I'd read that the only major clash of pike vs billhook in the British Isles occurred at Flodden Fields in the 1500s, and that the billhook had bested the pike due to its versatility, even though it was a shorter weapon. If this is true, why was it abandoned a century later? Was it cheaper to produce pikes? Was it just a fluke that the billhook had beaten the pike in the first place, and the English got their butts handed to them by pikes in another engagement?
A reply to /u/Comrade-Chernov
The Flodden engagement was not a good showcase for or against pikes at all. James IV's army was inexperienced, having largely engaged only in raiding expeditions against England and avoiding pitched battles because of this knowledge. The pikes the Scots used were a very new weapon to them, having only recently been acquired from France.
Further, in the campaign that ended in the battle of Flodden, James IV explicitly wanted to take advantage of Henry VIII's absence as he was supervising a siege in northern France. Tellingly, when he made contact with Surrey's English army, he arranged his army in a fairly strong hilltop position, initially unwilling to engage directly.
Unfortunately for James, elements of his army started to become impatient and broke rank, so he was forced to order a general advance downhill, which broke his army's cohesion and the battle ended up in a close-range melee. To make things worse, the Scot commanders fought from the front, so as they died, the Scottish army descended ever more quickly into a disorganized mess.
So it was no surprise that the Scots were bloodied in a messy battle where the odds were stacked against them: lack of discipline, lack of cohesion, an slippery slope.
Following Flodden, Henry VIII cast his eyes on the continent where he knew he'd have to overcome a very different set of challenges than he did on the isle. Namely, disciplined pike blocks and heavy cavalry. With this knowledge he had to adopt to the best known fighting methods, namely by hiring landsknecht mercenaries.