12-10-2011, 08:00 PM
The 300 Spartans of Leonidas against 300 men of Caesar's 10th? First, this would be no real battle. Too few men for a pitched battle. It seems that the Greeks did do such "events" though. And they were too bloody.
What would be the rules? All arrayed traditionally and no tricks allowed? Everything allowed? What would be the terrain like? Even and extensive? Narrow, so that no outflanks are allowed? Would the two sides be prohibited from retreating or skirmishing?
I guess that when fantasizing over such a battle we have in mind that the two contingents would just form one solid line and then fall on each other. Or better as a small part in a great fight, where they both form but a fragment in a long line (this would be the best way to really compare their line combat capability). No tricks allowed or else the comparison would be lacking.
With all the above things in mind, I would lay my money on the Spartans. NOT because I think they were more effective than the legionaries of the 10th but because in the above example we have made it sweeter for the Lacedaemonians, having the two contingents fight in a battle in which the Lacedaemonians would be more comfortable with.
If the 300 legionaries fought in single line, they would not fight as they did when they excelled on the battlefields of Gaul or Greece. They would normally only deploy half their force, the rest keeping in reserve in two or three lines. They were used to having reserve cohorts behind them. Not having them would be taxing on their resoluteness and a good loss of morale. Having them would make their ranks too scant. Just 150 of them would have to form in all too shallow lines. Admittedly, they would have their pila, while we have deprived the Lacedaemonians of their precious skirmishers, but in my opinion, these would not really have a significant effect against a resolute opponent. Single missile volleys never actually caused real casualties and the Spartan shields would not be as easy to "penetrate" as those of the "barbarians". I doubt they would be penetrated at all, although I might be wrong here (does anyone know of any study regarding pila and reinforced hoplite shields, with all their curves etc?).. The Romans, again in my opinion, exploited the temporary dazzle a volley of missiles would confer on an opponent. When this opponent though was resolute and, more importantly, equipped with spears, I have reason to believe that the pila were kind of ineffective. They did not seem to have any effect in any of the battles against the Macedonians, while Caesar also mainly used them against opponents who were swordsmen or had mixed weaponry, certainly not against a spear bearing phalanx. Here lies another advantage for the Lacedaemonians. The 10th was not experienced in fighting against opponents such as a stout Greek phalanx. They would have a reach disadvantage without having the precious experience to overcome it. On the other hand, the Spartans would just have to do what they were trained to do in order to keep the enemy at bay.
And one last advantage the Spartans would have would be their lower "breaking point". In a 300 vs 300 man battle, we should expect many casualties. The Romans would be more probable to retreat or flee when casualties would be "too" high (maybe a 20-25%), while the Lacedaemonians would stay to the man (as they did...).
In all, I consider the legionaries of the 10th (some of the worst mutha fuckas the Romans ever produced) a more valuable tool for a commander. They were better all around troops, they would be able to be more effective in skirmishes, on uneven and rough ground, in woods, they would not have a psychological problem with retreating to fight another day, they would more easily split in groups, support their own etc. But is such an occasion, where they would be forced to fight the Spartans in exactly the conditions that favored the latter... well... I would put my money on the Spartans.
(Of course I would bet double as much if the legionaries were just regular conscripts with some limited campaigning experience)
What would be the rules? All arrayed traditionally and no tricks allowed? Everything allowed? What would be the terrain like? Even and extensive? Narrow, so that no outflanks are allowed? Would the two sides be prohibited from retreating or skirmishing?
I guess that when fantasizing over such a battle we have in mind that the two contingents would just form one solid line and then fall on each other. Or better as a small part in a great fight, where they both form but a fragment in a long line (this would be the best way to really compare their line combat capability). No tricks allowed or else the comparison would be lacking.
With all the above things in mind, I would lay my money on the Spartans. NOT because I think they were more effective than the legionaries of the 10th but because in the above example we have made it sweeter for the Lacedaemonians, having the two contingents fight in a battle in which the Lacedaemonians would be more comfortable with.
If the 300 legionaries fought in single line, they would not fight as they did when they excelled on the battlefields of Gaul or Greece. They would normally only deploy half their force, the rest keeping in reserve in two or three lines. They were used to having reserve cohorts behind them. Not having them would be taxing on their resoluteness and a good loss of morale. Having them would make their ranks too scant. Just 150 of them would have to form in all too shallow lines. Admittedly, they would have their pila, while we have deprived the Lacedaemonians of their precious skirmishers, but in my opinion, these would not really have a significant effect against a resolute opponent. Single missile volleys never actually caused real casualties and the Spartan shields would not be as easy to "penetrate" as those of the "barbarians". I doubt they would be penetrated at all, although I might be wrong here (does anyone know of any study regarding pila and reinforced hoplite shields, with all their curves etc?).. The Romans, again in my opinion, exploited the temporary dazzle a volley of missiles would confer on an opponent. When this opponent though was resolute and, more importantly, equipped with spears, I have reason to believe that the pila were kind of ineffective. They did not seem to have any effect in any of the battles against the Macedonians, while Caesar also mainly used them against opponents who were swordsmen or had mixed weaponry, certainly not against a spear bearing phalanx. Here lies another advantage for the Lacedaemonians. The 10th was not experienced in fighting against opponents such as a stout Greek phalanx. They would have a reach disadvantage without having the precious experience to overcome it. On the other hand, the Spartans would just have to do what they were trained to do in order to keep the enemy at bay.
And one last advantage the Spartans would have would be their lower "breaking point". In a 300 vs 300 man battle, we should expect many casualties. The Romans would be more probable to retreat or flee when casualties would be "too" high (maybe a 20-25%), while the Lacedaemonians would stay to the man (as they did...).
In all, I consider the legionaries of the 10th (some of the worst mutha fuckas the Romans ever produced) a more valuable tool for a commander. They were better all around troops, they would be able to be more effective in skirmishes, on uneven and rough ground, in woods, they would not have a psychological problem with retreating to fight another day, they would more easily split in groups, support their own etc. But is such an occasion, where they would be forced to fight the Spartans in exactly the conditions that favored the latter... well... I would put my money on the Spartans.
(Of course I would bet double as much if the legionaries were just regular conscripts with some limited campaigning experience)
