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

300 vs 1000 Medieval Knights who have cavalry and the whole shebang.
Both get low-grade steel weaponry/armor tho to make things fair.

Scenarios:

1. Historical 300
2. Movie 300

Setting: Thermopylae (narrow pass where they fought the Persians)

Historically, Calvary has demolished infantry for a reason.

Especially when it's over three to one.

I agree with the above.

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.

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 braz
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. 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.

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.

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.

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!

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 braz


Setting: Thermopylae (narrow pass where they fought the Persians)

Sparta 10/10

zero casualties

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

are you still mad at me braz

If your going to take Arthur then you should take Merlin to

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 don't shiv
are you still mad at me braz

Why would I be mad at u?

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.

Hm, ok then. I gotta check that out then. It came out in 2004 right?

Originally posted by charlemagne9746
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.

The film claimed to be based on archeological evidence but it was garbage, It has Saxons invading from the north (they didn't they were mainly in the south and the midlands and they were actually invited as mercenary troops and when agreements to pay and supply them weren't met, revolted and it wasn't until the mid sixth century they began expanding to the north and west)

Don't get me started on the crossbows! Saxons were not known for the use of them nor did they apear on 5th century battlefields in Britain!

Lancelots sword hilts had Torx fasteners, which were not available in fifth century Britain.

The Pope had no power to give land to a people till 400 years later.

The guy who betrays them is hiding in a horse chestnut tree, these weren't introduced to Britain till the 16th century...

The Hawk that they use is a sodding Harris Hawk! I.E. its from the America's last time I checked Columbus was about one thousand years later!

Don't get me started on the siege engines or how they were being used or the fact they they wouldn't work!

Oh and Barbed wire! how the hell does that work when it wasn't invented till the 1800's?

I'm not going to even talk about some of the weapons and armour being used by the "knights" in the film

The battle at the end is meant to be the Battle of Baden hill, this battle took place several centuries after the Romans had left Britain and Baden Hill is quite a way South of Hadrians Wall.

As you can see this film burns my biscuits! I don't mind a bit of fantasy with my history but to claim to be based on actual evidence and be so far off the mark its not funny, takes the p!ss!

Having said all that Movie Arthur and his knights would get slaughtered by Movie 300.

Originally posted by Hercules
The film claimed to be based on archeological evidence but it was garbage, It has Saxons invading from the north (they didn't they were mainly in the south and the midlands and they were actually invited as mercenary troops and when agreements to pay and supply them weren't met, revolted and it wasn't until the mid sixth century they began expanding to the north and west)

Don't get me started on the crossbows! Saxons were not known for the use of them nor did they apear on 5th century battlefields in Britain!

Lancelots sword hilts had Torx fasteners, which were not available in fifth century Britain.

The Pope had no power to give land to a people till 400 years later.

The guy who betrays them is hiding in a horse chestnut tree, these weren't introduced to Britain till the 16th century...

The Hawk that they use is a sodding Harris Hawk! I.E. its from the America's last time I checked Columbus was about one thousand years later!

Don't get me started on the siege engines or how they were being used or the fact they they wouldn't work!

Oh and Barbed wire! how the hell does that work when it wasn't invented till the 1800's?

I'm not going to even talk about some of the weapons and armour being used by the "knights" in the film

The battle at the end is meant to be the Battle of Baden hill, this battle took place several centuries after the Romans had left Britain and Baden Hill is quite a way South of Hadrians Wall.

As you can see this film burns my biscuits! I don't mind a bit of fantasy with my history but to claim to be based on actual evidence and be so far off the mark its not funny, takes the p!ss!

Having said all that Movie Arthur and his knights would get slaughtered by Movie 300.


True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.

Originally posted by charlemagne9746
True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.

Didnt Troy take place before the 300 Spartans?

Originally posted by braz
Didnt Troy take place before the 300 Spartans?


yeah, the Trojan War supposedly occured around 1200 B.C.

The Persian Wars were some 800 years later.

Originally posted by charlemagne9746
True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.

Troy made no bones about the fact it deviated wildly from the Iliad and it was just a sword and sandals film.

If Arthur had done the same I would have been fine with it, it was the claims of being the real story of Arthur and based on actual evidence it that annoyed me.

Yes Braz, Troy was a lot earlier than the events in 300.

The 300 lose , badly.

It doesn't matter what ore their weaponry is produced from when said weapons are up against a high level of tech.

Originally posted by grey fox
The 300 lose , badly.

It doesn't matter what ore their weaponry is produced from when said weapons are up against a high level of tech.

I agree

Back on topic if 500 knights are in full plate and 500 in partial plate then the Spartans weapons are going to have a hard time penetrating.

Originally posted by Hercules
I agree

Back on topic if 500 knights are in full plate and 500 in partial plate then the Spartans weapons are going to have a hard time penetrating.

Indeed , even partial plate is difficult. I've seen some re-creations of partial plate and it's pretty damn difficult to get to the vitals without getting within stabbing range.

Originally posted by grey fox
Indeed , even partial plate is difficult. I've seen some re-creations of partial plate and it's pretty damn difficult to get to the vitals without getting within stabbing range.

Yup Spartan spears arn't going to do it and their swords are in a word pants!

Too much of a gap in weapon and armour tech for the Spartans to compensate for.