ranged weapons like these were the ones commonly used by the mobilized peasants. Again, within the context of the time and place this makes sense.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

I don't see why spear formations would be any more effective against firearms than non-spear formations.

Pike formations fought against early musket formations with varying degrees of success for about 200-300 years before they finally got rid of it.

Spear is different than a pike but the concept is the same.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

Pike formations fought against early musket formations with varying degrees of success for about 200-300 years before they finally got rid of it.

Spear is different than a pike but the concept is the same.

Weren't those pike formations pike and shot?.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Weren't those pike formations pike and shot?.

Sometimes.

The terico formation for example was. However a lot of times they were in separate units.