300 run the Gauntlet

Originally posted by grey fox
Have to agree.

There was a 3 page debate on Samurai versus Spartans in the History forum and it eventually concluded that while the Samurai MAY be more skilled then a Spartan in certain forms of sword-play, their inferior armour and useless sword style would give them the defeat.

useless? in what way?

Originally posted by SevenShackles
useless? in what way?

It has multiple problems which render it useless in this particular battle.

A. The katana is a singular edged weapon, meaning from the get go your odds of wounding your enemy are halved.

B. The blade has very little point thus stabbing attacks (even on unarmoured flesh) were difficult, thanks to this it can't penetrate even low-grade chainmail. The swords would have to compete with (reasonably) high grade Bronze armour.

C. The blades can be shattered quicker and easier , then the rougher weaponry used by the spartans

Originally posted by grey fox
It has multiple problems which render it useless in this particular battle.

A. The katana is a singular edged weapon, meaning from the get go your odds of wounding your enemy are halved.

B. The blade has very little point thus stabbing attacks (even on unarmoured flesh) were difficult, thanks to this it can't penetrate even low-grade chainmail. The swords would have to compete with (reasonably) high grade Bronze armour.

C. The blades can be shattered quicker and easier , then the rougher weaponry used by the spartans

ahhh thanks for the info. knowledge truly is power 😱

Japanese steel sucks, which is why there are so many folds in a Katana blade, to stengthen it, their armour is leather due to the way Samurai fight and they use no shields due to their style of fighting. For a long period in Japan the Yari (spear) was the weapon of choice for infantry.

The legions didn't use the Phalanx after 500BC and the legions of the Republic were split into Equites (cavalry), Velites (light infantry), Hastati (heavy infantry, young troops), Princeps (heaby infantry men in their prime) and Tiarii (veterans and the last line of defense) all heavy infantry apart from the Tiarii who uses spears would be equiped with pilum and Gladius.

As for chariots, they were not used by Romans in battle, mainly for recreation, chariots were really outmoded by cavalry.

The armies of the late republic/early empire were different again after the Marian reforms and the armies of the late empire different once more.

So you need to specify which Roman legionaries you are talking about, a Roman legion of the late republic/early empire would have ground a phalanx up and spit it out.

Originally posted by braz
300 Spartans from the movie, 300 with their standard weapons/armour.

Fighting at the Hot Gates.

1. 300 Native Americans

2. 600 Natives

3. 300 Roman Legionnaires(movie-The Last Legion)

4. 600 Legionnaires

5. 300 Samurai from The Last Samurai

6. 600 Samurai

7. 300 Cowboys

8. 600 Cowboys

9. Master Chief-Energy Sword and Mark VI armor.

Looking at the list again, I take it 600 Natives = Native americans, what are they armed with?

Are they a particular tribe? (some were much more warlike than others) from what time period are they from as they could concievably be armed with rifles themselves.

Originally posted by Hercules
Looking at the list again, I take it 600 Natives = Native americans, what are they armed with?

Are they a particular tribe? (some were much more warlike than others) from what time period are they from as they could concievably be armed with rifles themselves.

sort of hoping natives = Vikings

Originally posted by SevenShackles
sort of hoping natives = Vikings

But that would mess up the order, as it seems to go 300 to 600 of the same type?

Originally posted by Hercules
But that would mess up the order, as it seems to go 300 to 600 of the same type?

yeah but vikings would be better than native Americans.. their weapons sucked. i mean they talk about the samurais swords falling short, but these people used spears easily broken by metal, and arrows that couldnt do much of crap. at least a horde of vikings would look scary.

tomohawk vs battleAxe.
who do you think is a better pick?

Originally posted by SevenShackles
yeah but vikings would be better than native Americans.. their weapons sucked. i mean they talk about the samurais swords falling short, but these people used spears easily broken by metal, and arrows that couldnt do much of crap. at least a horde of vikings would look scary.

Depends on the time period, Native Americans used rifles bought, traded and taken from European settlers.

Also the primary weapon of the Native American would have been the throwing spear and later the bow and arrow not the tomahawk, although both had a relatively short range.

Once they aquired Horses they were a more mobile force and would shoot from horseback, so really, depending on the era Native Americans could put up more of a fight than you think.

Originally posted by Hercules
Depends on the time period, Native Americans used rifles bought, traded and taken from European settlers.

sort of sucks the fun out of it dont you think?

Originally posted by SevenShackles
cowboys win cuz of guns.. so if he was talking bout native americans with rifles which i dont think is the case, since most just give them their stereotypical gear. shouldnt the Spartans end at 1 or 2?

sort of sucks the fun out of it dont you think?

Look at my edit above, stereotypical doesn't = factual.

This is why the OP should be more specific about equipment etc, he didn't specify so it is concievable that these Native Americans could have been a raiding party of Plains Apache armed with Winchesters and on horseback.

Originally posted by Hercules
Look at my edit above, stereotypical doesn't = factual.

This is why the OP should be more specific about equipment etc, he didn't specify so it is concievable that these Native Americans could have been a raiding party of Plains Apache armed with Winchesters and on horseback.

Winchesters take the spartans.. yeah you have a point here and im starting to wish the OP would clarify. even tho im sure since they are so low in the gauntlet itself they wont be given such weapons.

btw i only brought up the tomahawk as something to compair to an battle Axe. i honestly find the stereotypical native American depiction to be abit tastless.

humm talking bout Native Americans and Vikings makes me think of the movie Pathfinder.

Originally posted by SevenShackles
Winchesters take the spartans.. yeah you have a point here and im starting to wish the OP would clarify. even tho im sure since they are so low in the gauntlet itself they wont be given such weapons.

btw i only brought up the tomahawk as something to compair to an battle Axe. i honestly find the stereotypical native American depiction to be abit tastless.

humm talking bout Native Americans and Vikings makes me think of the movie Pathfinder.

I agree, that if he has put them 1. and 2. on the list then I doubt they would have anything but basic armament native to them but loopholes like not specifying leave it open to say that they wouldn't get past 1.

Huscarls with their two handed axes would give the Spartans trouble imo, it was said those things could cleave a horse in two with one shot and the men that wielded them were huge and very skilled.

It makes me think of 13th Warrior! 😄

Originally posted by Hercules
I agree, that if he has put them 1. and 2. on the list then I doubt they would have anything but basic armament native to them but loopholes like not specifying leave it open to say that they wouldn't get past 1.

Huscarls with their two handed axes would give the Spartans trouble imo, it was said those things could cleave a horse in two with one shot and the men that wielded them were huge and very skilled.

It makes me think of 13th Warrior! 😄

ah! Huge men with axes said capable of cleaving a horse in two! i wonder where that would fall in the argument of 'attacks VS bronze shields' . someone might also raise the point of the Spartans defeating that giant troll like immortal [was he an immortal] in the novel/movie, but as you said a huge difference is that giant was a brute, and the axe using Huscarls is an actual skilled warrior. that is really interesting.

think they can break spartan battle formation?

lol yes! 13th Warrior! better movie choice 😄

Native Americans from around the 12th century have: bow and arrow, tomahawks and spear. Werent they still using stone weaponry then? Thats why I put them at the beginning. And its just some random tribe, Idunno which lol.

Originally posted by braz
Native Americans from around the 12th century have: bow and arrow, tomahawks and spear. Werent they still using stone weaponry then? Thats why I put them at the beginning. And its just some random tribe, Idunno which lol.

next time throw vikings into the mix! thanks for clearing that up btw.

Originally posted by braz
Native Americans from around the 12th century have: bow and arrow, tomahawks and spear. Werent they still using stone weaponry then? Thats why I put them at the beginning. And its just some random tribe, Idunno which lol.

Well Tomahawks had stone heads that were sharpened tradtionally and the arrow heads would have most probably been flint or some kind of sharpened stone.

I've never seen the film Lost legion but I think the Spartans would be hard pushed to beat 600 Legionaries, if they were from the late republic/early empire.

Originally posted by SevenShackles
next time throw vikings into the mix! thanks for clearing that up btw.

Yeah, that would be good. 😉