Originally posted by SpunkySmurph
I'd like to think the movie 300 would do fairly well, though probably still lose... arguing for the historical 300 is fairly dumb, unless you have anything more then tales and hype to judge the battle on.
Uhhmmm. The real Spartans werent dumb. There was no HYPE about them. The hype for the 300 is all in the movie/graphic novel. The real ones were still badass as can be though. They were 300 elite Spartans who killed nearly 20,000 Persians in 2 days.
Originally posted by brazMy only point is, it's a f*cking long time since the supposed battle, we don't know all the details of the battle that weren't passed on over time. I can't imagine how much would get lost over a time period like that.
Uhhmmm. The real Spartans werent dumb. There was no HYPE about them. The hype for the 300 is all in the movie/graphic novel. The real ones were still badass as can be though. They were 300 elite Spartans who killed nearly 20,000 Persians in 2 days.
Originally posted by SpunkySmurph
My only point is, it's a f*cking long time since the supposed battle, we don't know all the details of the battle that weren't passed on over time. I can't imagine how much would get lost over a time period like that.
I've thought about that myself, but you would be amazed at what they can uncover. The Spartans werent even close to being 'dumb' either. The Persians were dumb, if anything, all of them, even the Immortals. You know the Immortals in real life were really no challenge like they were shown in the movie? the 300 slaughtered them. No contest. 10,000 of them. And they were supposed to be elite and they also trained ever since they could basically walk when they were little kids like the Spartans.
The Spartans were said by many to be the 'Delta Force' special ops of the ancient world and chose Thermopylae as the setting to fight, a genious battle tactic as it funnels down a large army and makes it into a liability or more of a fair fight, when then its a battle of superior h2h combat and not numbers. Spartans easily won. The phalanx- probably the greatest battle tactic of the ancient world.
Originally posted by Soljer
Where the hell does it say anything about King Arthur in the thread?The 300 vs Arthur alone wouldn't be fair to the Spartans!
Notice that I had said...SHOULD'VE made a thread with the 300 vs Arthur and his Knights. In any event...Braz is pitting the 300 against medeival knights. I was just giving more specific opponents for the 300.
Arthur is good...but he couldn't defeat the 300 alone
Originally posted by Soljer
Historically, Calvary has demolished infantry for a reason.Especially when it's over three to one.
Actually charging cavarly into a phalanx head on would be suicidal for the cavalry if the terrain is Themoplyae then there is no way for the cavalry to flank them.
Cavalry have always worked best hitting infantry in the flanks or from the rear and spear and pole armed infantry have always been the bane of cavalry.
Once you bog cavalry down and they lose their momentum they die very quickly.
Terrain also plays a part, Saxons for instance rode to battle on horses but never fought on horseback, the two handed Danish Axes the Huscarls weidled combined with a shield wall, handled Cavlary pretty well.
English Heavy Horse were defeated at Stirling by infantry with long spears, French Knights were decimated at Agincourt by longbowmen and boggy terrain.
Cavalry are not your battle winners against the 300 with their flanks protected by walls of sheer rock.
However numbers and far superior armour and weapons are and the knights should decimate the historical 300, and the movie 300 if the whole shebang consists of several hundren longbowmen who can fire 6 arrows a minute with an impact that can pierce solid oak.
Originally posted by charlemagne9746
Braz....you should've made a thread pitting the 300 against King Arthur and his Knights. Have you seen the movie King Arthur? He and his knights slaughtered much of the invading Saxon army.
I wouldve but didnt King Arthur have like mystical powers and such? 😕 IMO it wouldve been a curbstomp for Arthur and the Knights.
Originally posted by Hercules
Actually charging cavarly into a phalanx head on would be suicidal for the cavalry if the terrain is Themoplyae then there is no way for the cavalry to flank them.Cavalry have always worked best hitting infantry in the flanks or from the rear and spear and pole armed infantry have always been the bane of cavalry.
Once you bog cavalry down and they lose their momentum they die very quickly.
Terrain also plays a part, Saxons for instance rode to battle on horses but never fought on horseback, the two handed Danish Axes the Huscarls weidled combined with a shield wall, handled Cavlary pretty well.
English Heavy Horse were defeated at Stirling by infantry with long spears, French Knights were decimated at Agincourt by longbowmen and boggy terrain.
Cavalry are not your battle winners against the 300 with their flanks protected by walls of sheer rock.
However numbers and far superior armour and weapons are and the knights should decimate the historical 300, and the movie 300 if the whole shebang consists of several hundren longbowmen who can fire 6 arrows a minute with an impact that can pierce solid oak.
✅
Sry, I forgot to mention, no longbows, that just bends the favor too much for the Knights 😬
Originally posted by braz
✅Sry, I forgot to mention, no longbows, that just bends the favor too much for the Knights 😬
Ok, a thousand foot knights should be enough, their armour and weapons should prove to be too much for the Spartan weapons, there spears will break and their swords are inferior and probably not getting through full plate (are we talking full plate, partial plate or chainmail here, what era are these knights from?)
Originally posted by Hercules
Ok, a thousand foot knights should be enough, their armour and weapons should prove to be too much for the Spartan weapons, there spears will break and their swords are inferior and probably not getting through full plate (are we talking full plate, partial plate or chainmail here, what era are these knights from?)
No there's still cavalry, just no long bows. and half have full platemail and the other half has chain/plate mail.
Originally posted by braz
I wouldve but didnt King Arthur have like mystical powers and such? 😕 IMO it wouldve been a curbstomp for Arthur and the Knights.
Nah....this movie wasn't based on the myth of Camelot. The movie was based on the "historical" King Arthur. Arthur lived during the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Middle Ages when barbarian tribes were consolodating Roman territory....hence the Saxons invading England. Arthur and his Knights were the first of their kind in history and they were wholly warriors. They didn't use mystical forces.