Who would win?

[Draconis]

Well, I seem to have opened an interesting can of worms... What I had in mind when I brought this up was not necessarily the 300 Leonidas led, but Spartans in general. What I sort of envisioned was a larger army, perhaps legion sized armies, maybe 5,000 on a side. As has been pointed out, dynamics are different depending on the size of the combatant armies. If we WERE talking about Leonidas and his body guard, 300 picked men, I would imagine Caesar would hand pick every man as well. But that would not necessarily determine who would have been the most effective fighting force, but only one example of a highly selective scenario. I think, from reading some posts, that the test would have to be actually a series of test... varying sized forces, different terrains. With a full array of weapons, or only what the Hoplite or Legionary alone would have available. I was also thining that the Romans would have the advantage of what was learned in the Punic Wars , actually, the war with Greece, all things Leonidas would not have known. As was also said, we do not know what sort of tactician Leonidas was, though he did have the wisdom to pick a battle field where Persian numbers could be neutralised. We do know Caesar was resourceful, battle hardened as were his troops, and I am sure aware of lessons learned against a wide variety of enemes. As i have said in another thread, I think for the Romans to have been effective with gladius, they would have had to open their formation a bit to allow room to stab through. You need to have a space to strike through. Locking up shields makes a nice wall for defense, but gives the man with a short weapon no place through which to strike. As for the problem of spears as well as pikes... I do not know how the greek spears were constructed, how much was wood haft and how much spear point, but I do know that centuries later, the Spanish faced by by Swiss pikes, used short swords and bucklers to great effect lopping off spear heads then closing in between the points where striking with spear would be way more difficult. Spears are very effective as long as you can keep the enemy at distance, but closed in, that spear becomes a liability as you just can't easily choke up and use in in infighting for which the gladius was perfect. I think Caesdar's dilemma would be how to thwart the spears and close to fight his kind of fight. Given a larger battle, maybe the whole 10th vs an equal Spartan force, both sides would have more options and make for a more interesting battle for all of us who would be buying tickets to watch. :-) I kind of lean toward the Romans as eventual victors, but I also suspect that buying a round of drinks for the survivors wouldn't cost you a lot as there would not be many left. At the end, the victor might echo the words the Duke of Wellington said after Waterloo: It was a damn close run thing.

[Draconis]

Oh yeah and regarding the critique of the Richard Egan film, I would add the acting was embarassingly bad often... but then how many movies have there been about the subject? I think one thing we can all agree on is the definitively accurate and authentic film of this historical event, as other events such as the Trojan War, has yet to be made... certainly not by Hollywood. There seems to be this irresistable urge to get " Creative" with an already great story, throw in all sorts of nonsense. I'm thinking the only way its going to ever happen would be as a sort of documentary, maybe miniseries by someone who wants to tell the real story of the brave warriors who gave it all against some of the longest odds in history.

[Ghostmojo]

Oh yeah and regarding the critique of the Richard Egan film, I would add the acting was embarassingly bad often... but then how many movies have there been about the subject? I think one thing we can all agree on is the definitively accurate and authentic film of this historical event, as other events such as the Trojan War, has yet to be made... certainly not by Hollywood. There seems to be this irresistable urge to get " Creative" with an already great story, throw in all sorts of nonsense. I'm thinking the only way its going to ever happen would be as a sort of documentary, maybe miniseries by someone who wants to tell the real story of the brave warriors who gave it all against some of the longest odds in history.

A miniseries would be a great idea - just like the (Starz) Spartacus stuff (which I will discuss on another thread). That miniseries format could apply to either the Trojan War or the Persian Wars (why not?).

Curiously, also being a fan of 1960s US sci-fi shows; I have just bought the DVD set of "The Time Tunnel". Older viewers will remember this programme. Given that every episode had an historic theme, a lot of stock footage was used in the shows. One episode concerns the events at Troy into which our hapless time travellers stumble, and sure enough the producers raided the recent Hollywood archives for background battle footage. Strangely (perhaps for reasons like they didn't know better or really care) they utilise footage from "The 300 Spartans" for the fighting between Trojans and Greeks!!! :lol:

[Ghostmojo]

The Romans had already beat the greek phalanx at the The Battle of Cynoscephalae against the Macedonians in 197BC, this occured before the reforms of Marius in 107BC where the Roman army became a more deadly and professional force. Gius Julius Caesars 10th legion would be better trained than Titus Quinctius Flamininus legions in 197BC and would be able to flank the Spartan phalanx on an open battle field. The phalanx once flanked and attacked from the backside becomes vulnerable and unable to turn and it would quickly become easy pickings for the Romans which are a much more manuverable force.

That particular Greek phalanx at the 'Dog Heads' battle, was a Makedonian sarissa/pike phalanx of the 2ndC/BC Mike, and not a Spartan dory/spear phalanx of the 5thC/BC.

I don't believe the Spartans ever faced the Romans with a pike phalanx, although they did eventually use that format. The reforms of Kleomenes III (probably the last great Spartan king) remodelled the Lakedaimonian army along the lines of the Makedonian mode and he had great success with it, until succumbing at Sellasia to a similar army. Before Pyrrhos, the Romans weren't particularly involved in Greek affairs at this time.

It is possible they might have met in Italy though. I would have to look into this a bit deeper. There is a confusing period of Spartan history, in the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC where are information is often scant. There were for example Spartan condottieri who offered their services as advisors or warrior-leaders to foreign powers. This practice had been in place for quite a while by then. I suppose the first to do this was the exiled King Demaratos who accompanied Xerxes, but he was doing it to try and get his throne back and not directly for the interests of Sparta per se. Interestingly, the later tyrant Nabis claimed descent from Demaratos. A more ready example would be the long-lived Agesilaos II who campaigned in Egypt. Later we have Xanthippos who famously helped the Carthaginians give the Romans a trouncing at Bagradas River in 255BC. He may have acted alone, but may have had other confederate Spartans with him. That army was probably more of a late hoplite army, because the Spartans had not yet become convinced that the pike model was for them. Xanthippos was also a remarkably flexible commander, who made good use of light troops, cavalry and elephants, as well as his core infantry phalanx. There were others who followed in this vein. Often disgruntled aristocrats, or minor princes who were denied their role in the Spartan dyarchy, and some of them ended up fighting with Italiote Greeks against various Italian powers, including possibly the emerging Roman state.

The Spartans did eventually fight the Romans in the War against Nabis around the same time as Kynoskephalai, although I doubt they were pike armed phalangites by this time. Nabis' troops were a mixed ragbag of Spartan citizens, mercenaries, auxiliaries and pirates and probably fought as lighter troops or thureiophoroi types. They possibly employed similar tactics as the Romans themselves, and initially beat the Romans off when Flamininus (the conqueror of Makedon) attacked the city. Superior Roman numbers eventually triumphed of course, and this was hardly Sparta at her military peak - but they still gave a good account of themselves! :wink:

[Ghostmojo]

Lastly, you cannot say 'no balistae', because that was part of the Roman arsenal, as were archers, pila, gladii etc, just as you cant simply say 'no hoplons', because that is what they had....

Well I can do - and I did :lol:, because I assumed a basic infantryman against infantryman scenarios sans archers, light troops etc. as you go on to suggest yourself:

The only way it can be done is to level the playing field, so to speak, and have a Romans v Spartan fistfight!

The Spartans (at Thermopylai) fought with their spears, and when they were broken with their swords, and according to Herodotos, when they were broken with their fists and teeth!!! 8-)

They [Spartans] would have had a single long spear and a short sword, plus their usual shield, helmet and bronze cuirass armour (at this time).

All of them? Bronze cuirasses wouldn't be limited to officers and wealthier hoplites? Sparta, if I'm not mistaken, was an impoverished country like most of Greece at this period. I can envision the first and second ranks having bronze breastplates but all eight? IDK...

Yes - all of them. The Spartan state could afford to equip 300 warriors with bronze cuirasses, which was their standard gear at this time. I see NO problem with that. This is before the linothorax and other forms of quilted protective dress had taken over. Sparta was not that impoverished. Infact, it was rather better off than many with its vast land reserves farmed by helots that produced the wealth to support the military state.

The Spartans would also rotate the front line.

Could they pull that off if fighting in a tight phalanx formation? We don't even know how the Romans did this in their manipular formations.

I believe they could Theo. I suggest you read up upon Spartan military manoeuvring practices - countermarching, and directional changes etc. They were about the only Greeks who could do this.

I have already mentioned some of their usual feint techniques, and these battle hardened, well-campaigned Romans may have fallen for their own myth of invincibility and not seen the smarter Spartans duplicity

But you're taking generalship into account, right? If we are then I'd say Caesar would make short work of Leonida's Spartans. And what's this sense of invicibility? I thought this was a Spartan mentality. Romans suffered terrible defeats against the Teutons and Cimbri. Caesar's men at least could justifiably feel invicible, IMO.~Theo

So could Leonidas' Spartans. And I'm not really talking about generalship. The Spartan army was one of the most regulated there had ever been. Each unit had a commander. Each sub-unit had a commander. This went right the way on down the line to the smallest sworn band company. It was an army almost entirely composed of an officer class (to a large degree). Therefore, commands could be and were very quickly relayed throughout the ranks. However, picking up on your point about generalship - it is an unfair advantage knowing so much about Caesar (from his own hand and others) and knowing so very little about Leonidas I. What we do know about this Agiad king is that he was probably about 60 at Thermopylai, and nothing of his previous military career. However, as the second of three brothers (and third if you include his half-brother Kleomenes I) he was not expected to succeed the throne. Therefore, he underwent the agoge discipline. He would have been as tough as they came. Because Kleomenes I went mad and killed himself, and Leonidas' older brother Dorieos was killed fighting abroad - then quite unexpectedly he found himself one of the dyarchs around 490BC. He may well have fought at the side of his older half-brother during his campaigns in the Peloponnese and in Attika. We really don't know. But speculating admittedly, Leonidas acquitted himself well at Thermopylai making sound strategic and tactical decisions. Was he of the same stuff as Julius Caesar? Well, I guess we'll never know for sure.

[Narukami]

Oh yeah and regarding the critique of the Richard Egan film, I would add the acting was embarassingly bad often... but then how many movies have there been about the subject? I think one thing we can all agree on is the definitively accurate and authentic film of this historical event, as other events such as the Trojan War, has yet to be made... certainly not by Hollywood. There seems to be this irresistable urge to get " Creative" with an already great story, throw in all sorts of nonsense. I'm thinking the only way its going to ever happen would be as a sort of documentary, maybe miniseries by someone who wants to tell the real story of the brave warriors who gave it all against some of the longest odds in history.

A miniseries would be a great idea - just like the (Starz) Spartacus stuff (which I will discuss on another thread). That miniseries format could apply to either the Trojan War or the Persian Wars (why not?).

Curiously, also being a fan of 1960s US sci-fi shows; I have just bought the DVD set of "The Time Tunnel". Older viewers will remember this programme. Given that every episode had an historic theme, a lot of stock footage was used in the shows. One episode concerns the events at Troy into which our hapless time travellers stumble, and sure enough the producers raided the recent Hollywood archives for background battle footage. Strangely (perhaps for reasons like they didn't know better or really care) they utilise footage from "The 300 Spartans" for the fighting between Trojans and Greeks!!! :lol:

Yes, the old mini-series format (revitalized by HBO and now Starz Cable) would be ideal for tackling these historical events. Alexander the Great would be another prime candidate for such a format giving the creative team the time to luxuriate in the story details that have been sadly lacking from most feature films. Those are usually under sever time constraints and so compress time lines and characters to fit their needs.

However...

The one danger is that these shows will fall into the Starz Spartacus mold, adding as much stylized blood and sex as they can stuff into an hour. When Lucy Lawless was approached about staring in the Spartacus series the producer (who is her husband) warned her that the part called for nudity. Lawless replied that so long as it was not gratuitous she was fine with it.

Not gratuitous? There is very little in that series that isn't.

That said, the format is very serviceable, however for Hollywood the issue is always ROI -- will the returns justify the costs. HBO's Rome was cancelled a season early because of costs. This resulted in a truncated second season with a much compressed historical time line. CGI might allow a new series to be done more cost effectively but good CGI (ILM quality) is not cheap either. Rather than a feature film of Pressfield's The Gates Of Fire, making it the center piece of a limited series on HBO dealing with the Grecco-Persian Wars could be something worth watching.

Also -- Ghostmojo, excellent film analysis of The 300 Spartans.


Narukami