Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Who would win?
#91
Quote:Neither of them are defending their homeland... just a battle for superiority.
Mediterranean League Championship match, Rome Legionaries (14-2) versus defending champions Sparta Hoplites (11-2-2), to be held at Dido Memorial Stadium in Carthage...


Even given endless statistics and actual records of confrontations, we can't do more than put odds on modern sports matches.

Reminds me of that old Monty Python sketch on International Philosophy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrShK-NVMIU
Dan Diffendale
Ph.D. candidate, University of Michigan
Reply
#92
LOL at the movie Big Grin
Francisco Machado aka M.ilionario

Atheist

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#93
As much as I luv the Spartans I have to give the battle to the romans. Sure the Spartans can manuver, but they can't even come close to the manuverability of the Roman cohorts.


THE only way for a Spartan phalanx to win is in the tight streets of a city or Thermopoly. If you read the descriptions of the times Roman Legions and Phalanxes engaged eachother we find that victory was in large part due to the Romans Manuverability, and the Succesor (macedon & Seleunid Emp sp) inability to protect the flanks or reinforce the gaps in the phalanx.
Sergio Garcia a.k.a NeoSpartan
Reply
#94
Quote: A mixture between linothorax and bronze cuirasses wouldn't be a truly effective army, since though both made good protection, they still provided different tactics which would appear muddled in a supposedly 'elite' force.

I hope at least that we can agree that they didn't wear their cloaks into battle. :wink:

Yes, I think that's fairly safe, but I can't agree with the previous point I've quoted; the tactics of the Hoplite Phalanx don't need to change with the armour used and phalanxes with mixed equipment would be highly likely.
Reply
#95
Quote:and the Succesor (macedon & Seleunid Emp sp) inability to protect the flanks or reinforce the gaps in the phalanx.
Indeed, but the successors were unable to use Alexander's combined arms, phalanx, cavalry and light troops...
Francisco Machado aka M.ilionario

Atheist

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
#96
Francisco,
There is a very big :?: :?: :?: that 2 units of the type you describe and led by officers who knew their job would fight the way you assume.
If you accept that one of the two leaders is incompetent then there is no matter what type of unit he commands.
Kind regards
Reply
#97
Quote:
NeoSpartan:19bd72qr Wrote:and the Succesor (macedon & Seleunid Emp sp) inability to protect the flanks or reinforce the gaps in the phalanx.
Indeed, but the successors were unable to use Alexander's combined arms, phalanx, cavalry and light troops...

Bang on! The Romans were fortunate that they encountered the Greeks when they had gone down a tactical dead-end. It isn't true that the Phalanx couldn't manoeuvre, except in the case of the late Hellenstic phalanx, which was the one the Romans had the good fortune to encounter. Somebody said the Romans beat Pyrrhus - this is not true, either, they simply made his victory more expensive than he could afford, hence the term "Pyrrhic Victory". He turned his attention elsewhere. The Romans, who often suffered defeats themselves, tended, in such circumstances, to sit back until they could afford to repudiate their peace treaties and have another go.

In summary, the Romans can't touch the Macedonian Phalanx if it is properly supported (either by man-made defences, restrictive terrain or the other arms) and they probably couldn't have touched the Classical Phalanx, either. And for anyone sounding off about how the Greeks need special circumstances to win, let's just remember how often the Romans got beaten when they couldn't force a battle on their own terms.
(J. Caesar, "I came, I saw, I got my backside kicked by guerillas following a scorched-earth policy, I tried again the following year with more men, I got the same result, I moped off home and lied about it." ) :wink:
Reply
#98
I think worth mentioning that all this discussion of Phalanx vs Legion has of course an ancient origin, Polybius. He himself rates the phalanx as superior on level ground, and his reasoning is that the legion is better in broken terrain, and that generals can´t count on fighting on a plain to win. There are 2 obvious mistakes in his argument
1) By that reasoning he should have excluded heavy cavalry as well. In fact, most battles in history have been fought on plains, as there is were the rich lands and most cities lay.
2) He compares the Legion, an operational level force with many types of infantry and cavalry, against the phalanx, that was just a tactical unit. He should have compared the whole forces of both sides
AKA Inaki
Reply
#99
Quote:I think worth mentioning that all this discussion of Phalanx vs Legion has of course an ancient origin, Polybius. He himself rates the phalanx as superior on level ground, and his reasoning is that the legion is better in broken terrain, and that generals can´t count on fighting on a plain to win. There are 2 obvious mistakes in his argument
1) By that reasoning he should have excluded heavy cavalry as well. In fact, most battles in history have been fought on plains, as there is were the rich lands and most cities lay.
2) He compares the Legion, an operational level force with many types of infantry and cavalry, against the phalanx, that was just a tactical unit. He should have compared the whole forces of both sides
:wink: :wink: :wink: Interesting... :wink:
Francisco Machado aka M.ilionario

Atheist

"You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war" - Napoleon Bonaparte
Reply
Quote: Zenodors
Once again, take their statuettes and paintings from the era we have (although I won't deny, they are few fewer in number than those of another polis, despite their artistic "Golden Age" approximately fifty years prior). For almost any other state between 500-479, you'll notice that linothorax is dominant in their paintings, while it isn't for the Spartans. Instead, everything we have has bronze cuirasses, of which the other states (as an exaggerated guess, 99%) had now abandoned using.

that dosen't mean they didn't use linothorax. They could have seen bronze cuirasses as more heroic then linothorax. So they have all they're heros dressed in bronze to help glorify them
Valour is the strength, not of arms and legs,but of the heart and soul
-Lee
Reply
Welcome to RAT Lee!
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
Thanx man
Valour is the strength, not of arms and legs,but of the heart and soul
-Lee
Reply
Quote:
Quote: Zenodors
Once again, take their statuettes and paintings from the era we have (although I won't deny, they are few fewer in number than those of another polis, despite their artistic "Golden Age" approximately fifty years prior). For almost any other state between 500-479, you'll notice that linothorax is dominant in their paintings, while it isn't for the Spartans. Instead, everything we have has bronze cuirasses, of which the other states (as an exaggerated guess, 99%) had now abandoned using.

that dosen't mean they didn't use linothorax. They could have seen bronze cuirasses as more heroic then linothorax. So they have all they're heros dressed in bronze to help glorify them

Why didn't the other Greeks do it, then?

The Spartans did not have a habit of drawing their soldiers naked like other Greeks... furthermore, bell bronze cuirasses looked more 'goofy' than 'heroic', if you ask me. :lol:
[Image: parsiaqj0.png]
[size=92:7tw9zbc0]- Bonnie Lawson: proudly Manx.[/size]
Reply
Quote:furthermore, bell bronze cuirasses looked more 'goofy' than 'heroic', if you ask me.
true but you live two thousand years later and in a completely diffrent culture
Quote:Why didn't the other Greeks do it, then?
well spartans did alot of things they're own way as I'm sure you know. The way they set up their goverment, millitary, even how they did slavery was unique. It is entirly possible that they had diffrent opinons on art and what is heroic
Valour is the strength, not of arms and legs,but of the heart and soul
-Lee
Reply


Forum Jump: