|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:12 am
well i am a new member here so if this topic should be moved then do so boss
anyways I am into strategy and mostly ancient battles
you know back when real wars were fought not these new wars where any coward can become a tough guy if he had a gun
but those that really needed strategy and bravory and valor
anyways one of the main strategies used by ancient greeks was the Phalanx
I believe you have seen it in the movie "300"
what in your opinion would be the best way to counter such a strategy?
and feel free to post any strategy or formation you can think off or need any help with breaking it
since it is what I love to do
and at the same we can get higher activity and more discussions
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 1:45 pm
Flank right. The Phalenx formation leaves all right-edge soldiers vulnerable, which is why it was a particularly prestigious position to be assigned to. Alexander the Great was a commander of the right flank in his father's army. One of your better bets in head-on combat would be to come in at an angle at their right flank.
That, or chose a terrain in which the formation couldn't be kept, which, though seemingly elementary, would have been unheard of at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:21 pm
Whats the difference between the right and left side of a phalanx? o_o
The answer to everything is explosives. ^_^
Uh...but if you wanted a more serious response...it would kinda depend on the enemy you're facing. The general rule is that the sides and back are very vulnerable. You want to either circle around and go for those people or try to scatter the phalanx and disorder it by throwing stuff into the pack (with catapults and the like).
In the case of 300, they stayed in a narrow passage way so that only their fronts were exposed. If you had to fight an army in their position, you'd want archers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE TRUE RAZGRIZ rolled 3 20-sided dice:
19, 18, 16
Total: 53 (3-60)
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:01 am
xeidrii Whats the difference between the right and left side of a phalanx? o_o The answer to everything is explosives. ^_^ Uh...but if you wanted a more serious response...it would kinda depend on the enemy you're facing. The general rule is that the sides and back are very vulnerable. You want to either circle around and go for those people or try to scatter the phalanx and disorder it by throwing stuff into the pack (with catapults and the like). In the case of 300, they stayed in a narrow passage way so that only their fronts were exposed. If you had to fight an army in their position, you'd want archers. yeah well archers will work against the greek Phalanx but not the Spartan there is actually a difference between the two because of the equipement the Greek Phalanx soldiers used smaller shield made mostly from wicker and leather fastened in layers along with a wooden board but the Spartan Phalanx soldiers used Brass Shield covered from the inside by the layers mentioned above without the wood which gives almost no chance for the arrows to penetrate them as for the choice of terrain that is a good one but taking a phalanx head on with any other formation is a suicide because the true power of the phalanx is the fact that soldiers use long spears about 3 meters + so it allows the first, secon, third and sometimes all the way up to the fifth line to put their spears in frotn and that means it's impossible from the front but breaking it with a surprise ambush party from the sie is a go way because they won't have time to rearrange themselves especially if they are locked in a pincer (being attacked from two sides at once) very good the main point of the Phalanx is that you protect the soldier to your left with you shield so the farthest soldier to the right is the one exposed good observation and yeah explosives would be a good solution too bad they didn't have'em back then but they had greek fire which was very devastating anybody know why it was so destructive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:04 am
If I'm not mistaken, Greek Fire was like the ancient equivilent of napalm. It was viscous enough that it'd stick to you and continue burning, and burned hot enough to do some serious damage.
I'd also heard somewhere that water didn't extinguish it effectively, but I'm not sure of the truth in that. If correct, I'd assume it was grease-based.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 2:25 pm
So it was something similar to the tar pits and boiling oil used in the middle ages?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:57 pm
Wishbone Returns Again If I'm not mistaken, Greek Fire was like the ancient equivilent of napalm. It was viscous enough that it'd stick to you and continue burning, and burned hot enough to do some serious damage. I'd also heard somewhere that water didn't extinguish it effectively, but I'm not sure of the truth in that. If correct, I'd assume it was grease-based. It is known water was ineffective in putting out Greek Fire, as demonstrated by its ability to burn on top of water. It is sometimes suggested, though not known, that it was in fact ignited by water (which would suggest calcium phosphide was the active ingredient). The theory i have seen most commonly has it being made of a petroleum based substance, most likely with niter and sulfur. THE TRUE RAZGRIZ and yeah explosives would be a good solution too bad they didn't have'em back then but they had greek fire which was very devastating Actually, one common form of spreading Greek Fire was in the form of hand grenades. Incidentally, the way to break the phalanx (in the case of "300") is quite simple. It is called, "Be prepared to face heavy infantry." The two reasons that land battle went the way it did were the terrain, and the nature of the armor used by Spartans (which was woefully absent in the movie). Had the Persians been properly prepared, they would have had archers with heavy bows, not light longbows, which lacked the power to penetrate Spartan armor. Beyond that, the infantry used by the Persians was effectively unarmored, which made it far inferior to the Spartans with their heavy armor. There are also the possibilities of calvary and artillery, of which the Persians had no appropriate forms. Ultimately, the Persian army was designed to fight nomadic tribes, which required mobility rather than durability. It was quite like sending waves of peasants at a line of fully armored knights. It is just stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:08 am
A good comparison can be made between '300' and the Teutoberg forest massacre in AD9. Both defending forces were made up of Heavy infantry (Spartan soldiers and Roman Legionnaires) and both attacking forces were made up of light infantry (Persian basic infantry and Cherusci tribesmen).
In the case of '300' we see an extremely strong position for defense that the enemy more or less tackle straight on. In Teutoberg we see an ambush in dense and swampy terrain. Far too difficult to make a solid defense within.
Both forces had similar advantages, but this is (quite an extreme) example of how terrain can be key to victory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:26 pm
zz1000zz It is known water was ineffective in putting out Greek Fire, as demonstrated by its ability to burn on top of water. It is sometimes suggested, though not known, that it was in fact ignited by water (which would suggest calcium phosphide was the active ingredient). The theory i have seen most commonly has it being made of a petroleum based substance, most likely with niter and sulfur. the main reason it was so powerful against water is the fact that water helped it spread but after some distance it was just fire burning through anything but canbe put out by water except for the spot of origin that was really dificult the main use for the greek fire was against siege weapons like trebuchets, catapults and battering ram because it will destroy the weapon with no effort at all THE TRUE RAZGRIZ and yeah explosives would be a good solution too bad they didn't have'em back then but they had greek fire which was very devastating Actually, one common form of spreading Greek Fire was in the form of hand grenades. Incidentally, the way to break the phalanx (in the case of "300") is quite simple. It is called, "Be prepared to face heavy infantry." The two reasons that land battle went the way it did were the terrain, and the nature of the armor used by Spartans (which was woefully absent in the movie). Had the Persians been properly prepared, they would have had archers with heavy bows, not light longbows, which lacked the power to penetrate Spartan armor. Beyond that, the infantry used by the Persians was effectively unarmored, which made it far inferior to the Spartans with their heavy armor. There are also the possibilities of calvary and artillery, of which the Persians had no appropriate forms. Ultimately, the Persian army was designed to fight nomadic tribes, which required mobility rather than durability. It was quite like sending waves of peasants at a line of fully armored knights. It is just stupid. but the main reason for the strength of the Spartan Phalanx was the fact that not only did they have better armor but the spears were twice the length of the persian spears (the spartan short spear was 2.3 meters and the long ones reach 5.2 meters while the persian spears were (1.5~1.7 meters) and the persians had wicker armor and the heaviest persian soldiers were still a lot lighter than the regular greek soldier (greek equipement over 70 pounds whuile persian equipement was about 30~40 pounds) and the persians did have cavalry infact some good ones too but against a Phalnax in wedge formation the cavalry was useless they were pick off the sides with the long spears and yes heavy archers could've decimated the 300 but the terrain did not allow the persian army to use them effectively since the only place for them to position themselves was to the side of the hot gates where the Spartans did not venture to leaving them useless (untill the traitor Ephialtes led them to the goat path)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:02 am
Throwing spear like the roman pilum have been a good choice against greek, macedonian and spartan phalanxes. Those had the properties of using rather soft iron with only the tips hardened, so they could penetrate the shields but were likely to buckle on impact (thus they could not be easily removed and thrown back). While it was unlikely to kill the shield bearer with one hit in the shield the added weight from one or more pilum was quite an annoyance and made it harder to keep the rows closed.
The roman tactic against greek was mainly to concentrate their spearthrows to one spot of the phalanx to crack it open and the storm into that crack with their shortswords drawn. They also used smaller grouping than the greeks so they could act more flexible.
For the Persians more use of burning liquids would have probably helped a lot (wouldn't even have to been greek fire) i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:09 am
Although I know little in turn of Armies and Tactics during wars, as far as I know, full out bombing and shooting everywhere, killing all the men, women and making the children slaves, works. For example, see World War II. I don't really support war, though, albeit, I know it is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 10:17 am
Azmodean Throwing spear like the roman pilum have been a good choice against greek, macedonian and spartan phalanxes. Those had the properties of using rather soft iron with only the tips hardened, so they could penetrate the shields but were likely to buckle on impact (thus they could not be easily removed and thrown back). While it was unlikely to kill the shield bearer with one hit in the shield the added weight from one or more pilum was quite an annoyance and made it harder to keep the rows closed. The roman tactic against greek was mainly to concentrate their spearthrows to one spot of the phalanx to crack it open and the storm into that crack with their shortswords drawn. They also used smaller grouping than the greeks so they could act more flexible. For the Persians more use of burning liquids would have probably helped a lot (wouldn't even have to been greek fire) i guess. yeah that's how the romans used to break phalnxes but the problem was when the soldiers of the phalanx used their swords too because to counter the roman assault the first line would use their spears early and switch to swords right after that so that if the phalanx breaks the second and third lines use their spears while the first would fend off using their swords Ballad of the Wind Fish Although I know little in turn of Armies and Tactics during wars, as far as I know, full out bombing and shooting everywhere, killing all the men, women and making the children slaves, works. For example, see World War II. I don't really support war, though, albeit, I know it is necessary. yes wars are painfull but as long as mankind exists wars will exist too but ignoring them won't make them go away so we might as well just prepare for them
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:28 am
Here some of the underhanded tricks I used in battle to win in war games.
The enemy within
You turn some of their people to your side have them take them down from within while you attack from the outside. Or you snick some of your people inside their ranks and when the battle starts they show their true colors so to speck. I know it is underhanded but damn if it doesn't work.
It takes one to fight one
See if you can get a few of their people to join you and share things like skills, mindsets, and tactics with you. And have them fight each other rather then you.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Team up with some of their enemies and attack on multiple fronts.
False retreat
You hide some of your people in an area. Than you attack for a short time and redraw trying to get them to follow you. When the time is right the people that was hiding jump out and attack them form the back and sides while you charge for a second time boxing them in.
Entrapment
You have a line of people and you tell them not to move. When the enemy charges you - you have the middle fall back and the flanks pull away. The enemy will think that it made your line break while in fact you are just circling them in a trap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:38 pm
ArchWarrior Here some of the underhanded tricks I used in battle to win in war games.
The enemy within
You turn some of their people to your side have them take them down from within while you attack from the outside. Or you snick some of your people inside their ranks and when the battle starts they show their true colors so to speck. I know it is underhanded but damn if it doesn't work.
It takes one to fight one
See if you can get a few of their people to join you and share things like skills, mindsets, and tactics with you. And have them fight each other rather then you.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
Team up with some of their enemies and attack on multiple fronts.
False retreat
You hide some of your people in an area. Than you attack for a short time and redraw trying to get them to follow you. When the time is right the people that was hiding jump out and attack them form the back and sides while you charge for a second time boxing them in.
Entrapment
You have a line of people and you tell them not to move. When the enemy charges you - you have the middle fall back and the flanks pull away. The enemy will think that it made your line break while in fact you are just circling them in a trap. great tactics I have a pont about the last one when you try to make your forces retreat you must sacrifice some of the first line because if they just pickup and start running real fast the enemy might not chase but rather change into an outward circle formation which is very hard to break also something I rememberd and forgot to post to the user who hates wars (I agree they suck but strategy is a great weapon) "Sic Vis Pacem Para Bellum" it's latin it means "if you want peace prepare for war"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Or as one of my old combat teachers said, "We train for combat in hopes that we never have use what we learned."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
