PDA

View Full Version : Real World Figures and Battles



imp_fireball
2010-09-07, 10:16 PM
That one battle with the spartans Vs. the > 1 billion persians!

http://dicefreaks.superforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=446

Oh hey, that's how the movie assumed things went, but what about the real world?
------

Battle of Thermopylae, lol

Hm... let's say, the spartans are all equipped with either long spears or great spears. Great spears have a reach of 15ft. for a medium creature wielding them (yah... spears could get that long actually).... but I think long spears would be more concievable anyway.

The spartan

Equipped with:
- Great spear (15ft. reach spear, 1d12 piercing damage; cannot be readied against a charge)
- Hoplite armor (breast plate made of bronze; so that's probably a regular breastplate with less hardness then the standard steel).
- Hoplite shield (big round shield that allows you to take cover; +2 shield bonus to AC when fighting or +4 shield bonus when fighting defensively, no penalty for fighting in melee if fighting defensively, maximum Dex bonus of +2; Armor check penalty of -8).
- Various Short Spears on the ground

Likely Stats of Spartan

3rd level human Fighter
3d10+3 HD (19 Hp)
20 Total AC, 18 Flatfooted, 13 Touch (+2 Shield bonus, +5 armor bonus, +2 dexterity, +1 Misc.)
Feats: Phalanx Fighting, Short Haft, Hold the Line, Combat Reflexes, Spear and Shield fighter (DnD wiki, hurray!)
Attack: +5 with greatspear

Ability scores

Strength 15, Dexterity 14, Con 13, Int 8, Wis 9, Cha 8

Basically, exceptional-ish array. Levels reflect lifetime of training.

The spartan leader is probably just another spartan fighter 3, likely standing in the second line, protected from the front.

Anyway, assuming there's 300 spartans (and not the +/- uncertainty seemingly invoked by wikipedia), that would be two lines of spartans all equipped with hoplite shields, breast plate and long spears.

Two lines, each consisting of 150 men. They are defending a 750ft. chasm or a chasm that is presumably less wide. If the chasm is less wide then they are able to cluster and maintain a perfect phalanx, however this also means that spaces they threaten overlap even more.

The phalanx stands right at the gap, meaning persians can just poor from more angles than 150 spaces horizontally across.

Thus I'll houserule that:
- Overlapping threatened spaces threaten normally when more than one participant occupies the same space from which they can threaten other spaces
-
----

So anyway.

Round 1

The persians approach in a grouping of 600 infantry. They are all 1st level warriors or commoners with guts. They're all wearing cloth armor.

The first line closes into within 20ft. away from the spartans, while the fourth and final line is at 60ft.

The first ones ready an action to charge, while every line behind them readies an action to move in when the line before them moves.

So, the first line charges in, invoking the readied action from the first line of hoplites.

- Hoplites attack with readied action. Any attack that hits immediately slays or fells. On average that's a roll of 15 versus an AC of 9. Lowest roll without a miss is a 7. The triggered attack can be assumed to slay 85% of the persians. And then hold the line triggers, invoking an AoO from any spartans who haven't slay their man yet - which takes care of the remaining persians in line one.

- Line two of persian infantry moves in to attack, but in order to do so, they must move through a threatened space. Roll of 15 on average versus AC of 11. 75% of persians are dead on the first AoOs made, but then since spears are overlapping, there's more AoOs to be had - concievably, the second line is completely slain as well since moving adjacent to a spartan with a greatspear still means moving through a threatened the spartan second in line with another great spear.

- Line three moves in and the same happens again. But by now, a good portion of the infantry has used up their AoOs - so maybe a readied action triggered from round 1 from some spartans in the back is made to throw some short spears at some persians, felling a good few and freeing up some AoOs.

- Line four moves in, more readied actions to throw short spears are triggered from the back line (they trigger when the persians move within 20ft.). The remaining AoOs finish off the persians.

- It is now the turn of the collective spartans. They all elect to act on the same turn and shout out an intimidate check against the persian army. A round is devoted to moving more persian infantry in to take on the spartans. Spartans in the back once again ready actions to throw more short spears and attack anyone that moves within reach.

- 600 more persian infantry rally up with the first line commanded to charge, and process begins all over again. Persian commanders are hoping to wear out spartans. The same pretty much starts up again.

- Round 4 or 5 involves a cavalry charge from the persians - since cavalry don't have reach despite being size large, this ends up deadly for the persians. Initial action of readied longspears against persian mounts - mounts are slain or dealt AoOs. The riders are bombarded with thrown short spears. When the riders fall prone from slain mounts, more attacks of opportunity result. Mounts are large so less can be lined up against the spartans.

- Because mounts move quickly though, their is still a large abundancy of them. Lots of AoOs, etc.

- Eventually the mounds of corpses make it harder for the persians to move in. Charging is impossible - given gaps in time, the spartans pull out swords and finish off foes. Persians bombard spartans with arrows, but spartans take total cover with their shields.

- Eventually the spartans are slain when they are smashed apart by a continuous cavalry charge, or perhaps that 'ol goat path. If the spartans can take cover from one side, they can't do it while flanked, I suppose.


That Battle where Genghis Khan attacked 200,000+ chinese from some snowy mountain slopes with only 20,000 or so of his own men (all mounted).
All of Genghis' soldiers are warriors. Genghis himself is a fairly high level fighter - maybe 4th or 6th (he's hand down, the most bad ass guy in human history; more so than Attila the Hun and other shrug offs); maybe he has the ability to rub off leadership onto his division commanders, who knows... meh, whatever.

Anyway...

All of Genghis' soldiers have mounted combat, and mounted archery as well as potentially ride by attack, point blank shot and rapid shot. This requires at least two levels in fighter, but his best trained could occupy this category.

He has several thousand prisoners (commoners) to use as human shields. They basically rush in from below as the fighters attack on high speed mounts. Mounts each probably have 50ft. move speed, and high Con scores.

The fighters bombard the disorganized chinese from height advantage - +1 attack, +2 BAB, +1 masterwork, +2 (dexterity). The bows also do at least +2 damage for being composite. It could be that the 3rd level fighter mongols typically took far shot.

Regardless, that's some serious arrow saturation per round - something like 40,000 arrows in total, coming from different sides and specifically aimed. The chinese can't organize a volley on any one area.

The chinese have cross bows, but that's only a mild range extension, most have poor visibility. The mongols have some kind of physical principle going for them from a houserule (like charging ranged attacks providing better attack vectors for higher damage, etc., etc.).

The human shield/commoners form a mob (using homebrewed mob rules on this forum) to do incredible damage and devour everything all the while double moving inwards.

With rideby attack, mounted mongols can shoot and withdraw on their turn. If they have far shot, they calculate their movement to keep shooting (perhaps rapid shotting, that's the intention), while remaining out of range of cross bow men. Their armor is boiled leather (+2) + they can make ride checks to avoid damage to mounts (mounted combat) and take cover with their mounts (ride check), and they have silk undershirts (minor hardness versus ranged damage).

The crossbow men typically have +1 or +2 attack (+1 BAB +/- ability score). when they attack the mounted mongols, it's at a -2 penalty probably + visual issues.

Most of the chinese are cavalry or infantry with dinky swords and shields, but there's a lot of warrior 1 crossbow men which prove to be the main problem for the mongols.

Eventually, all the chinese flee or die. Lawlz.

Knaight
2010-09-07, 10:36 PM
First thing first, the 300 figure ignores a rather large section of the army, the Spartans were the minority. Secondly, the greeks were using an 8 foot long spear (2.5 meters), where the Persians typically had a 6 foot long spear (2 meters), all of which are one handed. In D&D terms, nobody has reach as there is no one handed spear which grants it. As for how well the D&D levels approximate real life, I have no clue, but the acknowledgement of the weaponry actually on the field nullifies the Spartan's huge advantage, odds are they get killed off far more quickly than they did in real life. If your point is that D&D is a fairly accurate battle simulation, that breaks one example.

imp_fireball
2010-09-08, 04:02 PM
First thing first, the 300 figure ignores a rather large section of the army, the Spartans were the minority. Secondly, the greeks were using an 8 foot long spear (2.5 meters), where the Persians typically had a 6 foot long spear (2 meters), all of which are one handed. In D&D terms, nobody has reach as there is no one handed spear which grants it. As for how well the D&D levels approximate real life, I have no clue, but the acknowledgement of the weaponry actually on the field nullifies the Spartan's huge advantage, odds are they get killed off far more quickly than they did in real life. If your point is that D&D is a fairly accurate battle simulation, that breaks one example.

Well, let's see... 8ft. long pole could probably have reach if each spartan had a perk that extended their reach with longer weapons (weapons longer than a great sword typically).

Also, a shield wall could provide as much as regular hard cover rather than a dinky +3 AC.

Also, the persians had spears? Maybe they didn't have the extended reach perk that spartans might go for. Maybe your thinking of the immortals, who might have had spears and shields.

Maybe another perk (instead of a crappy dnd wiki feat) could treat the 8ft. pole as a light weapon in one hand (except during grapples and such)... but perhaps they can't ready against charges with it - it only works well for the phalanx fighting feat.

Instead of spear and shield fighting, the spartans could each take quick draw... that way, they could switch between short spears and their longer spears mid-way.

Finally, I still think that the persians had such a huge army that the spartans themselves had to at least face a couple thousand infantry and even more cavalry.

Zombimode
2010-09-08, 05:08 PM
Also, the persians had spears?

Uhm, yes? Every persian infantryman if not an archers was armed with shield and spear. They were called Sparabara.

But whats your point? That DnD can be used to modell real-world battles? Or that it cant?

Edit: besides, it was more like 1500 greeks (including the 300 personal guards of Leonidas of Sparta) vs. 100.000 persians

First rule: never trust popular media if it comes to history.

J.Gellert
2010-09-08, 05:33 PM
301 Spartans and 1000 Thespians is just the soldiers left on the last stand. There were about 2000-3000 more in the entire battle, though they didn't really do much (the Phocians guarding the mountain pass for example, are said to have routed without a battle).

Longspears ("Sarissas") were used by Alexander the Great, years later.

JonestheSpy
2010-09-08, 05:35 PM
DnD was descended from wargames that tried to replicate real-life battles, but trying to reverse-engineer DnD into historical war simulations is just not going to work. Think of factors like morale, how well-fed the troops are, etc. - not to mention subtle differences in weaponry - very important to actual warfare, barely mentioned in the DnD rules.

Cuaqchi
2010-09-08, 06:50 PM
Morale is the key factor here. Outside of a few exceptions; the Immortals (1000 elite horsemen/swordsmen) and maybe the hunters and animal handlers in control of the great beasts of Persia, Africa and conquered India, the Persian army was a slave force driven by a man far inferior to his predecessors.

The Greeks on the other hand were well trained having been fighting each other for generations, well led for the same reason, and in an easily defended area. Without the use of the goat pass to their south they could have held for at least as long as required to reinforce.

Also note that Bronze is actually superior to Iron and early Steel in all but one way, that being the ease of repair. A bronze weapon is harder and light than its iron counterpart, cheaper to make, forged at a lower and more easily produced tempurature and capable of an edge that doesn't dull. The downside is that the increased hardness can cause the item to snap and fragment when worn out requiring the weapon to be reforged rather than resharpened like an iron or steel blade. Finally it was the absence of resources that led to the movement from the bronze to iron age as the bronze alloy became harder to produce than pure iron.

Spiryt
2010-09-08, 06:54 PM
Bronzes have all higher density than iron and steels.

Dunno where "lighter" notion comes from.

Cuaqchi
2010-09-08, 10:19 PM
The equipment was crafted to specific shapes and features because of the way bronze is forged. A bronze cuirass for example would be shaped to fit the contours of the warriors body and would only be a measure of the surface area to the thickness required. An iron or steel cuirass would be shaped as a little more than a block lacking the curves and edges of the bronze cast and creating a need for both thicker armour and padding to reduce energy transfer through the armour. It isn't that bronze is lighter than iron, it is that bronze armour is lighter than iron armour.

Weapons also can be more specifically crafted as demonstrated with the Egyptian Khopesh, Macedonian Sicca, or the large flanged axes across most of India and the Med. If you can form exactly the shape you want you can leave the excess material off the weapon and save weight (important to the soldier) and material (important to the smith).

Haarkla
2010-09-09, 07:40 AM
Also note that Bronze is actually superior to Iron and early Steel in all but one way, that being the ease of repair. A bronze weapon is harder and light than its iron counterpart, cheaper to make, forged at a lower and more easily produced tempurature and capable of an edge that doesn't dull. The downside is that the increased hardness can cause the item to snap and fragment when worn out requiring the weapon to be reforged rather than resharpened like an iron or steel blade. Finally it was the absence of resources that led to the movement from the bronze to iron age as the bronze alloy became harder to produce than pure iron.
You have no idea of what you are talking about. Please do not pollute this board with your misinformation.

Harder? It is material strength that counts, and iron is superior in this regard.

Lighter? Bronze is denser, as the previous poster corrected you.

Cheaper to make? Wrong again. Iron is considerably cheaper than bronze and has been for almost 3000 years.

Forged at a lower and more easily produced tempurature. Amazingly, you are right on this point.

Capable of an edge that doesn't dull? While bronze is more corrosion resistant, irons greater strength means the edge is less subject to distortion.

"It was the absence of resources that led to the movement from the bronze to iron age." More the fact that Iron was both stronger and more abundant.

Psyx
2010-09-09, 08:04 AM
Morale is the key factor here.

Terrain and training are the key factors. This is a classic battle that shows that sheers numbers make for a poor force-multiplier, whereas terrain is invaluable. The narrow frontage of terrain made numerical superiority worthless. If you have a gap only 200 men wide, then 100,000 men mean nothing.

The Spartans at the battle were full-time professional warriors. Pretty much nobody else on the entire field of battle was (Including their Greek allies).

The Greeks trained to fight in tight formation, as a team, with a well-held frontage. Their armour was pretty good against arrows. The weakness of the formation was its flanks. All of this played to Greek advantage: The Persian arrows weren't overly effective, the terrain prevented the phalanxes being flanked, and it was a close-quarters slogging match.

The spears didn't matter so much. The Greek phalanx at close quarters works like a rugby scrum, flattening and trampling over their foes. Like the Roman army, the Greeks used short swords in close quarters, because it was very effective there.

To me though; the real heroes were the Thespians. The Spartans went all expecting to die. They were single men hand-picked to be sent on a suicide mission. Professional warriors and unquestionably brave. When the rest of the Greeks withdrew, the Thespians elected to stay and die as well. They were normal people, doing their military service. They didn't go there to die. They weren't hardened veterans. They had families. They didn't need to stay. But they did. We remember the bravery of the Spartans, but forget the low-level commoners who volunteered to be there, and stood and died next to them.



Also note that Bronze is actually superior to Iron and early Steel in all but one way, that being the ease of repair. A bronze weapon is harder and light than its iron counterpart, cheaper to make, forged at a lower and more easily produced tempurature and capable of an edge that doesn't dull. The downside is that the increased hardness can cause the item to snap and fragment when worn out requiring the weapon to be reforged rather than resharpened like an iron or steel blade. Finally it was the absence of resources that led to the movement from the bronze to iron age as the bronze alloy became harder to produce than pure iron.

What? No! Completely the reverse.
Completely ignoring the fact that the Greeks had iron weapons by this point in history, bronze is far easier to work than iron. It's less brittle than iron. It dulls FAR more quickly than iron.
The reason people moved to iron is that it's better. The only thing really going for bronze weaponry is that it's so soft that when you blunt it or bend it, it's very easy to bend it back, or put a new edge onto it.

Spiryt
2010-09-09, 08:25 AM
Weapons also can be more specifically crafted as demonstrated with the Egyptian Khopesh, Macedonian Sicca, or the large flanged axes across most of India and the Med. If you can form exactly the shape you want you can leave the excess material off the weapon and save weight (important to the soldier) and material (important to the smith).


Eh, so if people were making heavier weapons swords, axes, or whatever, they were making it because they couldn't make it lighter?

Sorry, but it doesn't really make sense, weapons are made to fullfill the idea of the crafter, they weight as much as they should to perform, there's no "ideal" weight, and lighter thing can be in fact way worse made thing.


Harder? It is material strength that counts, and iron is superior in this regard.

What material strenght though? There are many qualities of the material, and they depend on exact method of production, forming shaping.

Not to mention that there were many different alloys that were called "bronze".

As well as quite different ways to achieve more or less pure iron, that'll also differ in characteristics.


Completely ignoring the fact that the Greeks had iron weapons by this point in history, bronze is far easier to work than iron. It's less brittle than iron. It dulls FAR more quickly than iron

Actually, most bronzes would be way harder and sometimes similar in brittleness than bloomery or wrought iron...

When thinking of steels, obviously, most high carbon steels would be harder than bronze, with general characteristics making it generally more desired for weapon use.

Well made bronze weapon would be actually quite hard, and way more resistant to metal fatigue than something made out of steel.

Generally, it's not really simple matter, rather a job for someone better at metallurgy. Making simplifications like in this topic won't really help.

Saying that iron is simply "better", when, like you mentioned, bronze can be often made both harder and somehow less brittle, doesn't sound reasonable.

Psyx
2010-09-09, 08:45 AM
If it wasn't better for weapon manufacture, then the martial elite of the world (who had the money to buy the best panoply) would have stuck to bronze.

History - rather than metallurgy - is the best teacher here.

Esser-Z
2010-09-09, 08:50 AM
Note the tactical placement. The Greek force is only approachable from the front--the flanks are impassable rock. The phalanx fights best straight on, presenting a solid wall of armor. While the Persians had greater numbers, they couldn't effectively use them, not all at the same time. Only so many men could stand in front of the Greek formation. At this small scale, the Greek soldiers have the advantage.

Eventually, of course, the Spartans and other Greeks tired out--the Persians had sufficient numbers to relentlessly keep coming.

Spiryt
2010-09-09, 09:20 AM
If it wasn't better for weapon manufacture, then the martial elite of the world (who had the money to buy the best panoply) would have stuck to bronze.

History - rather than metallurgy - is the best teacher here.

Iron certainly wasn't better for weapon manufacture.

If anything, steel was, and that's something different. And indeed, from period I've read anything about, swords, spears and all are generally steel.

Iron would generally be much cheaper stuff than bronze.

Iron was not worse, just cheaper overall. There might be some difference in how easily wire is produced, too. (http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat//viewtopic.php?f=25&t=26269&p=235182&hilit=copper+alloy+mail#p235182) from Roman Army Talk.

The fact that bronze could be generally more easily reformed, compared even to iron, doesn't mean that it was cheap to make.

As Cuaqchi mentioned, good bronze was capable to be formed quite precisely, so it could form high quality breastplates.

Breastplates from steel, on the other hand, are mostly 15th century thing, couldn't be achieved in ancient times, and thus any forms of rigid steel defenses were limited to lammellars, segmentatas and similar designs from smaller pieces of steel.

In general then, nothing like "changing into iron" ever occurred so simply. Iron, bronze and steel weapons were coexisting, depending on purpose, availability, and many, many other factors.

Trough the whole medieval, iron axes were perfectly normal - as axe made mainly from iron, with hard steel only forming an edge - generally worked beautifully. On the other hand, making sword that way wouldn't be very easy, and result could not be very good. Thus, bronze sword would be very obvious answer, unless there's possibility of one made from good billet of high carbon steel - that's different story.

I think I can quote from RAT again :

Copper alloys are slightly denser than iron, so if you had two *identical* items, one in each metal, the iron one would be slightly lighter. For a cuirass, you might be talking about 7 pounds versus 8, hardly a big deal. My bronze swords have the same weight range as my steel ones of the same general sizes. It is generally felt that the rise of the use of iron (and steel) was more about availability. When only aristocrats wore metal armor, it didn't matter if bronze was expensive because they could afford the best. But the Iron Age also saw an increase in the amount of armor used by non-noble troops, and for that it's possible that the cost and availability of bronze was much less practical. Iron was the answer. However, note that there was a LOT more bronze (and brass!) used in the Iron Age than in the Bronze Age! Metal production increased dramatically overall, along with populations, general economic power, commerce, etc. In 2000 BC, a bronze bucket was quite likely a royal gift. By 100 BC, every Roman legionary is carrying one to cook in, and his wife probably has 2 or 3 more at home.

for some outlook on this.

And metallurgy would always be answer here, how really someone without knowledge about metals and their alloys can talk about them?

Because of it, it would be nice to hear someone with actual knowledge, not my scraps of it, but that's my post here, still.

Matthew
2010-09-09, 09:34 AM
The spears didn't matter so much. The Greek phalanx at close quarters works like a rugby scrum, flattening and trampling over their foes. Like the Roman army, the Greeks used short swords in close quarters, because it was very effective there.

Herodotus (not the most reliable of writers) is the source pointing to the difference in spear lengths as a factor in the favour of the Greeks. How the Greek phalanx exactly operated remains a hotly contested issue, but somehow I doubt it it had the character of a steamroller.

Psyx
2010-09-09, 10:36 AM
I don't think the length of spears had anything to do with the overall effect. It may have been a factor, but the existence of the phalanx itself has far more of a bearing.


"but somehow I doubt it it had the character of a steamroller."

Why not? Especially in this situation, with protected flanks. The Greek phalanxes formed deep ranks for good reason; not just for casualty replacement. The concept of weighting the flank of a phalanx to turn it further points to it being an offensive formation in itself, rather than a simple shield wall.

Given the choice between standing static and letting 100,000 people step up, it seems far more reasonable to push them back and disorder them physically and psychologically. Once you have a foe being pushed backwards and trampled, it's not hard to maintain that steady pressure. A rugby scrum is a pretty good comparison: Once one side starts to be pushed back, it's very hard to stop the trend.

Masses of men in shield wall close in on each other, rather than trade blows at 'polite' distances. Especially if one of them has an enormous press of men behind it. We know phalanxes turned and moved in combat by pressure, and it simply makes sense for one - if momentum can be established - to press forwards. Fighting while moving backwards is a mess, while fighting while moving forwards is far less so. In addition, prisoners can be taken or foes finished off if a line presses forward, while casualties can be recovered, resulting in a far more satisfactory casualty rate.

I believe that Herodotus did specifically mention the Persians being driven over the cliffs, but I could be mistaken.



As Cuaqchi mentioned, good bronze was capable to be formed quite precisely, so it could form high quality breastplates.

Which is why the Greeks stuck with it more for armour. Not weapons, though.

As regards iron vs. steel: Well yeah. wrought iron is terrible stuff, really.



And metallurgy would always be answer here, how really someone without knowledge about metals and their alloys can talk about them?

Metallurgy alone would be a terrible way to answer the question, as it ignores sociological and economical aspects. History is a good answer, because it's fairly safe to assume that if the finest warriors of the age were utilising ferrous (there: No iron/steel confusion!) weapons, then they were the best suited weapons for the purpose. When it becomes a cross-cultural phenomenon, then it's rather hard to deny that -for whatever reason- those weapons simply must be superior.

Spiryt
2010-09-09, 10:44 AM
Well yeah. wrought iron is terrible stuff, really.

Depends what you mean by "terrible" - AFAIK trough the centuries it was most popular mail material, as it could be relatively easily drawn into a wire, and works well as a mail too, especially compared to mild steels, stainless steels and other stuff people make mail out off today.

Matthew
2010-09-09, 10:58 AM
I don't think the length of spears had anything to do with the overall effect. It may have been a factor, but the existence of the phalanx itself has far more of a bearing.

You may think so, but Herodotus did not. We can make as many suppositions as we like, but the evidence is decidedly lacking.



Why not? Especially in this situation, with protected flanks. The Greek phalanxes formed deep ranks for good reason; not just for casualty replacement. The concept of weighting the flank of a phalanx to turn it further points to it being an offensive formation in itself, rather than a simple shield wall.

Given the choice between standing static and letting 100,000 people step up, it seems far more reasonable to push them back and disorder them physically and psychologically. Once you have a foe being pushed backwards and trampled, it's not hard to maintain that steady pressure. A rugby scrum is a pretty good comparison: Once one side starts to be pushed back, it's very hard to stop the trend.

Masses of men in shield wall close in on each other, rather than trade blows at 'polite' distances. Especially if one of them has an enormous press of men behind it. We know phalanxes turned and moved in combat by pressure, and it simply makes sense for one - if momentum can be established - to press forwards. Fighting while moving backwards is a mess, while fighting while moving forwards is far less so. In addition, prisoners can be taken or foes finished off if a line presses forward, while casualties can be recovered, resulting in a far more satisfactory casualty rate.

A lot depend son the spacing and how a phalanx at that time actually operated. There are many academic texts out there discussing this sort of thing with far greater erudition than I can muster, but the bottom line is that for it to work you would have to assume the whole thing kept formation the whole time and advanced in lockstep as a single entity against an enemy basically incapable of retreating. The Greek phalanx fifty to a hundred years later, did not advance slowly and inexorably into the enemy, as Xenephon depicts it, they charge full speed into the fray. On the other hand, the Iliad depicts something much more like a "rugby scrum" (though not really) at points. Most of the casualties in Greek battles occurred when one side turned around and fled. Some historians conceive of sporadic fighting up and down the line of battle for most of an engagement, with a general melee only being very occasional, others (more marginal) even arguing that most battles were decided at a distance with missiles, which I suppose would accord with the general tendency of one side to flee a bayonet charge reported elsewhere.. However, our true paucity of knowledge as to the facts have been well rehearsed over the years, the article that springs most readily to my mind being "The Roman Face of Battle".

[edit] Digging through my old undergraduate bibliography turns up things like:

The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=I3IZwXGqXicC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Greek+hoplite&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q=Greek%20hoplite&f=false)
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K0LMLn_CA08C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Greek+hoplite&hl=en&ei=JAWJTO37DMzd4gb32_3RBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=book-thumbnail&resnum=3&ved=0CD8Q6wEwAg#v=onepage&q=Greek%20hoplite&f=false)
Warfare In Ancient Greece (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CsCAGNUURUoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Greek+hoplite&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1#v=onepage&q=Greek%20hoplite&f=false)

Might be worth a look if you have not read them before.



I believe that Herodotus did specifically mention the Persians being driven over the cliffs, but I could be mistaken.

I do not recall offhand, but it is certainly possible.

imp_fireball
2010-09-09, 11:43 AM
DnD was descended from wargames that tried to replicate real-life battles, but trying to reverse-engineer DnD into historical war simulations is just not going to work. Think of factors like morale, how well-fed the troops are, etc. - not to mention subtle differences in weaponry - very important to actual warfare, barely mentioned in the DnD rules.

Hey, we could easily input a command/troop management/culling mechanic into the game. And then the more wargame aspects could get better covered.

For example, it's already assumed that the spartans needed a field commander to co-ordinate all of their readied actions at once (this just requires devotion, no skills, levels, or anything; maybe reputation to get people to listen to you and sub-commanders to relay your commands if you aren't a loud shouter).

Maybe a person with craft (metalworking) could make a check to harden a material or forge an alloy. Could reduce the cost on a craft check with the material (required craft points would remain the same though). Also, the static cost of 'adamantine to armor' for example is market price, not necessarily the price to create an alloy similar to adamantine.


How the Greek phalanx exactly operated remains a hotly contested issue, but somehow I doubt it it had the character of a steamroller.

Well, the shields were big.

Deadliest warrior suggested that they used spears for warding, but they could also knock a person down with a shield and get in close with a sword to finish them off (or step away and stab them with their spear while they're down; but this requires room).

By no means were they like tanks - a herd of war elephants or even light cavalry could plow over a shield wall. Which is why they needed spears.


Trough the whole medieval, iron axes were perfectly normal

Heck, apparently shaka zulu used iron. Shaka Zulu (where his entire band considered of spearmen with hide shields and no armor).



Masses of men in shield wall close in on each other, rather than trade blows at 'polite' distances. Especially if one of them has an enormous press of men behind it. We know phalanxes turned and moved in combat by pressure, and it simply makes sense for one - if momentum can be established - to press forwards. Fighting while moving backwards is a mess, while fighting while moving forwards is far less so. In addition, prisoners can be taken or foes finished off if a line presses forward, while casualties can be recovered, resulting in a far more satisfactory casualty rate.


Okay, so it is entirely possible that the first persian infantry lines pressed shields with the hoplites - the two sides made opposed bull rush checks... the spartans had a deeper flank (so as much as three men could work against one space) and maybe some kind of morale related command bonus. Also, spartans were typically stronger than persians. The spartans in back used aid another (could target an entire space the size of one that each aider occupies; so aid another could actually affect more than one creature occupying such a space - it's a house rule, but it makes sense since such creatures of the same size category could both be affected if they're already co-operating with each other) to aid the front line's bull rush checks.

So, the spartans were able to collectively push the persians backwards. Some persians tripped and fell when they collided with each other (provoked AoOs). The first few encounters lasted several rounds rather then one or two quick and cleans with readied actions.

Later on, some readied actions came into play when facing cavalry - so horses could be slain quickly - I don't know how many cavalry took mounted combat but that might have complicated things for the hoplites.

Storm Bringer
2010-09-09, 12:06 PM
well, I don't know about greek battles, but in english civil war/30 years war era melee battles between pike formations, it often did turn into a shoving match, termed the 'push of pike'.

the following was raised in relation to roman battles, but i think it bears keeping in mind for greek vs persains:

in a lot of battles, the main lines were in 'contact' for the majority of they day, for hours at least, and it is clear that you could not keep a classic hollywood all-out brawl going for that lenght of time. for a large part of the battle, the two sides would often be stood a dozen or so feet apart, hurling insults and staring at each other, until one side worked up the coruage to renew melee for another bout. this almost certianly happened in battles of the greek-persian wars, or greek-greek fights as well.

As to bronze/iorn/steel, my understanding was, that while good iorn is better than good bronze, they did NOT have good iorn at that time, so for a very long period high quality bronze was better than the iron the time.

Matthew
2010-09-09, 12:17 PM
Well, I don't know about Greek battles, but in English civil war/30 years war era melee battles between pike formations, it often did turn into a shoving match, termed the 'push of pike'.

Indeed; and that was almost certainly the case with Alexander's pikemen, the classic manoeuvre being to fix the enemy in place and then strike a decisive blow with the companion cavalry.

imp_fireball
2010-09-09, 12:20 PM
Indeed; and that was almost certainly the case with Alexander's pikemen, the classic manoeuvre being to fix the enemy in place and then strike a decisive blow with the companion cavalry.

Did spartans have cavalry? Concievably, the persians probably had a wide girth if they had 100,000 men, so they could easily round up spartan cavalry if the cavalry have to go beyond their flank created by their infantry allies.
----

What was the size of the gap protected by the 301? Beyond that, I imagine it is basically just an open space of beaches, cliffs (for pushing persians off of) and bad lands.

Maybe we could reconstruct a map on a D&D grid to approximate Thermopylae.

Storm Bringer
2010-09-09, 12:44 PM
the greeks were not a horse raising people. greece was too hilly,and horses . too rare at that time. the wealthy classes that would form the basis of later knightly armies fought on foot as hoplites in greece.

The persians did have some cav, but cav of this time was too light to really affect a phalanx, though if they could flank it, then they could have crushed it, hence the advantage of the Thermopylae site, where they were forced to fight heavier infantry head on, without room to manuver..

to my knowledge, it wasn't until the days of Alexander that the greeks had decent cav


What was the size of the gap protected by the 301? Beyond that, I imagine it is basically just an open space of beaches, cliffs (for pushing persians off of) and bad lands.

Maybe we could reconstruct a map on a D&D grid to approximate Thermopylae.

picture of the area today. the old shoreline ran about where that road is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermopylae_ancient_coastline_large.jpg)


darwing showing the old coastline. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thermopylae_shoreline_changes_map.png)


both form wikipedia.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-09, 12:48 PM
Deadliest warrior suggested that they used spears for warding, but they could also knock a person down with a shield and get in close with a sword to finish them off (or step away and stab them with their spear while they're down; but this requires room).

Citing Deadliest Warrior in a historical argument is like citing Expendables in a discussion on the details of firearms manufacture.

Esser-Z
2010-09-09, 12:59 PM
Citing Deadliest Warrior in a historical argument is like citing Expendables in a discussion on the details of firearms manufacture.
Indeed. I don't fully know how the show is on detail stuff, but just the part where they randomly match people up regardless of combat style (Group, alone, frontline, ambush, etc) and scenario bugs me to no end. That's incredibly important!

Thinker
2010-09-09, 01:08 PM
Citing Deadliest Warrior in a historical argument is like citing Expendables in a discussion on the details of firearms manufacture.

Except that The Expendables was cool.

kc0bbq
2010-09-09, 01:12 PM
By no means were they like tanks - a herd of war elephants or even light cavalry could plow over a shield wall. Which is why they needed spears.
Cavalry is defeated by dense, well trained troop formations. This was a given going way, way back. The Egyptians put blades on their chariot wheels as a psychological tool to break up formations so they could get through the lines, not as a real weapon.

You can't make a horse charge a wall. If the formation doesn't break the horses balk and the cavalry is slaughtered. Elephants fared a bit better because they're huge and not horses with walnut sized brains, but they were never common. Elephants weren't something to sacrifice in large numbers, they were too useful.

Cavalry was pretty much relegated to flanking maneuvers against real armies. Heavy cavalry existed almost solely for psychological effect. Even in more modern times (Civil War, etc.) if the charge didn't break the lines they would end up stopped in a mass of confusion.

Charging a well trained line would only lead to horses throwing their riders and being stabbed in the soft parts when they reared up. You always have to account for the horse being an incredibly stupid animal, and you make use of them in ways that aren't suicidal because of what a horse cannot be trained to do.

Matthew
2010-09-09, 01:59 PM
Did Spartans have cavalry? Conceivably, the Persians probably had a wide girth if they had 100,000 men, so they could easily round up Spartan cavalry if the cavalry have to go beyond their flank created by their infantry allies.
----

What was the size of the gap protected by the 301? Beyond that, I imagine it is basically just an open space of beaches, cliffs (for pushing Persians off of) and bad lands.

Maybe we could reconstruct a map on a D&D grid to approximate Thermopylae.

Not at Thermopylae, though the Spartans did indeed maintain a small body of cavalry. The Persians had tons, but the terrain would have been too rough to use them.



The Greeks were not a horse raising people. Greece was too hilly, and horses too rare at that time. the wealthy classes that would form the basis of later knightly armies fought on foot as hoplites in Greece.

Weirdly enough, even though it is true that Greece is not a great place for raising horses, they were viewed as part of the aristocratic lifestyle, and they do occasionally feature significantly in the warfare of the period. Xenephon famously recommended the "sabre" (probably the falcata) over the straight sword for cavalry, and at least two short treatises on the general subject (On Horsemanship, and The Cavalry General). Herodotus' depiction of the army in Sicily is a great early indicator, but primarily the Greeks indeed fought on foot. A really interesting book on the subject is this one: Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DP2EHwdMnq4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=warhorse#v=onepage&q&f=false).

Haarkla
2010-09-09, 02:18 PM
As to bronze/iorn/steel, my understanding was, that while good iorn is better than good bronze, they did NOT have good iorn at that time, so for a very long period high quality bronze was better than the iron the time.
I belive your understanding is wrong. Iron replaced bronze incredibly rapidly by the standards of the time. Iron and bronze weaponry did not co-exist for long periods in any one place.

Tyndmyr
2010-09-09, 02:49 PM
Except that The Expendables was cool.

I can't argue with that difference.

BRC
2010-09-09, 02:55 PM
I belive your understanding is wrong. Iron replaced bronze incredibly rapidly by the standards of the time. Iron and bronze weaponry did not co-exist for long periods in any one place.
Actually, his understanding might not be as off as you think.

I got the impression that Iron was used at the same time as bronze, but people lacked the techniques necessary to forge iron that would work in weapons, so you had Iron Tools coexisting with Bronze Weapons. Once people learned how to forge Iron well enough to make decent weapons with it, Iron quickly replaced Bronze because it was both cheaper and better, but also because people were already mining it, just not for use in weapons.

Spiryt
2010-09-09, 03:39 PM
No offense guys, but we kinda already discussed this thing a bit - if only to point out how detailed matter it is.

Stating that something is "better" is extreme shallowing of the topic.

Psyx
2010-09-10, 07:05 AM
You may think so, but Herodotus did not. We can make as many suppositions as we like, but the evidence is decidedly lacking.

Well it's traditionally taught about at military academies world-wide as a battle dependant on terrain and rigorous defence, rather than the length of one side's pointy sticks. The length of pointy sticks may have had a bearing, but I consider it to be as relevant as the disparity between adversaries in firearms technology in more modern conflicts.



The Greek phalanx fifty to a hundred years later, did not advance slowly and inexorably into the enemy, as Xenephon depicts it, they charge full speed into the fray. On the other hand, the Iliad depicts something much more like a "rugby scrum" (though not really) at points.

For most of our history the thing that makes a winning army has been superior drill and discipline. It's generally hard for us to conceive these days just how critical unit cohesion and training was. I -personally- don't have a problem in imagining that professional soldiers were capable of acting in an extremely cohesive and well-drilled manner.

It's entirely reasonable that -considering the low casualty rates as stated- much of the fighting between Greek city-states was potentially timid. In such an environment it's easy to see how a state lacking in timidity and employing a professional force could easily obtain an utterly fearsome reputation.



Most of the casualties in Greek battles occurred when one side turned around and fled.

Don't they always...?



Others (more marginal) even arguing that most battles were decided at a distance with missiles,

Which seems ludicrous, given the surviving materials, panoply and historical records. Laughable, even.



By no means were they like tanks - a herd of war elephants or even light cavalry could plow over a shield wall. Which is why they needed spears.

Absolutely not. We're not talking about a shield wall; we're discussing a thick body of troops. Cavalry is utterly incapable of breaking through such a formation frontally, when ordered. The phalanx was deeper than -say- Saxon shield walls, which were perfectly capable of warding off cavalry.



Concievably, the persians probably had a wide girth if they had 100,000 men

That's kind of the whole point of the battle: There wasn't a wide frontage. It was fought on a frontage of less than 100m.

Esser-Z
2010-09-10, 08:00 AM
Yeah, a phalanx is basically unassailable from the front. It's a solid group of men and weapons. One side--the left--is really well defended, too, because it's all shields. In phalanx vs phalanx combat, the whole fight would veer to the side, as the formation--not men, the formation. Consider it one unit, thanks to the training--would turn to put their protection against the enemy attack. The end result would, eventually, be effectively flanking the enemy--one formation would turn more, and face a vulnerable side.

Now, that refers to open field combat. At Thermopylae, this was not the case. The defenders used the terrain to their advantage. They stood in a pass, with mountains to either side. There's no attack down a rock face, after all. So the Persian numbers weren't useful. In an open battle, the sheer size of the army could have enveloped and (much more) quickly overwhelmed the Greeks. But at the pass, there was but a narrow front. The Persians could not attack at one time with any more men than the Greeks could defend with. Thus, it came down to the individual units.

At this level, the Spartans were, pretty much, the best around. Their entire culture revolved around it. Trained from birth to fight, and to be ready to die fighting, their cohesion and discipline was impeccable. The other men weren't slackers, but Spartans had a reputation for a reason. So, they could thus hold for a very long time, fighting on roughly even grounds with inferior Persian soldiers. But, as is common knowledge, they were vastly outnumbered, and numbers do make a difference. While they could beat any Persians, the couldn't beat ALL the Persians. Not even the Spartans last forever.

(On which note, there's a famous even where, during one of the various inter-city-state conflicts, lighter troops managed to defeat a Spartan company with a numerical advantage of only something like 3 to 1. Spartan soldiers had heavy equipment, making them far less mobile. The hoplites--I think I'm remembering the right word--simply out maneuvered them until the Spartans tired out.)



And on the subject of casualties, that's part of the reason the Spartans were so feared. Most armies would, when facing defeat, retreat. This was known, and sensible. The conflict is resolved in favor of the better army, with minimal death on both sides. Much better than losing your army, especially because you may have to fight someone else very soon.

The Spartans, on the other hand, were willing to fight to the death. They didn't have to actually DO this often, just make it well known they were ready to. As Sun Tzu explained (no, the Greeks didn't read him. But like all martial arts, many concepts develop everywhere), you don't want to fight a force that's ready to fight to the death. You might win, in the end, but it will hurt. A lot.



A final note: While we remember the Spartans (the other Greeks less so, heh) romantically, don't forget that they lost. Yes, they had a heroic last stand. But the Persians had come to burn Athens. They left having burnt the city. Thermopylae slowed them down, but it did not stop them.

Knaight
2010-09-10, 08:07 AM
Its also worth noting that the Spartan's defense was completely worthless on its own. The Persians could simply ship troops around them, but that was foiled by Athenian forces, when the Athenian navy destroyed much of the Persian naval force attacking them, while heavily outnumbered. Of course, they tend to be forgotten.


Citing Deadliest Warrior in a historical argument is like citing Expendables in a discussion on the details of firearms manufacture.

Mind if I quote this? This is the nastiest put down of Deadliest Warrior I've seen outside of slinging.org*

*Two instances of them having awful, awful slingers sling using styles that would not have been used. On a site which has some extremely talented slingers, who were far better than the expert, and people who know enough history to point out small flaws. That show is not well liked on the site.

Psyx
2010-09-10, 09:09 AM
A final note: While we remember the Spartans (the other Greeks less so, heh) romantically, don't forget that they lost. Yes, they had a heroic last stand. But the Persians had come to burn Athens. They left having burnt the city. Thermopylae slowed them down, but it did not stop them.


Well; the Alamo didn't go too great from that perspective either. And America bills 1812 as a great military victory, despite their own capital building being left a smoking wreck. The tactical and strategic losses made in no way diminish the battle in terms of strategic lessons nor in testament to courage.

The Persians came to conquer all Greece, and they didn't do a great job of it. Athens wasn't the capital; just another city state. Essentially the Oracle read it right: Greece was saved by a wooden wall - by way of its galleys at Salamis.



Two instances of them having awful, awful slingers sling using styles that would not have been used.

I'd noticed that. why the heck are they whirling them around a dozen times?!

They should just call it 'Let's cut up some MEAT!'. Still: It's reasonably entertaining, and allows me to shout at the TV and lecture the misses on the finer points of killing things.

Esser-Z
2010-09-10, 09:14 AM
The Persians came to conquer all Greece, and they didn't do a great job of it.
No, that wasn't the goal of the campaign. The goal was revenge, specifically on the Athenians.



Its also worth noting that the Spartan's defense was completely worthless on its own. The Persians could simply ship troops around them, but that was foiled by Athenian forces, when the Athenian navy destroyed much of the Persian naval force attacking them, while heavily outnumbered. Of course, they tend to be forgotten.

I was going to mention this, but I forgot in my big wall of text, heh.

Matthew
2010-09-10, 09:16 AM
Well it's traditionally taught about at military academies world-wide as a battle dependant on terrain and rigorous defence, rather than the length of one side's pointy sticks. The length of pointy sticks may have had a bearing, but I consider it to be as relevant as the disparity between adversaries in firearms technology in more modern conflicts.

For most of our history the thing that makes a winning army has been superior drill and discipline. It's generally hard for us to conceive these days just how critical unit cohesion and training was. I -personally- don't have a problem in imagining that professional soldiers were capable of acting in an extremely cohesive and well-drilled manner.

It's entirely reasonable that -considering the low casualty rates as stated- much of the fighting between Greek city-states was potentially timid. In such an environment it's easy to see how a state lacking in timidity and employing a professional force could easily obtain an utterly fearsome reputation.

Sure, I am not saying spirit de corps, discipline, or anything else are not significant factors, but I am saying that Herodotus thought the disparity in spear length was of significance, and that "phalanx" is not a universal constant. Certainly, Polybius attributes the defeat of the Greek phalanx to the Roman ability to "fight in the rough", presumably refusing to fight in the open, but we are talking there about successor state pike phalanxes. Of course, that brings up another question about Thermopylae, which is that if the terrain was not suitable for cavalry it was probably not suitable for a phalanx either, but I cannot say that I have ever made a close study of the terrain it was supposedly fought on.



Which seems ludicrous, given the surviving materials, panoply and historical records. Laughable, even.

Indeed, as did the idea that the Romans could ever have employed any sort of effective shock cavalry a few years ago. The state of the art is not static, and whilst I think this particular thesis unlikely, things change and new ideas become acceptable as evidence is reinterpreted. Certainly, it is not a long stretch from saying "infantry was broken up at range before a charge was made" to "ranged weapons decided battles", and it does go some way towards explaining how ancient and medieval battles can have been fought for such long periods without resorting to accepting significant lulls in the fighting. That such widely differing arguments can even be plausibly made speaks to the paucity of evidence!

Psyx
2010-09-10, 10:13 AM
Well; the combat spanned a road, and the Greeks had more than enough time to prepare the field, so I would envisage that the ground was picked clear of any annoying boulders and rocks that may have caused a phalanx to stumble. Greek ground isn't known for soft going, so I imagine that the going itself was perfectly ok for cavalry.

... If you don't mind charging what was effectively light cavalry at a 12+ thick shield wall, well armed with spears on a narrow frontage. So regardless of the ground being good for cavalry, the tactical employment of them would have been... dumb, for want of a better word!



Certainly, it is not a long stretch from saying "infantry was broken up at range before a charge was made" to "ranged weapons decided battles", and it does go some way towards explaining how ancient and medieval battles can have been fought for such long periods without resorting to accepting significant lulls in the fighting.

Weeelllll... I'd argue against it based on the following:

Lack of enough expended munitions found amongst archaeological evidence.
Inability of the bows of the day to bypass Hoplite armour. In the eternal arms race, the defensive measures of the day were effective against the ranged threat.
Lack of testament to it in accounts.
One look at the panoply gives a good idea of the mode of battle and threat: The weapons of war are always a good indicator to the manner in which it was fought.
The focus within Greek culture on the 'elite' troops being hoplites.
The relatively small number of missile troops listed in surviving OOBs.


Skirmishing has always had a place in warfare, with skirmishers typically banging their own heads together until they can attrite the opposing skirmish line and start to inflict significant casualties on the other side's main battle arm. If ranged fire was the crucial decider, then a force needs to have enough skirmishers of their own to deal with attrition and win the crucial firefight... which we don't really see the indicators of.

I'm not saying that there was no place for skirmishers on the fields of the time, nor that no phalanx ever turned tail and ran in the face of missile fire or were defeated by it (indeed, I believe the 300 were finished off with bow fire), but I find it tactically unviable that missiles were anything close to being the dominant battle-winner of the era, given other evidence.




spirit de corps

*shudder* Sorry: Pedantry... Esprit - like the Lotus :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2010-09-10, 10:26 AM
Well; the combat spanned a road, and the Greeks had more than enough time to prepare the field, so I would envisage that the ground was picked clear of any annoying boulders and rocks that may have caused a phalanx to stumble. Greek ground isn't known for soft going, so I imagine that the going itself was perfectly okay for cavalry.

... If you don't mind charging what was effectively light cavalry at a 12+ thick shield wall, well armed with spears on a narrow frontage. So regardless of the ground being good for cavalry, the tactical employment of them would have been... dumb, for want of a better word!

I generally agree, just musing about it.



Weeelllll... I'd argue against it based on the following:

Lack of enough expended munitions found amongst archaeological evidence.
Inability of the bows of the day to bypass Hoplite armour. In the eternal arms race, the defensive measures of the day were effective against the ranged threat.
Lack of testament to it in accounts.
One look at the panoply gives a good idea of the mode of battle and threat: The weapons of war are always a good indicator to the manner in which it was fought.
The focus within Greek culture on the 'elite' troops being hoplites.
The relatively small number of missile troops listed in surviving OOBs.

Skirmishing has always had a place in warfare, with skirmishers typically banging their own heads together until they can attrite the opposing skirmish line and start to inflict significant casualties on the other side's main battle arm. If ranged fire was the crucial decider, then a force needs to have enough skirmishers of their own to deal with attrition and win the crucial firefight... which we don't really see the indicators of.

I'm not saying that there was no place for skirmishers on the fields of the time, nor that no phalanx ever turned tail and ran in the face of missile fire or were defeated by it (indeed, I believe the 300 were finished off with bow fire), but I find it tactically unviable that missiles were anything close to being the dominant battle-winner of the era, given other evidence.

I generally agree, but it is also worth recalling that when the Spartans were famously forced to surrender during the Peloponnesian war, it was in the face of skirmishers. This seems to be a sort of Greek Adrianople, in that historians point to it as an indication of the transformation of the nature of warfare (unlike, say, something like Carrhae), but likely it was just a different emphasis. The visibility of such things gives potentially false impressions, but it seems unlikely to me that most battles were not decided at point of contact.



*shudder* Sorry: Pedantry... Esprit - like the Lotus :smallbiggrin:

Ha! No worries, I thought that looked weird, but I was in a rush! By the same token, I switched your "ok" to "okay" above. :smallbiggrin:

Thinker
2010-09-10, 10:33 AM
No, that wasn't the goal of the campaign. The goal was revenge, specifically on the Athenians.

It definitely was not. The Persians had designs on conquering all of Greece, but were surprised at the level of resistance by the Greeks, particularly the Athenians and the Spartans. Sure, Athens burned, but the Athenians expected that and had vacated the city. The Persians razed any city who resisted them, including those who hadn't defeated them in the first invasion. The Persians didn't just turn around and go home after they torched Athens. They kept going. The reason they left was because they could not keep the 200k - 250k soldiers and sailors supplied in light of the resistance from the Greeks.

Zaydos
2010-09-10, 10:44 AM
The Spartans went to Thermopylae not to stop the army but to slow it and buy time to prepare for the Battle of Salamis. That's exactly what they did. They picked a place where they could have a line several men thick of pure Spartans so that with the other Greek soldiers they only needed to fight for a short time each. They rotated soldiers on an... hourly basis I think. That's how narrow the pass was (they also built a wall to narrow it more).

The Greek hoplites, Spartan and otherwise, wore the best armor and weaponry in the ancient world. Only the Immortals could compare then. They were also trained in fighting as a unit.

Also until someone betrayed the Greek forces the Greeks were winning. They took down more than their numbers and lost, I forget the exact number I actually knew how many 2 years ago, a handful of people. At the rate things were going the Spartans would have won if no one had told the Persians about the goat-herder's path. And even then the Spartans did their job, they held down the Persians for long enough to let the Athenians prepare.

Yora
2010-09-10, 11:00 AM
Actually, his understanding might not be as off as you think.

I got the impression that Iron was used at the same time as bronze, but people lacked the techniques necessary to forge iron that would work in weapons, so you had Iron Tools coexisting with Bronze Weapons. Once people learned how to forge Iron well enough to make decent weapons with it, Iron quickly replaced Bronze because it was both cheaper and better, but also because people were already mining it, just not for use in weapons.
Actually the Bronze Age ended and gave way to the Iron Age, not because people started to like iron better, but simply because they ran out of bronze. For some unknown reason there was a major economical and political crisis about 1200 BCE, which completely disrupted the established international metal trade. So in the following years people had to make do with the crappy iron that was much easier to get, and only then did the major developments in iron working began.

Psyx
2010-09-10, 11:08 AM
I generally agree, but it is also worth recalling that when the Spartans were famously forced to surrender during the Peloponnesian war, it was in the face of skirmishers...

And if battles were not won at spear-point, the Spartan loss would have not been as noteworthy as it was seen to be in the texts. I think we're not in any disagreement here, really.



Ha! No worries, I thought that looked weird, but I was in a rush! By the same token, I switched your "ok" to "okay" above. :smallbiggrin:

Ah, but 'OK' is the mostly widely understood word in the world. I did it for our overseas reads *coughcough* :smallcool:



No, that wasn't the goal of the campaign. The goal was revenge, specifically on the Athenians.

What? Huh?
Erm... it was an attempt to extend the Persian Empire, not a slash and burn raid.


At the rate things were going the Spartans would have won if no one had told the Persians about the goat-herder's path. And even then the Spartans did their job, they held down the Persians for long enough to let the Athenians prepare.

I disagree. The battle was a complete strategic loss. The Greek forces had been sitting on their hands waiting for the Persians to turn up. They held them for a few days, and then lost several provinces and cities. It was never really the plan of the Greeks to loose so much, so quickly. The battle didn't buy enough time. Not by a long way.

Cuaqchi
2010-09-10, 01:44 PM
Exactly, the final stand at Thermopylae was lttle more than a moral victory. It didn't truly delay the Persian advance into the Grrek mainland and it didn't break the backs of the Persian army as would be required to count as a strategic victory. What it did do was provide proof to the collected Greek city states that Greek soldiers were superior to Persian soldiers and that when the final battle would come they need only amass an army of appropriate size and they could slug it out until the Persian were little more than food for the crows.

This superiority is something that had to be proven though. Before Thermopylae the Persians were seen from the Med to India as an unstoppable force because of the successes of Xerxes' forefathers. That Xerxes himself was seen as an incompetant administrator; the Persian treasury at Persipolis was less than a 10th of its size from the start of his reign, and that the Immortals were by now little more than old boys club; most of the Immortals were by this point raised to the position not through skill in arms like previously but by introduction into the aristocracy via gifts to the Emperor, didn't matter because his numberless hordes could defeat any army brought against them. Thermopylae showed the Greeks the truth and though it cost them many irreplacable lives it shattered the image of the Persian juggernaut, even if the beast still existed as large as it once had.

Pilum
2010-09-10, 06:07 PM
You always have to account for the horse being an incredibly stupid animal, and you make use of them in ways that aren't suicidal because of what a horse cannot be trained to do.

Don't know about stupid, kc. After all, it's not the horse that wants to throw itself at several scary people waving long pointy sticks in its general direction... :smallwink:

Knaight
2010-09-11, 12:19 AM
Also until someone betrayed the Greek forces the Greeks were winning. They took down more than their numbers and lost, I forget the exact number I actually knew how many 2 years ago, a handful of people. At the rate things were going the Spartans would have won if no one had told the Persians about the goat-herder's path. And even then the Spartans did their job, they held down the Persians for long enough to let the Athenians prepare.
The Greeks were never winning. They were inflicting very large numbers of casualties, but the Persian numerical advantage was so overwhelming that they could have eventually taken the entire army down without any ability to out flank them. Sure, the losses would hurt, and the lack of troops would hurt even more later on, but the Greek forces never had a chance to actually win that battle.

Psyx
2010-09-13, 04:23 AM
...What it did do was provide proof to the collected Greek city states that Greek soldiers were superior to Persian soldiers and that when the final battle would come they need only amass an army of appropriate size and they could slug it out until the Persian were little more than food for the crows. This superiority is something that had to be proven though. Before Thermopylae the Persians were seen from the Med to India as an unstoppable force because of the successes of Xerxes' forefathers.

Eh? What?

Marathon?

The Greeks already knew that man-for-man they were better armed, armoured and trained than the Persians.

imp_fireball
2010-09-14, 02:32 PM
Eh? What?

Marathon?

The Greeks already knew that man-for-man they were better armed, armoured and trained than the Persians.

Well humans are malleable in the sense that they need to be encouraged constantly. Especially when it comes to societies, which can behave like low self esteem babies in the sense.

Ie. "The persians suck. We beat them at marathon."

"*sniff*, yah... but I mean, I mean... it's just, they're so big. We can't beat them again!"

"Oh hey look, we did pretty well at Thermopylae."

"*choking sniff* Really?"

"Yah really, big guy. Wanna get some icecream?"

"I... I guess so, if it'll make me feel better."

"Hey I'm sure it will, after all we nearly won at Thermopylae."

"Nearly won? But the persians are gonna kill us now."

"No they won't, we're strong."

"Prove it!"

"Thermopylae, Marathon, etc."

"*sniff* I... I guess that makes sense."

"So you gonna cheer up now?"

"Oh yah, I'm fine now. Those persians are gonna get blown away."

"Alright now do what I say *insert new military initiative*."


and you make use of them in ways that aren't suicidal because of what a horse cannot be trained to do.

There's many ways to fool horses, some technological, some breeding wise. You could equip them with blinders. Of course, they'd be very much more dependent on the rider that way, but it'd negate from their ability to see as many enemy soldiers with pointy objects surrounding them and get scared.

They could probably train a horse to enhance it's own testerone levels via learning aggression as effective response, just like with humans.

Hence a horse could be equally as fearless - but of course, not as smart, flexible and creative being not human and all.

BRC
2010-09-14, 06:49 PM
Well humans are malleable in the sense that they need to be encouraged constantly. Especially when it comes to societies, which can behave like low self esteem babies in the sense.

Ie. "The persians suck. We beat them at marathon."

"*sniff*, yah... but I mean, I mean... it's just, they're so big. We can't beat them again!"

"Oh hey look, we did pretty well at Thermopylae."

"*choking sniff* Really?"

"Yah really, big guy. Wanna get some icecream?"

"I... I guess so, if it'll make me feel better."

"Hey I'm sure it will, after all we nearly won at Thermopylae."

"Nearly won? But the persians are gonna kill us now."

"No they won't, we're strong."

"Prove it!"

"Thermopylae, Marathon, etc."

"*sniff* I... I guess that makes sense."

"So you gonna cheer up now?"

"Oh yah, I'm fine now. Those persians are gonna get blown away."

"Alright now do what I say *insert new military initiative*."



There's many ways to fool horses, some technological, some breeding wise. You could equip them with blinders. Of course, they'd be very much more dependent on the rider that way, but it'd negate from their ability to see as many enemy soldiers with pointy objects surrounding them and get scared.

They could probably train a horse to enhance it's own testerone levels via learning aggression as effective response, just like with humans.

Hence a horse could be equally as fearless - but of course, not as smart, flexible and creative being not human and all.
Of course, there is a reason the horse shies away from big pointy walls of spears. Making the horse fearless won't make the spears less pointy, and cavalry charges against massed spearmen would be just as suicidal as always.

As for Thermopoly, the delay did give the Athenans time to evacuate to Salamis, where the greek ships exploited a bottleneck to wipe out the Persian navy (Damaged Persian ships trying to leave would run into fresh persian ships trying to get into the fray, and they all got tangled up in a huge chaotic mess). With no navy to provide them with supplies, the persian fleet burned Athens out of spite and left (or they might have burned Athens already, I forget)

TheThan
2010-09-14, 09:40 PM
It seems to me that the battle of Thermopylae really was a victory for the Greeks. Their job was to delay the Persians as long as possible. They held them off for what? a week? That’s pretty impressive considering how greatly they were supposedly outnumbered. The Greeks inflicted a lot of casualties, and probably caused a lot of fatigue through the survivors of the actual battle, seven days of fighting plus a long march through rough terrain will take its toll pretty quickly.

Then there is the psychological aspect of the whole thing. Can you imagine how quickly word of mouth will spread from the survivors of the battle? The invincible Spartans are holding us on this beach. I can imagine how quickly the Spartans would get exaggerated. Each Spartan has the strength of ten men, and carry spears as thick as your arm. That will most certainly take its toll on the Persian moral. When they finally killed off the Greeks at Thermopylae, the fear and anxiety must have been built up pretty high, “it took us this long to defeat these few! Imagine what the whole Spartan army will be like!

Not to mention the reverse for the rest of Greece, now they know that the Persians can be stopped, and that if they fight hard enough and are brave enough, they can drive them back.


So a successful mission plus the psychological effect on the Persian troops, seems to have paved the way for Xerxes’s defeat.

Zaydos
2010-09-14, 09:51 PM
The battle itself was on 3 days, but there was also Xerxes stopping his armies, sending scouts, and getting people ready again so probably ~5 days. Then again they took out more than their number in Immortals, the only Persian soldiers able to fight the Greeks man for man, and even then only if they were lucky. They suffered very few casualties from their forces too, except those left to hold off the Persians on the last day (300 Spartans, and somewhere from 2 to 3 thousand other Greeks) they had suffered losses you could reliably count, and broken waves of the Persian forces.

Although in the long run it was probably the naval battle that went alongside it that did the most good, taking out almost half of the Persian fleet (the same fleet that would fight at Salamis), but that battle would never have been fought on those terms if it hadn't been for the infantry blocking the pass.

Funny note same history book that listed the amount of ships lost by the Persians at this battle dismissed both as moot because they weren't Salamis, ignoring what a difference that many extra ships would have made.

Psyx
2010-09-15, 06:35 AM
As for Thermopoly, the delay did give the Athenans time to evacuate to Salamis,

Except that it didn't. The Greeks held the pass for three days. Athens was far more than 3-days-evacuated by the time that the Persians arrived.


It seems to me that the battle of Thermopylae really was a victory for the Greeks. Their job was to delay the Persians as long as possible. They held them off for what? a week?

Sadly, it wasn't. Three days delay achieved nothing, especially considering the expenditure in resources made. It was tactically and strategically insignificant.


seven days of fighting plus a long march through rough terrain will take its toll pretty quickly.

Moot point: Even if it did, the Persians weren't called on to fight for more than the time it took to recover. Being completely shot after a 20 mile run doesn't matter if you don't have to get out of bed for two weeks afterwards.

I'm not convinced it had much psychological impact for the Persians. Sure: They lost people and were delayed, but propaganda never changes. "Look at that pile of corpses over there. They were Greece's best men. Now they're dead. Crushed under our feet."

I think the general chivvying-up of Greek morale after the loss was -as someone said- the best thing to come out of it. As nations we've all grasped on heroic last stands as testaments to courage, when really they were battles we lost.

Dienekes
2010-09-15, 07:02 AM
Except that it didn't. The Greeks held the pass for three days. Athens was far more than 3-days-evacuated by the time that the Persians arrived.

Combat was 3 days, total delay was 5 days. Xerxes waited 2 days for the Greek force to leave and was surprised when they did not. And Athens wasn't fully evacuated when the Persians actually reached the walls. Where did you read that it was?


Moot point: Even if it did, the Persians weren't called on to fight for more than the time it took to recover. Being completely shot after a 20 mile run doesn't matter if you don't have to get out of bed for two weeks afterwards.

I'm not convinced it had much psychological impact for the Persians. Sure: They lost people and were delayed, but propaganda never changes. "Look at that pile of corpses over there. They were Greece's best men. Now they're dead. Crushed under our feet."

I disagree on this one. There's a reason why Leonidas' corpse was the only body desecrated by the Persian army. The Companion's where thrown back on multiple occasions, and a few of Xerxes relatives had died. I think that some psychological damage seems reasonable.


I think the general chivvying-up of Greek morale after the loss was -as someone said- the best thing to come out of it. As nations we've all grasped on heroic last stands as testaments to courage, when really they were battles we lost.

This is true though. As a morale victory on the Greek side it is probably far more important than as a morale defeat on the other. Thermopylae is an interesting battle, but it does tend to be over-embellished. Honestly, Plataea is more interesting and far more definitive a battle in my opinion than Marathon, Thermopylae, or really any engagement between the Greeks and Persians.
Says the guy whose name is a reference to Thermopylae...

Calmar
2010-09-15, 07:16 AM
Longspears ("Sarissas") were used by Alexander the Great, years later.

Alexander's daddy Philipp II improved the spears used by phalanxes, but they were already used before.

Psyx
2010-09-15, 07:28 AM
Combat was 3 days, total delay was 5 days. Xerxes waited 2 days for the Greek force to leave and was surprised when they did not. And Athens wasn't fully evacuated when the Persians actually reached the walls. Where did you read that it was?

A dusty tome somewhere, a long while ago. I'll check sources.

It wasn't fully evacuated because there were sick there, as well as a few dolts who decided that Athens wouldn't fall. They had time to leave, but didn't. They stayed in the citadel and were slaughtered when it couldn't be held.



I disagree on this one. There's a reason why Leonidas' corpse was the only body desecrated by the Persian army. The Companion's where thrown back on multiple occasions, and a few of Xerxes relatives had died. I think that some psychological damage seems reasonable.


Some, but that's what propaganda is there to rectify. In the eyes of the Persians: Sure, they lost a few people, but the Greek's best men still died. They were outsmarted in their indefensible position by the clever Persians.
And there's nothing like then storming through territory unopposed and sacking a dozen cities to erase the memory of any negative aspects of the battle.


Honestly, Plataea is more interesting and far more definitive a battle in my opinion than Marathon, Thermopylae, or really any engagement between the Greeks and Persians.

The battle is great for teaching naive young officers the importance of terrain as a force multiplier, and the relatively poor value of pure numbers as a force multiplier. It has a place in every military academy, certainly. Even though it wasn't politically or strategically important at all.