ellow maboiii historically Spartans didn’t wear any armor, they where found with cloth shirts or only in leather girdles... so the movie only showed the girdle with. Is what they would use, it was considered an insult to the war god to use metal armor.
@@nathanmccarthy9820 the Spartans wore body armour into battle, the only reason why the movie 300 depicted them without armour is to show us what their minds were like during the Persian war, they did wear capes but was only for when they get cold occasionally, and they would eventually take it off before battle
ellow maboiii in to the correct incorrect! Their was only ONE battle Spartans have been historically told to wear armor and the Greeks where amazing that they had worn it. This was during the fight against Rome and lasted less then a year, in many Greek scrolls and stone tablets people believed they lost to Rome purely because then had dishonored the war god by wearing armor.
@@nathanmccarthy9820 so you do know that you just admitted that they did wear armour, when on your first comment you said as I quote "historically Spartans never wore armour" and also I am very interested on to where you get your sources from.
@@nathanmccarthy9820 They halfway abandoned armor at a certain point. However, they still wore bracelets, leg guards, helmets and leather girdles. That is classified as armor. They later readopted full armor. There was never a time where Spartans ran into battle with just sandals and capes.
I think this game is amazing, but I'll look forward to the day when it can incorporate group tactics. Both sides break ranks at the beginning of every combat. The Spartans should stay in a phalanx, where each man is protected by the man on either side. It's a very strong formation and, on level ground like this, would give them an advantage. The Romans would stay in a manipole, which isn't as tight as a phalanx but allows greater maneuverability. On broken terrain, it would give them the edge. I'd also like to see more variety in the troops. Are there options for cavalry and chariots? Archers and slingers? Etc?
In reality the Spartans would be annihilated by a fraction of that number of Romans. Highly advanced weapons sourced from the many lands conquered across the vast Roman empire. Might as well be Spartans vs modern military 😆
In Greek combat, casualties were pretty low while two phalanxes went toe to toe. That came when one of the phalanxes broke. With no defensive structure, the soldiers would turn and run and that's when large numbers were cut down.
Well, Sparta for a kingdom/empire was powerful but it was the far southern greece and rome was like all of europe, so the romans were stronger as an empire, but the spartan soldiers had more confidence.
Sparta was a city-state and it briefly had an alliance with other Greek city- states called the Peloponnesian League. Rome had soldiers who were from Gaul, Greece,Italy,Iberia,Germania and many mercenaries. Sparta had Spartans. Of course Rome at it's peak was stronger since it was an empire with millions of people, who could be recruited, but Spartans were living in a military camp since the age of 7. Romans were farmers, sculptors, carpenters etc., the Spartans were simply soldiers. Rome had a massive army but in any case one Spartan worthed more than 5 Romans ( in terms of war of course).
Romans army's was bigger stronger and more advanced than the Spartan one...no story at all.. cartagineses empire too was defited by Roman and they was much more stronger and advanced than the Spartan.
know your facts my friend... first of all states like Sparta were exhausted from previous wars so were not as powerful as they once were then when the entirety of the Roman Empire invaded Greece on state stood against them and almost beat them resulting in such a loss of troops for the Romans they allied with them instead and then the greek Alexander the Great destroyed their empire later anyway
@@houseofclouds9568 well you're only somewhat right. The way it went was that the Romans did infact beat the Spartans in the war against nabis. Resulting in control of Greece under the Roman empire. The Spartans lost and it was the barbarian odoacer who took down rome not Alexander the great, after Rome was weak for splitting the empire into two.
@@houseofclouds9568 Alexander the Great never fought the Romans. He fought the Persians and kept going East into India. He died in 323 B.C. The Western Roman Empire ended in A.D. 476, almost 800 years after Alexander died. The Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) continued on until A.D. 1453, almost a thousand years longer than the Western Roman Empire. Rome had little trouble beating the Spartans in real life. Romans also had little trouble defeating the Macedonian style phalanx that Alexander the Great's army used, and that was still being used in the kingdoms that were once part of Alexander's empire. This is all easy to find in books or online. The Romans had a better way of fighting and usually also had the best generals. Roman soldiers trained as hard as Spartans did, and in much bigger armies. Sparta never had a chance against Rome. This game has Spartans throwing Romans through the air as if the Spartans are supermen. It's ridiculous. It's based on the movie "300". They even dress like they do in the movie. That's Hollywood. History--reality--was different.
Bro....is trying to say that the romans are worriers then the greeks no way in hell, romans copy off the greeks the romans are descended from the greeks
Do you know what Roman Steele did to Spartan bronze? Let's just say the Spartans ran to Parthia.. or Persia. As they say Spartan without Sparta is no Spartan at all.
This historically actually happened twice. The Laconian War of 195 BC was fought between the Greek city-state of Sparta and a coalition composed of Rome, the Achaean League, Pergamum, Rhodes, and Macedon. Sparta was no longer a powerful military by 200BC and were easily defeated by Rome.
It wasn’t the real “Spartans” though. They had already been conquered and taken over multiple times throughout history up to that point. They tried to preserve parts of their culture and they revived the “Spartan ways” and the agoge multiple times throughout history after it died out but it was never the same. The Sparta the Romans faced was basically the meme Me: Mom I want Spartans Mom: we have Spartans at home Spartans at home: It just wasn’t the same Sparta of the late Ancient/early Classical Greek age, only a sad impersonation.
The only thing that makes me sad about these videos is whe. They put 300 Spartans against 5000 romans, 2 reasons: the 300 that we are familiar with today where not just any Spartan unit. They where a unit that was placed where it was to protect a vital passageway into grease. Their motive alone would have made them supermen. And 2 the Spartans of the 300 actually numbered around 4000 and where completely defensive they only gained ground when nessisary and only lost ground under hellacious assault the opposing army sent its best men “the silent sands” against the Spartans only to be smashed almost completely the silent sands where known for having never screamed in death and where like sand as they where filled rank wise like sand on a beach for every grain washed away millions more take its place. The Spartans of the 300 did eventually faulter and that is where we get the story we are all familiar with of the famous stand of the 300 but saying that the seige on the pass at that time had lasted for almost 3 months and the Spartans had no help coming. If anyone should be impressed by the Spartan defense of the pass please let them understand why.
Spartans seem really OP in this simulator. They're mauling Roman soldiers, European knights, guys that had better metals, shields, and actual body armor.
The king my leader and he’s 300 hundred sparta had a speech for us Alcides:Remember why we die Now we should gather 300 great legendary sparta fight 10.000 Romes Now theres only 1.000 left Our legendary300 sparta killed 9.000 Romes We gather 30.000 sparta It means 30.000 vs 1.000
Damn sparta..and its Spartans a rudder warrior society entrenched in its psyche at an early age..yet I've always had a soft spit..love and respect for Roman Empire ))) Hail Caesar for old times sake
Romans: Oh hey Spartans could me and a few of my bois get into your battle line, and we’ll let some of your bois do the same? Spartans:Ahhh, why? Romans:Oh just so it looks like a hollywood battle, ya know, a cinematic experience
Of course the Spartans had armour! In 300 the Spartans dont wear armour because they worked hard for their bodies! Also the Spartans defeated a 1,000,000 Man Army of Persians! Also Sparta defeated Troy with the Troyan Horse!
You want to know the truth? 300 spartans fought ~200 000 persians (cavalry, archers, warriors) They *held* to them for 2 days! ~10 000 persians (cavalry ,archers) fought against ~60 000 Romans All romans *dead* in the first day! So *Sparta* is the true winner!
The Sparta is mostly my vote of victory because of the range and 2x damage because one Spartan is in the front and the one behind them also supports the damage making it 2x the damage.
Demolished Xerox Well, yes. But, Romans will definitely win in my opinion. Best technology, tactics, formations, and more! (And I’m talking about reality.)
blair patterson actually it’s the other way around, the Spartans would have the advantage in an open field while the romans would have an advantage in a rougher more hilly/ foresty land. ( I know that sounded fucking weird lmao.)
@@YeOkBuddy thats actually not true, bc the Romans battle formations were evolved forms of the Spartan phalanx. The Romans adopted new battle strategies simply bc the Spartan style phalanx was useless and outdated against a better equipped and much stronger foe than any enemy the spartans ever faced.
The 300 Spartans killed around 20,000 to 25,000 Persians at the battle of Thermopylae. The Spartans where led by King Leonidas and the Persians were led by King Xerxes I of Persia, Herodotus claimed that there were, in total, 2.6 million military personnel from Persia but Leonidas was betrayed by Ephialtes by revealing a small path used by shepherds. It led the Persians behind the Greek lines. So the Persian won the battle of Thermopylae! enjoy! I did the research so u don't have to. (I wrote this myself no copy and paste was involved)
Think about TW games multiplayer. Noobs line their troops up in straight line formations with their infantry all bunched up... good players spread them out . It wasnt he soldiers per say... but a Lvl 2 way of thinking. When you get to lvl 10 you unlock better formations and ways for fighters to rotate in and out battle efficiently.
To charge Phalanx in to head to head combat is a total idiot. Roman Legion would prefer to outflank and attack with cavalry from behind. Legion would throw pillae to weakened the Phalanx Shield and then charge in to melee combat, while auxilliary cavalry would attack from behind Phalanx ranks.
Let’s not kid ourselves here. The Spartans were nothing special. It’s all a myth like their gods like Zeus, Hades, Poseidon etc. We’re all human and strength and speed is all genetic but we can improve it alot if we work out, but it seems like all the talk about Spartans greatness you’d think they were demi gods...laughable.
Actually, in battle at first, you made a mistake. The Spartans never broke their column. They were waiting for the enemy to attack. That's how they were able to fight the enemies.
Romans were conscripted soldiers from across the empire. Spartan soldiers were bred to be warriors from birth and trained that way. Sparta would have been vastly superior.
@@Aegirak Yes that may be true, but Spartans fought as individuals. Whereas Roman soldiers fought as one. Roman soldiers were highly disciplined soldiers, and may not be as skilled 1 on 1 with the spartans but as a group would decimate any number of spartans. The roman army was also the most modern army of its time. Roman military doctrine valued coordination of the troops as one and the use of battlefield tactics. Over each man going off to die gloriously in battle, and his name to be remembered in the hall of.... so on ,so on. This doctrine was proved indomitable in the conquest of the Britains. In fact the Roman tortoise formation was so strong that you could drive a siege engine over it.
It is impossible. Romans had a much more modern army. And their tactical development was also better. Spartans lived in ancient ages. And their legends and myths are bigger than their real battles. But we know better Age of Roman Empire. Their battles were more realistic than Spartans. 300 Spartans ? I don't think so. It was a big myth. Hansel and Gretel are more realistic than this story.
This is silly. If the Spartans were good enough to beat a Roman army 500 years in the future, how come I don't remember reading about the Spartan Empire?
hey little factiod here. the reason the romans were so powerfull was the sheer size of their fighting force. spartains were better warriors. but as history has shown. no matter how strong the ant it can be swallowed by the wave.
Not true at all man!! Romans soldiers was better than Spartans ones in everything tactic, weapon, training, numbers. Look at the cartagineses Empire,strongest than Spartan totally defeated and destroyed by the Roman. The history prove that, the cinema prove nothing
@@valeriotempesti3331 you are right actually man. I forgot I posted this comment lmao. I think the think is about the Spartans were more that they were physically tough. Though romans were as well.
yes but not cause they were better soldiers.. but cause Greece were in war yeaaars. Romans didnt stand a chance vs spartas or macedonians or most greeks to be honest
@@undertaker343 history disagrees with you. Roman's were much better soldiers than the Greeks in terms of their training, aside from sparta of course. But as to the war between the Greeks you're correct. Had they bound together instead of splitting apart they may have defeated the Roman's.
A contemporary Palestinian took notice of the Roman Legionnaires training. They marched somewhat of 5km every morning with full gear to they training camps and trained sword fights with heavier wooden swords, so the real sword would feel much lighter in real battle. Can't remember during what period, but I believe it was during the end of republic, begin of the empire age.
@@TrangDB9 Right on! I think Sparta is the only one of the Greeks who could match rome in training, simply due to the fact they started at a much younger age. Starting at 7. While you had to be 18 to join the Roman army.
The spartans are defiantly more superior warriors than a legionary but its the formations and weapons the spartans used that the romans could easily flank and maneuver the phalanx so it breaks. In a 1v1 situation a spartan always wins but in an army like the romans, spartans loose.
The Spartans should have stayed in formation if it was real life and they would’ve rekt the Roman as the smaller shield shape and very little arm our allows for greater mobility.
Why do 30K vs 30K? With so many soldiers most of them are just clogged up behind the front line anyway. You can hardly see what's going on since it's just a thin line of fighting. You'd find out who would win by doing 300 vs. 300 or at most 3K vs. 3K.
