300

[hoplite07]

Soo, what about Thermopylae, do yall think the 300 Spartans could hold off or have chance against 300 Romans?

[hoplite07]

Crap, my bad, didnt mean to make this a thread.

[M. Demetrius]

300 Spartans against 300 Romans, or 300 Spartans against 10,000 Romans...??

[hoplite07]

300 Romans

[Tarbicus]

You need to do a Search on the forum. There's a current debate going on that will let you know the difficulties of the question:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=19669

These kinds of questions are usually about the Han v. Rome, etc, they drag on forever and ever, lots of people fall out, and there's never a conclusion.

[Jona Lendering]

In this case, we have an ancient answer. Polybius offers, after his account of the battle of Cynoscephalae, an analysis of the strength of a legion and a phalanx. He says that hoplites ought to win a battle, provided that the circumstances are optimal: i.e., on a plain. Under all other circumstances, the legion would prevail.

I'd say that Thermopylae, in our hypothetical scenario, ought to have been a Roman victory; with their pila, they could have reached the Spartans without getting too close to the hoplite's lances. If Xerxes would have employed soldiers throwing heavy spears instead of archers, I assume he would have won as well.

Anyone else?

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

I'd say that Thermopylae, in our hypothetical scenario, ought to have been a Roman victory; with their pila, they could have reached the Spartans without getting too close to the hoplite's lances. If Xerxes would have employed soldiers throwing heavy spears instead of archers, I assume he would have won as well.

Does any of the primary sources point to pila throwing as an advantage against a phalanx?

[Gaius_Calvus]

I think that all of us are forgetting that Manius Acilius Glabrio defeated a "phalanx" at Thermopylae in 191 BC.

The Seleucids under Antiochus III the "Great" (or, maybe, not so great in this case :lol: ) were defeated in almost the same way as the Spartans 300 years earlier -- when Cato (later the Censor) defeated the Aetolians Antiochus had detailed to hold the heights in order to repeat a performance of the first battle by protecting his exposed flank.

When Cato's victorious troops were seen pursuing the fleeing Aetolians into the Seleucid camp, the phalanx broke and the battle ended.

So, I think the question is moot. Phalangites were defeated by the Romans at Thermopylae -- against even worse odds than were faced by the Persians. :wink:

Edge

[Gaivs Antonivs Satvrninvs]

If Xerxes would have employed soldiers throwing heavy spears instead of archers, I assume he would have won as well.

hock: You mean Xerxes didn't win anyway???

Seroiusly, one should also state what time period of Romans. Early,Republican, Imperial, etc. This was an army who adapted greatly over the years,centuries. The glory of the Spartans was very short comparatively, right?

Also, if the Spartans had been able to guard the pass would the outcome have been different?

[M. Demetrius]

Right, Antonius. A contingent of any era Roman cavalry against a spear wall phalanx in close quarters such as Thermopylae would have been ineffective, at best, most likely. Horses don't seem to like running into rows of sharp sticks, for some reason. :?

OTOH, a modern Roman army with artillery, well, we know how that would go. :lol:

[Jona Lendering]

Does any of the primary sources point to pila throwing as an advantage against a phalanx?

That's implied by Polybius.

A contingent of any era Roman cavalry against a spear wall phalanx in close quarters such as Thermopylae would have been ineffective, at best, most likely.

That's why throwing spears is such a good method, I'd say. They are heavier and more deadly than arrows, but you don't need to come close to those Spartans.

hock: You mean Xerxes didn't win anyway???

Touché. :wink:

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

Does any of the primary sources point to pila throwing as an advantage against a phalanx?

That's implied by Polybius.

A reference would be greatly appreciated. That's implied by the question. :wink:

[Jona Lendering]

A reference would be greatly appreciated. That's implied by the question. :wink:

:oops: Polybius, 18.28-32.

[M. CVRIVS ALEXANDER]

[Polybius, 18.28-32.

Oh! Curiously enough, this is the passage I referred to in a different thread - http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... 749#170749 - where I raised a similar question. The only reference to javelins I can find is in 30.3, but there Polybius actually reveals how raised pikes of the rows 6-16 protect the phalanx from the falling javelins. When further Polybius addresses the question, "What then is the reason of the Roman success, and what is it that defeats the purpose of those who use the phalanx?" he asserts that the Romans won due to (1) their ability to fight on a broken terrain and to (2) the superior maneuverability/adaptability of their formation. So, could you please clarify where in the passage do you see an implication that pila throwing is an advantage against a phalanx?

Thanks!

[hoplite07]

Yeah, and at Thermopylae, like I said, the terrain wouldn't give neither an advantage and there's no way to flank it. I'd say the fight could go either way honestly. 300 Spartans from that same battle vs 300 Romans from the Macedonian wars.