I do not study Ostrogothic military arrangements directly, but I would highly doubt the use of long, sarissaa-esque pikes. Within the Germanic peoples there was no tradition of long pikes. Throughout Late Antiquity (and doubtless prior) the principal offensive weapon of a barbarian warrior was a thrusting spear, about six to eight feet in length (roughly the same size as a Roman spear). This would have been carried in tandem with a shield. Helmets, corselets, and swords were rare, and restricted to the elite. This basic panoply of the Germanic peoples would have been augmented by Roman equipment, especially after the establishment of barbarian kingdoms in the West. Yet the Romans did not use pikes either. Like their Germanic counterparts, the principal Roman infantry weapon of Late Antiquity was a spear, although most infantrymen (at least in the fourth century) also carried a spatha.

Nor, as best as can be elucidated from Roman sources, would the nature of barbarian warfare have lent itself to the use of pikes. Germanic forces of Late Antiquity lacked the “discipline and tactical control” (to quote Philip Rance) of the Romans, even when taking into account the ethnographic stereotypes projected onto Germanic barbarians by writers such as Ammianus and Procopius. Contrasting the controlled formations of the Romans with less-disciplined attacks by non-Romans was a standard topos, or trope, of Roman historical writing, with the lack of clearly-established ranks or files used as evidence of Germanic “disorganization”. Yet Germanic forces clearly arrayed in close-order, with units or bands organized by tribal affiliations or shared kinship. At the front of these formations would have been the elites and their retainers (comites in Latin). Germanic elites were expected to lead from the front, and their retainers provided an experienced (albeit small) “professional” contingent far more experienced and armored than their levied counterparts. While these warriors may have occasionally “locked shields” when advancing, the tactic was never uniform enough to warrant note by Roman authors.

In battle, Germanic forces relied upon shock tactics of swift charges by massed warbands (spearheaded by the highly-motivated and armored comites) to overwhelm or break apart the enemy line, relying on speed, ferocity, and psychological terror (accentuated by war-cries such as the barritus). Germanic warriors sought to avoid an extended melee, especially when facing the Romans. Deficiencies in defensive armor, training, and unit cohesion placed Germanic warriors at a disadvantage in close-order combat throughout antiquity, especially in set-piece engagements. This in part explains the Germanic preference (at least when fighting the Romans) in Late Antiquity for avoiding pitched battle, preferring ambushes or the employment of uneven terrain.

When taken together, there is, in my opinion, absolutely no evidence for the use of longer pikes, as there is no evidence of the Ostrogoths deviating substantially from the overarching model of Germanic warfare I have described. While not a military historian, perhaps /u/Shlin28 can comment on anything relevant on Ostrogothic Italy I might have overlooked? I have a bad habit of calling on him whenever I need someone who actually studies Late Antiquity as a period, rather than just the army or Imperial administration.

Sources:

Hugh Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe AD 350–425 (Oxford 1996).

Philip Rance, “The Fulcum: The Late Roman and Byantine ”Testudo”- the Germanization of Roman Infantry Tactics?” in Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 44 (2004) pp. 265-326