Real World Figures and Battles

[imp_fireball]

That one battle with the spartans Vs. the > 1 billion persians!

http://dicefreaks.superforums.org/vi...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

Spoiler

Show

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).

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Bronzes have all higher density than iron and steels.

Dunno where "lighter" notion comes from.

[Cuaqchi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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
Hoplites: The Classical Greek Battle Experience
Warfare In Ancient Greece

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.


darwing showing the old coastline.


both form wikipedia.

[Tyndmyr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Haarkla]

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.