I discussed this question a while ago here. The short of it is that we modern people focus too much on whether a weapon is "useful" or "useless", and lose sight of the economic, demographic and political structures that sustain armies and weapon systems. The supremacy of the pike arose out of a very specific set of circumstances, and when those circumstances changed, it disappeared again. The conditions that led to its revival are less well known to me, but I would assume they were radically different, and the superficial similarities between the two weapon systems shouldn't be taken to imply a similarity in underlying structures.

In other words, history is complicated, and things that look alike aren't necessarily alike.