The guy who got the best answer was a dumb $#%. spartans had bows,sheilds{that can block arrows} Oh and spartans were not slow do to heavy armor. They were full time military solidiers and wore that heavy aromr enough to make it like a second skin. not to mentoin they had spears and swords . How retarded can you be to think that you can just ride around with your horse and shoot arrows without getting hit by a spear, arrow's, ect. The phalanx was more than just being tightly grouped up it was about protecting the person next to you working in perfect technique. The Mongols would be demolished and spartans would be the ones to have few loses do to the phalanx. SOMEONE PROVE ME WRONG IF I AM.
2007-03-14 20:23:56 · 7 answers · asked by fallen 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
I believe you are asking the wrong questions. You compare apples with oranges. The Spartans had also cavalry, if they had to fight against a strong cavalry they would chose to fight on a soil they would have advantage. The parameters of a battle are to many so you can not compare troops so easily especially troops of different ages.
2007-03-15 00:19:32 · answer #1 · answered by be good 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
At the risk of being called a dumbass I have to disagree with you. The Phalanx was phased out as new weapons, tactics and formations developed. Alexander's infantry and cavalry were superior to the Spartan phalanx, the Roman Legions were as well. Then along came the Mongols (some of the best light cavalry in the history of warfare) with their speed and firepower. The Mongols devastated some significant military powers on their way across Asia and Eastern Europe.
Regardless of historical details:
1.How exactly would the phalanx have actually done any damage to the Mongol soldiers? The Mongols' bows have far better range than a spear. The Mongols could ride around for quite awhile, picking soldiers off and not taking any damage.
2. The phalanx was designed for a very set-piece battle in which the enemy was always directly in front. Yes the shields and armor were good protection, but not from attacks on the flanks and to the rear. The phalanx would not have been flexible enough to change direction to always be facing the attacking Mongols. The Mongols would be raining arrows down from all directions, not just in front where the shields were.
3. Finally, since this is all just opinion based on what people may or may not know from history you should try not to attack others opinions just because they differ from yours. Someone gave a thoughtful response to your question and happened to diagree with you. That doesn't warrant being called a dumbass or a retard.
2007-03-14 20:43:40 · answer #2 · answered by baldisbeautiful 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Actually, you are wrong indeed. There's some 1700 years of difference between Leonidas' Spartans and Genghiz Khan's Mongols. There were great differences in technology (eg: the Spartans used iron, while the Mongols were using steel...the Spartans never faced a foe of cavalrymen sunk in chainmail and steel plates like the Mongols and their horses, nor did the Spartans ever experience horsemen using saddles and stirrups for riding,..etc).
Anyhow, the Spartan phalanxes could be easily demolished by the Mongols or Turks from 100 yards away. This could be done by the Mongols encircling them (this is optional but recommended) then the front line of the Mongols would fire their arrows directly at the phalanx, while the second line would fire their arrows in a trajectory manner. You've got to know that the infantryman's shield would protect him against only one of those arrows at a time, but not against the other arrow at the same time...NOT AGAINST THE OTHER ARROW AT THE SAME TIME!!! Back in 53 B.C. at the Battle of Carrhae the Roman infantry formed the testudo (turtle) against the Parthian cavalry, but were cut down by the Parthian arrows shot that way. Remember that the Roman infantry of 53 B.C. made far superior infantry formations than those of Sparta in 490-480 B.C. and even those of Alexander the Great. Again, the Parthians were inferior horse-archers to the Mongols.
You still forgot to mention that 40% of a Mongol force were heavily armoured cataphracts (heavy cavalry), while 60% were horse-archers protected by highly-resistible leather jackets. The cataphracts could've easily ridden down the Spartans like grass. All in all, you needed some 100 Mongols to annihalate 300 Spartans in a battle that could takes almost an hour.
Take this as a fact...yet every event still has its circumstances.
2007-03-14 20:46:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
As a matter of fact, proving you wrong is easily done, but it would be akin to kamikaze. (here death == dumba$$)
The Spartans didnot use arrows and I believe they didnot relinquish their spears when fighting as a phalanx. So the mongols never need to fear assault and can conveniently shoot harassment fire till the phalanx can take it no more. Unless the Mongols charged the phalanx, the Spartans are in for a slaughter.
This hypothetical combat scenario shows the value of mobility and range in combat. The mongols have numerous options, but the spartans are committed.
Pleasse check the link below.
2007-03-14 22:36:32 · answer #4 · answered by Maranello 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I've researched ancient wars and battlefield tactics extremely thoroughly, and have had some pretty intelligent college professors on the subjects. I would theoretically have to agree with the census that the Mongols would beat the Spartans in open warfare. However, as was stated before...you ARE in fact asking the wrong question.
I would ask who, in their time, were the better soldiers...taking into consideration physical preparedness, tactics and weapons (for the time), and overall bravery?
The answer is simple...the Spartans. History tells us plainly that the Spartans were regularly outnumbered in battles they won, whereas the Mongols almost always outnumbered their foes. Also, they were in far...FAR...superior physical shape, when compared to the mongols. As for bravery...pleeease.
2007-03-15 12:29:27 · answer #5 · answered by dutchlloyd 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
you particular love Spartans! i'm hyped with regard to the action picture this Friday too. i'm with the mongols tho. it is no longer suitable what armor the Spartans have on, the mongols had Calvary and countless them. i fairly be a medieval tank any day to a guy donning a great pointed stick.
2016-10-02 03:56:02 · answer #6 · answered by marolf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just compare what they complished.
All spartans did was controlling Greece and its colonies(like what..10~20 years?).
Mongols built a huge empire that was 30 times bigger than Greece, and it lasted for 100 yearsw
2007-03-14 23:28:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋