Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

300 Spartans vs Greece's best.

the 300 are Greece's best.

Myrmidons get totally raped, they look like amateurs compared to the 300.

Uhm, Achilles fights with the Myrmidons.

The Myrmidons are Mythological Beings.

They where Ants that were given Human form by Zeus himself. They were created to be just as hardy as ants, meaning they possibly had some degree of super strength and durability. They were also highly trained. If you take that into consideration and the fact that Achilles is a great warrior and leader there is no reason why the Myrmidons should lose.

You also can't compare poorly trained Persians to Highly Trained Greeks with basically the same training as the Spartans. And the Trojan Army (Who The Myrmidons Fought) were no push overs much like the Persian Army.

Originally posted by Ana P
The Myrmidons are Mythological Beings.

They where Ants that were given Human form by Zeus himself. They were created to be just as hardy as ants, meaning they possibly had some degree of super strength and durability. They were also highly trained. If you take that into consideration and the fact that Achilles is a great warrior and leader there is no reason why the Myrmidons should lose.

You also can't compare poorly trained Persians to Highly Trained Greeks with basically the same training as the Spartans. And the Trojan Army (Who The Myrmidons Fought) were no push overs much like the Persian Army.

A quality post. Seems I've been away too long.

Originally posted by Crease
300 Spartans vs Greece's best.

I haven't seen the movie. I don't like Brad Pitt. I do some research and gave an answer. Ok

Originally posted by Ana P
The Myrmidons are Mythological Beings.

They where Ants that were given Human form by Zeus himself. They were created to be just as hardy as ants, meaning they possibly had some degree of super strength and durability. They were also highly trained. If you take that into consideration and the fact that Achilles is a great warrior and leader there is no reason why the Myrmidons should lose.

You also can't compare poorly trained Persians to Highly Trained Greeks with basically the same training as the Spartans. And the Trojan Army (Who The Myrmidons Fought) were no push overs much like the Persian Army.

Good post, however, Greeks at Troy didn't use the same tactics as The City States, no Phalanx for one thing.

They technicaly wouldn't have the same training as Spartans, who even by Greek standards were a lot better than any other city states at the time.

Only the levy were poorly trained for the Persians, the Immortals for instance were rightly feared and very highly trained and well equipped.

Their were also Greek troops fighting with the Persians. You are spot on about the Myrmidons though, they arn't human and Achilles is virtually invulnerable if you take Homer's version or an awesome fighter capable of slaughtering dozens of highly trained soliders without taking a scratch if you use the film version.

Again though, the Myrmidons in the film were just highly trained soliders not the mythlogical version and their weapons and armour would be inferior to a Spartan Hoplite.

So if it were the mythlogical Achilles and Myrmidons I would give it to them, the film version would lose based on the Spartans being just as good but with superior tactics and better weapons and armour.

Originally posted by Hercules
Good post, however, Greeks at Troy didn't use the same tactics as The City States, no Phalanx for one thing.

All the Greeks used Phalanx Formation. The Spartans are just known as one of the ones that mastered it. Another thing that added to the successful use of the Phalanx Formation for the Spartans was mainly their location and the Persians mistakes and incompetence.



The Myrmidons weren't real so they weren't compared too Spartans. One is actual History the other is Myth.



In history the Immortals weren't all what they were cracked up to be like in the movie. They were arguably well trained but they were actually slaughtered by the Spartans.



We don't know if the bulk of those Troops even saw battle with the 300 Spartans, let alone any. But if they did they failed and they don't represent the Myrmidons in any way.





Not only was he invulnerable in the Iliad but he was the greatest warrior and fastest warrior, meaning he has a great deal of speed and agility. He also very likely had some super strength too. One thing about Achilles that most people don't know is that he was a Demi-God much like Heracles but with different attributes.



They won't be inferior by much. It's not like there was a revolutionary discovery over the past 6 hundred or so years. Everything is pretty much the same. It's not like that will matter anyway...



That's Arguable

It depends on who is leading the troops and Achilles has WAY more experience in leading troops then King Leonidas. The 300 Spartans also seemed to just consist of nothing but Hoplites while the Myrmidons seemed to have Peltasts, Hoplites & Archers which is a huge advantage.

Also, the movie version of the Spartans didn't have Armor and Troy was basically a watered down and remix version of the Trojan War. The Trojan War took ten years, not seventeen days. That's just ONE thing about the movie that was changed...

I agree that the fictionalized Spartans in 300 defeat the watered down movie version of Achilles and his Myrmidons. But the Mythological Achilles and Myrmidons defeat the Fictionalized Spartans in 300.

Originally posted by Ana P
All the Greeks used Phalanx Formation. The Spartans are just known as one of the ones that mastered it. Another thing that added to the successful use of the Phalanx Formation for the Spartans was mainly their location and the Persians mistakes and incompetence.

The Phalanx as the Spartans and Greek City States used it wasn't used at Troy, it was developed later on, is what I was saying in essence, it would not have been used.





Yes I realise this, my point being that if you are to debate this fight, you have to draw a line in the sand, if were taking it literaly, the Myrmidon's lose because they didn't exsist.




They were still very capable troops, and way above the levy troops, it is a testament to the Spartans skill, rather than the incompetence of the immortals that they were slaughtered.

Just pointing that out as your intial post made it seem the reverse.





No and we don't know that they didn't either, fact is they were there, again, just pointing out that all the forces there were not badly trained levy.



Agreed, however I was pointing out that movie Achilles, only seemed invulnerable because of his skill.



Hoplite shield and bronze armour, over the mostly leather that would have been worn at Troy, not light years ahead but a greater degree of protection.





I know all about the Trojan war, I have read the illiad, my opinion is the same as yours which I highlighted bold, archers however didn't give the Persian's an advantage but it would be very dependent on terrain.

achilles was a demigod don't forget his mother was the sea goddess silver feet Thetis he also had superstrength,speed,reflexes,agility, and was nigh invulnerable to both the weapons of gods and men except for his heel he was also the greatest warrior of his time or maybe all time

this is a very entertaining thread

Originally posted by Hercules
Yes I realise this, my point being that if you are to debate this fight, you have to draw a line in the sand, if were taking it literaly, the Myrmidon's lose because they didn't exsist.

Well, they wouldn't lose because there wouldn't be anyone to defeat.

But that wasn't my point.

This is irrelevant




I know.

I've already admitted that they all weren't badly trained but a lot of them were.




Which Spartans are you basing this off of?

300 or the Actual Spartans?

There is a difference.

The ones from 300 were portrayed more skillful then their real world counterparts. And unlike their real world counterparts they do not have a complete armor set nor do they have more then one of the same weapon, which is going to be required if they even start to think they can defeat the Myrmidons.

Even if they did have armor it might not even matter seeing that they are basically going up against superhumans. You also have to look at the fact that the Spartans are all pretty much Hoplites (Heavy Infantryman) going up against not only other Hoplites but Peltasts (Light Infantryman) who have enough skill to take on possibly 2 Spartans. History has already proven that Peltasts can defeat Hoplites. The Athenians decimated a Spartan Phalanx during the Battle of Lechaeum using Peltasts. But this also depends on terrain/location which we don't have.



Yes it depends on Terrain but when you have individual guys with bows & arrows in the middle of battle then things aren't going to look good for a guy with his back turned...

if you know about achilles then you know about his problem with Menis... if the myrmidons were to actually die...which is probably not gonna happen, achilles is fully capable of getting pissed and solo'ing the 300.

Achilles was not invulnerable in the Iliad....he died before the Trojan war ended...just as it was prophesied. We know he died based on Homer's Odyssey. The story about Achilles' heel was not really widespread until around the 1st century A.D. when a story of Achilles was represented in a poem.

In a sense, most people in the Iliad had some sort of invulnerability...which is better stated as fate or destiny. When a god wants to protect some warrior in battle...a spear or sword will not touch him until the appointed time...as we see with Hector, Aeneas, and others in the poem. When the gods can no longer protect him...his destiny is fulfilled and that warrior ends up dying in battle. So, the only invulnerability in the Iliad actually stems from the protection of the gods themselves...not from personal invulnerability that the warrior may own. Achilles was a demi god and was highly skilled...but without the protection of the gods...he could have and probably would have been struck down in battle much earlier.

As for the winner of this fight...it is hard to say. In myth...the Myrmidons would have had the protection of the gods...so, they would more than likely defeat the the Spartans...if it is what fate had intended. In a real life fight...it could possibly go either way. The Spartans lived to fight....their sons were trained to be the best from childhood...and no other fighting force in the ancient world had that kind of discipline or pure skill at the time. So, it's hard to say who would win a real battle.

Originally posted by Ana P
Well, they wouldn't lose because there wouldn't be anyone to defeat.

But that wasn't my point.

This is irrelevant

fair enough lets move on...






Agreed






Well this is where I tend to fall back on history and the way they would be armoured but again even armoured I agree against the Myrmidons of myth, they lose.

Terrain plays a huge part in how effective a phalanx is, its easy to out flank and its not overly manuerable, on an open battlefield, with no missle support from Peltasts or archers they die and die badly.

Agreed though this is a factor we don't have, to be honest, If were talking the Spartans from the film compared to Mrymidons of myth then again your spot on, they die.

Its actually just refreshing to get to debate someone who has your knowledge so I was having a little fun.




Archers make a great deal of difference yes, agreed, but with the right terrain or even weather conditions they lose their effectiveness, but this is data we don't have.

Even using the two movies as a comparison neither side have it easy, on the open plains, the spartans would have to close and get peppered and Achilles was a beast even in the movie.

At Thermoplyae then the advantage swings the other way, I think we are agreed on most points however so I will just tip my hat and say it was a fun discussion, for me at any rate!

Originally posted by charlemagne9746
Achilles was not invulnerable in the Iliad....he died before the Trojan war ended...just as it was prophesied. We know he died based on Homer's Odyssey. The story about Achilles' heel was not really widespread until around the 1st century A.D. when a story of Achilles was represented in a poem.

In a sense, most people in the Iliad had some sort of invulnerability...which is better stated as fate or destiny. When a god wants to protect some warrior in battle...a spear or sword will not touch him until the appointed time...as we see with Hector, Aeneas, and others in the poem. When the gods can no longer protect him...his destiny is fulfilled and that warrior ends up dying in battle. So, the only invulnerability in the Iliad actually stems from the protection of the gods themselves...not from personal invulnerability that the warrior may own. Achilles was a demi god and was highly skilled...but without the protection of the gods...he could have and probably would have been struck down in battle much earlier.

As for the winner of this fight...it is hard to say. In myth...the Myrmidons would have had the protection of the gods...so, they would more than likely defeat the the Spartans...if it is what fate had intended. In a real life fight...it could possibly go either way. The Spartans lived to fight....their sons were trained to be the best from childhood...and no other fighting force in the ancient world had that kind of discipline or pure skill at the time. So, it's hard to say who would win a real battle.

That depends on what myth you believe. So myths say he was stabbed in the back while visiting Polyxena and some say Apollo empowered and guided Paris's arrow. But he was indeed dipped in the river Styx.

Originally posted by Hercules
Well this is where I tend to fall back on history and the way they would be armoured but again even armoured I agree against the Myrmidons of myth, they lose.

Terrain plays a huge part in how effective a phalanx is, its easy to out flank and its not overly manuerable, on an open battlefield, with no missle support from Peltasts or archers they die and die badly.

Agreed though this is a factor we don't have, to be honest, If were talking the Spartans from the film compared to Mrymidons of myth then again your spot on, they die.

Its actually just refreshing to get to debate someone who has your knowledge so I was having a little fun.

Me Too



Yes this was fun

I wouldn't normally come in here since I'm not to much of a comic book fan nor do I know much about the characters but when I seen the title from the main forum page I thought this might be an interesting debate.

I think that if we didn't have this discussion everyone would be Pro-Spartan. Spartans are good but compared to Mythological Figures they aren't so tough

Originally posted by Ana P
That depends on what myth you believe. So myths say he was stabbed in the back while visiting Polyxena and some say Apollo empowered and guided Paris's arrow. But he was indeed dipped in the river Styx.


Exactly...that's my point though....Achilles was not invulnerable...else he could never die via battle wounds. Even if his heel was the only vulnerable spot....that still means he was vulnerable. The only reference to Achilles being dipped in the river Styx comes from the Roman poet Statius.

In the Iliad, Asteropaeus challenged Achilles by the river Scamander. He cast two spears and one of them grazed Achilles' elbow...drawing blood. "Invulnerable" means that one is incapable of being wounded, hurt, or damaged.

So, in essence, Homer never intended Achilles to be invulnerable. Achilles only survived until the gods agreed that it was time for him to die. Later myths implied that Achilles was invulnerable...but the later myths contradict Homer in several aspects.

Originally posted by Ana P
Me Too



Yes this was fun

I wouldn't normally come in here since I'm not to much of a comic book fan nor do I know much about the characters but when I seen the title from the main forum page I thought this might be an interesting debate.

I think that if we didn't have this discussion everyone would be Pro-Spartan. Spartans are good but compared to Mythological Figures they aren't so tough

I rarely comment in the 300 threads but when I saw your post I saw an opportunity to debate someone who had some knowledge on both the myth and the history.

And I concur Mythological figures ftw!

Originally posted by charlemagne9746
Exactly...that's my point though....Achilles was not invulnerable...else he could never die via battle wounds. Even if his heel was the only vulnerable spot....that still means he was vulnerable. The only reference to Achilles being dipped in the river Styx comes from the Roman poet Statius.

In the Iliad, Asteropaeus challenged Achilles by the river Scamander. He cast two spears and one of them grazed Achilles' elbow...drawing blood. "Invulnerable" means that one is incapable of being wounded, hurt, or damaged.

So, in essence, Homer never intended Achilles to be invulnerable. Achilles only survived until the gods agreed that it was time for him to die. Later myths implied that Achilles was invulnerable...but the later myths contradict Homer in several aspects.

The thread starter didn't state anything so we can only speculate on the conditions of this battle, which we are doing. You can't say he isn't because Crease didn't mention anything on which myth to follow.

Also, just because he has a weakness doesn't me he isn't invulnerable. We've seen Superman bleed from hard enough punches. That doesn't mean he is not invulnerable, it just means he is invulnerable to a certain extent. The same may be with that myth about Achilles, maybe in that myth if he gets shot in the head with an arrow it breaks and falls to the ground and the only thing that can kill him is a blow it his weak spot do to some curse from the Styx for not completely being dipped. We can only speculate.

Originally posted by Ana P
The thread starter didn't state anything so we can only speculate on the conditions of this battle, which we are doing. You can't say he isn't because Crease didn't mention anything on which myth to follow.

Also, just because he has a weakness doesn't me he isn't invulnerable. We've seen Superman bleed from hard enough punches. That doesn't mean he is not invulnerable, it just means he is invulnerable to a certain extent. The same may be with that myth about Achilles, maybe in that myth if he gets shot in the head with an arrow it breaks and falls to the ground and the only thing that can kill him is a blow it his weak spot do to some curse from the Styx for not completely being dipped. We can only speculate.


lol....I know what you're saying. Invulnerability is the wrong word to use I believe. If something bleeds..it definitely is vulnerable to physical harm. The proper term to use might be "Invincible"...Invincible is applied to that which cannot be conquered in combat or war, or overcome or subdued in any manner.....that would describe Achilles'...it doesn't mean that he can't be killed....it just means that he can not be defeated in straight up combat.

I'm just prone to argue on little things...lol...I'm bored and it gives me something to do right now..lol

Maybe, in some sense...Achilles is like Duncan MacLeod, the Highlander....except that Achilles isn't immortal. Duncan can be physically hurt in battle, yet the only way he can die is if you take his head. Achilles is said to only be able to die if his heel is punctured. Same difference I guess

I agree that Invincible would have been somewhat of a better title. I like the idea of him being unbeatable and untouchable (which he kinda was) and anything short of a god can't kill him.

Oh and I was under the impression that Connor MacLeod had to kill in order to stay immortal. But I'm reading that he kills to get "The Prize"

All this time I was thinking "There Can Be Only One" meant "There Can Be Only One Immortal" but it actually means "There Can Be Only One Winner Of The Prize"...

More maybe that's what the prize is... being the only one who gains true Immortality...

The winner of the prize gains the knowledge and skill of every immortal that ever existed...the accumulated quickening of all immortals granted to the last immortal standing. Gives him the ability to read the minds of every living creature on the planet, as well as have children, grow old, and die.

Originally posted by Ana P
The Myrmidons are Mythological Beings.

They where Ants that were given Human form by Zeus himself. They were created to be just as hardy as ants, meaning they possibly had some degree of super strength and durability. They were also highly trained. If you take that into consideration and the fact that Achilles is a great warrior and leader there is no reason why the Myrmidons should lose.

You also can't compare poorly trained Persians to Highly Trained Greeks with basically the same training as the Spartans. And the Trojan Army (Who The Myrmidons Fought) were no push overs much like the Persian Army.

ughh.. nice post for the most part, but it's folley to assume that the entirety of the persian army wasn't well trained.. the immortals for instance.. the movie obviously didn't portray them correctly but the emotions they conveyed to the majority of the greek populace was dead on when they were first mentioned in the movie..

up until thermopolye no one had yet figured out a way to beat them.. they HAD conquered most of the armies of the known world by that point. they were HIGHLY trained warriors.

Originally posted by jinzin
ughh.. nice post for the most part, but it's folley to assume that the entirety of the persian army wasn't well trained.. the immortals for instance.. the movie obviously didn't portray them correctly but the emotions they conveyed to the majority of the greek populace was dead on when they were first mentioned in the movie..

up until thermopolye no one had yet figured out a way to beat them.. they HAD conquered most of the armies of the known world by that point. they were HIGHLY trained warriors.

Agreed, but, they didn't have the training or physical edge over the Spartans, basically, the Spartans are just more skilled. Also, Spartans have a big advantage as far as weaponry goes (I mean, the immortals used wicker shields). Think of it like Batman vs. a professional boxer. Batman has more skill, a physical advantage, and much better weaponry.

Oh yeah, and the 300 go down, if we base this on the Myrmidons from the Iliad.

Originally posted by jollyjim311
Agreed, but, they didn't have the training or physical edge over the Spartans, basically, the Spartans are just more skilled. Also, Spartans have a big advantage as far as weaponry goes (I mean, the immortals used wicker shields). Think of it like Batman vs. a professional boxer. Batman has more skill, a physical advantage, and much better weaponry.

Oh yeah, and the 300 go down, if we base this on the Myrmidons from the Iliad.

pretty much in agreement with everything you just said, I just wanted to point out the fighters like the immortals were not getting the due credit they deserved.

Im skipping the entire thread, because I notice that people are talking about the MYTHOLOGICAL Myrmidons.

However, the thread refers to the Myrmidons from TROY - who did absolutely NOTHING impressive.

Originally posted by jinzin
ughh.. nice post for the most part, but it's folley to assume that the entirety of the persian army wasn't well trained.. the immortals for instance.. the movie obviously didn't portray them correctly but the emotions they conveyed to the majority of the greek populace was dead on when they were first mentioned in the movie..

up until thermopolye no one had yet figured out a way to beat them.. they HAD conquered most of the armies of the known world by that point. they were HIGHLY trained warriors.

Originally posted by jinzin
pretty much in agreement with everything you just said, I just wanted to point out the fighters like the immortals were not getting the due credit they deserved.

Hercules and I have already settled this debate. Go back to the first page.

I don't want to go over this again.

Originally posted by Soljer
Im skipping the entire thread, because I notice that people are talking about the MYTHOLOGICAL Myrmidons.

However, the thread refers to the Myrmidons from TROY - who did absolutely NOTHING impressive.

Hercules and I have already come up with multiple scenarios onto which versions would win. Instead of skipping the thread try reading it

Originally posted by Ana P


Hercules and I have already come up with multiple scenarios onto which versions would win. Instead of skipping the thread try reading it

Or, I could not waste my time.

The 'movie' Three Hundred absolutely rape the 'movie' Myrmidons.

Originally posted by Soljer
Or, I could not waste my time.

The 'movie' Three Hundred absolutely rape the 'movie' Myrmidons.

Do whatever you want.

We've already stated that...

Hell, the mythological Achilles could possibly solo the 300. Keep in mind that in most myths, it's Paris, with Apollo guiding the arrow, who finally takes him down. Nobody else, except for one person who I'll mention later, was able to solo him. And Achilles had divine armor forged by Hephaestus. I just don't see the Spartans taking him down. Btw, the guy who hurt Achilles at the river Scamander? I'm pretty sure that was Sarpedon, a son of Zeus. So that's not really a knock on Achille's durability.

Edit: Oh, and Zeus send the gods to restrain Achilles after Hera and Hephaestus beat back Sarpedon. Apparently, Achilles was capable of defying destiny and sacking Troy by himself, before the time when Zeus wanted the city to fall.

Originally posted by Ana P
Hercules and I have already settled this debate. Go back to the first page.

I don't want to go over this again.

actually you didn't settle anything with herc on the matter.. when he pointed out the skill of the immortals and that your post seemed to identify the opposite, you ignored the observation completely.

you said they weren't all they were cracked up to be in the movie.. and indeed, they were... People were terrified of the immortals.. hell the spartans weren't even sure if they could beat them when they first encountered eachother... thankfully for the spartans.. the spartans were just better... that doesn't mean the immortals were poorly trained as your post had implied it to.

Originally posted by jinzin
actually you didn't settle anything with herc on the matter.. when he pointed out the skill of the immortals and that your post seemed to identify the opposite, you ignored the observation completely.

you said they weren't all they were cracked up to be in the movie.. and indeed, they were... People were terrified of the immortals.. hell the spartans weren't even sure if they could beat them when they first encountered eachother... thankfully for the spartans.. the spartans were just better... that doesn't mean the immortals were poorly trained as your post had implied it to.

No I didn't.

Go back and read our conversation from start to finish.

I said...

If you go by the 300 as they appear in Herodotus' history of the battle, versus Achilles and the Myrmidons as they appear in the Iliad, it's a no-contest match.

The Myrmidons casually curbstomp every single Spartan, without breaking much of a sweat.

Originally posted by Ana P
No I didn't.

Go back and read our conversation from start to finish.

I said...

Why would I do that when one) I already have.
and two) me reading through it again isn't going to make what you said any less wrong.


Actually you did, and you JUST POINTED OUT THAT YOU DID....

so let me get this straight.... when you're a portion of an army that has conquered most of the known world, and no one has yet figured out a way to beat you... you're still not all that you're cracked up to be because some of the worlds greatest warriors defeat you???

again, aside from the fact that the movie immortals were ninja orcs and didn't have their wicker shields, the movie DID however portray the emotion that they conveyed to the the greek populace dead on..

Originally posted by jinzin
Why would I do that when one) I already have.
and two) me reading through it again isn't going to make what you said any less wrong.


Actually you did, and you JUST POINTED OUT THAT YOU DID....

so let me get this straight.... when you're a portion of an army that has conquered most of the known world, and no one has yet figured out a way to beat you... you're still not all that you're cracked up to be because some of the worlds greatest warriors defeat you???

again, aside from the fact that the movie immortals were ninja orcs and didn't have their wicker shields, the movie DID however portray the emotion that they conveyed to the the greek populace dead on..

Jesus Christ

I said they were well trained but when they went up against the Spartans they didn't fair so well. I did not mean to say they were the worse army in the world.

Listen, I'm not into getting into arguments over stuff like this. If you want a argument don't look for one out of me.

Originally posted by Ana P
Jesus Christ

I said they were well trained but when they went up against the Spartans they didn't fair so well. I did not mean to say they were the worse army in the world.

Listen, I'm not into getting into arguments over stuff like this. If you want a argument don't look for one out of me.

well it's not much of an argument considering there's nothing to debate.

You said what you said, and what you said had implications that were in a word: wrong... nuff said really.

Lord

You completely misunderstood what I was trying to say.

I'll never post here again. I see why some people say the Vs. forum is bad.