Since the dawn of time, Man has been fighting. For many centuries, the bow, slingshot, and javelin - remained the only true jets. The peoples of the East, and early Greece, held them in honor, and the rulers did not disdain to make use of them; but soon they found themselves despised, and the Greek republics judged the spear and sword alone worthy to arm free citizens. The bow and slingshot were left to people of lesser condition. Man fought to survive, to feed himself first of all, but the first disputes over territory, loot or game made him realize that the fist, as a weapon, had its limits. We can think that this man could have used a stick, where he realized that not only could he hit further, but with more force.
The very idea of causing more damage to the opponent led him to develop other techniques, such as stone-throwing, where range and force were combined. A man also managed to sharpen his sticks and make initial assemblies, such as combining the stick with a sharpened stone and using it either as a mass or as a spear.
The combination of different materials such as stone and wood testifies to Man's first attempts not only to domesticate his immediate environment but also to acquire weapons with already versatile uses.
Of course, as we mentioned, the prehistoric period is one in which the border between war and hunting seems much more blurred to us. This period saw the development of bows and arrows with which Man could kill or injure an animal like any other man over a considerable distance. What we retain here is that long before history, mankind was already ingenious in weapons technology, in the sense of killing more than anything else, even if we recognize from the outset that weapons can be used for more than one purpose.
Another element to consider is the categorization of weapons. Less obvious nowadays, in the context of firearms and weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that until at least the 19th century, the armament was divided into two categories: shock and throwing weapons. In both cases, their efficiency was significantly improved with the introduction of bronze and later iron, around 1,500 BC for the latter material. Iron replaced bronze because it was harder, less fragile and sharper (bronze tended to lose its sharpness after only a few blows).
Besides, the domestication of the horse led man to reflect on the possibilities of using animal force and speed for military purposes. About three centuries after the introduction of iron, the appearance of battle carts was observed and around 1,000 BC the first cavalry components were found. With both iron and wagons, the Assyrians were among the first civilizations to have what could be called an "army", a military force that was sufficiently constituted in terms of organization and that succeeded in conquering its neighbors. And since we are at the time of the development of the first city-states, the practice of war led a civilization like that of the Assyrians to develop siege instruments, tunnels, and other technological advances to finalize their conquests.
The military forces of the Assyrian Empire are probably among the first true components of an army as we can imagine it today. The invention of the wheel, the use of animal force and a clever combination of shock and throwing weapons made it possible to structure a military aircraft of a formidable power for the time.
Still, in ancient times, the evolution of weapons technology began to combine with the development of more refined tactics. The classic example remains the Greek phalanx and the famous sausage. It was a long and heavy spear about 5.50 meters long, one of which was made of iron and the other of bronze, and which could be detached in two parts so as not to interfere with the soldiers' march. The sausage was assembled at the right time, just before the fight. When used by soldiers in tight formations, no enemy infantry or cavalry could penetrate this wall through a frontal attack.
However, what if the enemy attacks the flanks? This is the main weakness of the phalanx, where the sarissa is a handicap since it does not facilitate the flexibility of tactical training. Add to that the fact that dropping the sarissa to draw the sword does not solve the tactical problem of a rigid formation facing a flank attack. On the contrary, flexibility is acquired here through a redefinition of tactical training, a problem that the Romans dwelt on.