Fight like the Spartans

[troytheface]

Thermopylae makes for a good story but from a tactical point of view it only proves that a larger and better supplied army could have held out indefinatley or even counter attacked

The spartans were fond of letting their allies do most of the fighting- (preserving their own numbers which were always low)

they were defeated when someone had the forsight to place their elite troops against the spartan elite-

the evidence is clear- have your allies do most of the fighting - while your main stack heads straight for the enemies main stack- or capital.

this is the superior

 

[champ82]

No comments on this yet? Fine.

Interesting. Could be true in some situations, and as with all of troytheface’s post, it has .

It is always interesting and fun when a war ally keeps the AI at bay. It’s mind blowing, considering how poor the AI is. I love slipping the AI a sub with tactical nukes . On my first domination victory (noble) I gave China, which had like 4 or 5 cities, a modern armor or 2 (no one else had the technology yet) and it raised a fair amount of hell, but never took over a city, I don’t think it tried to.

But…
-The capital could be surrounded by cultural pressure, making it useless, or even unlikely to hold.
-If the AP is consistently against the war, it may be better to take a few cities on your shared boarder, accept peace and try it again later.

 

[Insanity_X]

...I thought that the spartans (and allies) defeated the persian's elite troops (the immortals), and werent defeated until the persians discovered a back passage that they went up to rape the spartans. Any history buffs can feel free to correct me on that.

however the point Tracko's making does make a bit of sence. bribe two people to go to war, then take the victim by surprise by declaring war when their army's in your ally's territory.

 

[popejubal]

The spartans were fond of letting their allies do most of the fighting- (preserving their own numbers which were always low)

That's not how I remember the movie.

 

[BakingTheArt]

...I thought that the spartans (and allies) defeated the persian's elite troops (the immortals), and werent defeated until the persians discovered a back passage that they went up to rape the spartans. Any history buffs can feel free to correct me on that.

I just feel the need to that raping the Spartans via the back passage is hilarious.

 

[RyanZ]

have your allies do most of the fighting - while your main stack heads straight for the enemies main stack

How is fighting the enemies main stack not doing most of the fighting yourself?

 

[Gumbolt]

I thought the whole point of the Spartans was that the allies wouldnt fight unless the Spartans deployed their full army. Fact is it was the Spartans who inspired the others to fight. Albeit with a few religious festivals in the way.

Yes we have all heard the tale of 300 hundred spartan holding off a huge army for 3-4 days in a tight passage. Well not quite 300 as there was a second group of 700 Greeks too. I dont think the Spartans were afraid to fight really.

I think a lot of the Persian army were not as well trained as the Greeks. When your army is 1 million in size you have to assume some are just men with sword or spears who had not fought before thrown into battle. Most would probably flee if the immortals were beaten off. Most of the army probably did. After the second battle. Demoralised troops would have no will to fight.

 

[troytheface]

Fact- 12,000 greeks at thermoployae- only 300 spartans-
i suspect that since they were far away they sent a small nothing army so Athens would fall.

Fact- Salamis was the deciding battle- the persians withdrew the bulk of their army afterwards

Fact-Western Civs tend to write about their losses- making them into poems and crap

Fact- The spartans were defeated how? freeing the helots! in other words getting rid of people that actually did work. (like thier allies that actually fought their battles)

Fact- Syracuse beat Athens. Syracuse asked for help from Sparta and sparta sent two people. typical spartan tactic

the evidence is clear- Fight like Sparta- pretend you are unbeatable and then never use your own troops.

 

[champ82]

I just feel the need to that raping the Spartans via the back passage is hilarious.

eek:

 

[v8_mark]

the evidence is clear- Fight like Sparta- pretend you are unbeatable and then never use your own troops.

this is the superior

 

[r_rolo1]

Fact -The Spartans LOST in Thermopylae ( and lost in a pretty spectacular way: holded the pass for less than 3 days and lost 99,3% of their force .... that in by book is not even a defeat, it is a slaughter ). In fact I don't remember ANY battle in the Thermopylae that had been won by the defender ( oh, sorry, there was one time, one in seven , and it was a useless win because the war had been decided elsewhere )

the evidence is clear- fight like the Spartans in Thermopylae, especially against me. This is the superior ( way of letting me win easily )

P.S You can also fight as the Spartans did in Sphacteria or like in Lechaeum against me... I'm fine with all of them I don't even need to get to Epaminondas

 

[Molybdeus]

The Spartans did fight: they just fought late in the battle so they would be the deciding factor and avoided taking losses in the beginning of the fight.

In Civ4, the danger of getting the AI to go to war is that somebody is probably going to win, and with two AI's fighting it won't be you collecting the spoils of war.

 

[Bigv32]

I will not debate the overall idea of it for the game, but I must disagree on many of the historical points.

The spartans were raised to fight guerilla wars, but they also loved all out battles. Since this is not a historical idea, I have not arguement with the idea.

 

[Gumbolt]

Fact -The Spartans LOST in Thermopylae ( and lost in a pretty spectacular way: holded the pass for less than 3 days and lost 99,3% of their force .... that in by book is not even a defeat, it is a slaughter ). In fact I don't remember ANY battle in the Thermopylae that had been won by the defender ( oh, sorry, there was one time, one in seven , and it was a useless win because the war had been decided elsewhere )

the evidence is clear- fight like the Spartans in Thermopylae, especially against me. This is the superior ( way of letting me win easily )

P.S You can also fight as the Spartans did in Sphacteria or like in Lechaeum against me... I'm fine with all of them I don't even need to get to Epaminondas

Yes but they bought the Greeks time to build up an army while the tigers were at the gate. You do have to wonder why the Spartans put cermony before preventing invasion.

 

[Diamondeye]

I can't help but think that BakingTheArt's comment justified this entire thread.

 

[popejubal]

Fact -The Spartans LOST in Thermopylae

Incorrect. This is not a fact, but instead it is opinion. Winning or losing a battle is defined by the objectives of the battle.

If your objective is to hold a position for two weeks and you hold that position for two weeks, then you won that battle. If your opponent's objective was to pin you down in that position for two weeks, then they may very well have also won that battle.

Saying that the Spartans lost at Thermopylae is like saying that the United States lost in Vietnam. There are a lot of arguments in favor of that opinion, but it remains an opinion because the objectives of the battle of Thermopylae (and the US war in Vietnam as well) are not clear.

In any event, did the Spartan's side win the war as a whole? Did Thermopylae contribute in a meaningful way to that larger victory? Did the US involvment in Vietnam significantly slow the spread of Communism throughout the rest of SouthEast Asia and the rest of the world in general? Did the US eventually win its war of ideals and ideology vs. the Soviet Union (and did Vietnam contribute to that victory)?

These broader questions need to be asked before you can call a particular battle a victory or loss. A deeper understanding of the battle's context and importance in the war as a whole is necessary to say which side won a battle.


Mostly because wars and battles aren't games.

CivIV is a game. I can win or lose the game because the computer and I have agreed upon a set of rules before I even double clicked the icon. Wars are not games. Wars are bloody and messy and any rules that people have put into them are temporary and tenuous at best. Who won the battle of Thermopylae?

From my perspective, the only winners of any battle were the people who aren't there in the first place. I suspect that both the Spartans and the Persians would disagree with me.

 

[Belisar]

That's not how I remember the movie.

Love this one, very appropriate for a Troy-Thread, and for those who haven't seen it, here is another bonmont:
Wag_the_Dog

 

[r_rolo1]

Incorrect. This is not a fact, but instead it is opinion. Winning or losing a battle is defined by the objectives of the battle.

If your objective is to hold a position for two weeks and you hold that position for two weeks, then you won that battle. If your opponent's objective was to pin you down in that position for two weeks, then they may very well have also won that battle.

Saying that the Spartans lost at Thermopylae is like saying that the United States lost in Vietnam. There are a lot of arguments in favor of that opinion, but it remains an opinion because the objectives of the battle of Thermopylae (and the US war in Vietnam as well) are not clear.

In any event, did the Spartan's side win the war as a whole? Did Thermopylae contribute in a meaningful way to that larger victory? Did the US involvment in Vietnam significantly slow the spread of Communism throughout the rest of SouthEast Asia and the rest of the world in general? Did the US eventually win its war of ideals and ideology vs. the Soviet Union (and did Vietnam contribute to that victory)?

These broader questions need to be asked before you can call a particular battle a victory or loss. A deeper understanding of the battle's context and importance in the war as a whole is necessary to say which side won a battle.

Taking the serious danger of transforming a troy's thread onto something serious....

True and false. But i can definitely say that, unlike the US in Vietnam, the Spartans neither acheived their short-term goal ( twist it the way you want it, but the Spartan objective in Thermopylae was not gaining a statue of their king there or to hold the persians for less than 3 days ... in fact the objective of the Spartans and allies was to hold the passage indefinitely and there were reinforcements being prepared ) neither won the battle in military terms ( far, very far from it ). Ok, the defeat might had contributed in something for the later wins in Salamis and Platea, but argumenting in that line is pretty much like saying , without further basing, that the Russians and the Austrians actually won in Austerlitz or the Prussians in Eylau because in the end this 3 powers defeated the Napoleonic France. Either way , a defeat doesn't become a victory just because you in the end won the war, it just becomes a easier to swallow, or, at best, a instrumental defeat ...

Well, as usual troy skimmed the wiki ( and not very well as usual again ) .. I just wanted to remember people that Spartans lost probably as much battles as they won and that they were perfectly capable of fighting in stupid ways In fact troy makes the same mistake he atributes to this "Sun tzu lovers" : makes one source god, but refuses to look at what the source did or said

 

[popejubal]

Taking the serious danger of transforming a troy's thread onto something serious....

I agree with everything that Rolo said here with the exception of the things about the Russians/Prussians/Austrians. I can't really agree (or disagree) with those because I don't actually actually know anything significant about them. I'll take his word on those things, however, because he has a good track record of insightful and informative posts on this board.

Really the thing that bothered me was the phrasing of your, "Fact -The Spartans LOST in Thermopylae." I know that you were just copying Troy's post style, but it actually bothered me more than when Troy does it because when he says, "Fact - something trivial or nonsensical," it's obviously trivial or nonsensical and doesn't need to be taken seriously.

It actually bothers me when I see people talk about winning or losing battles because battles and wars are just so much more complicated than any measure of keeping score could account for. Every win costs the victor and every loss brings something to the loser. There are some clear winners and losers in history. Even then, however, things are not as clear as they seem at first glance. In particular, I'm thinking about the story of Channukah. You can't really get much more of a military loss than Judah Macabee's campaign had, but the only thing that's rememberd by pretty much anyone who knows about them was their "victory". The Macabees would be disappointed in their military result, I'm sure. If they got to see the political and religious results of their campaign, though, I'd bet they'd be thrilled (all things considered).

 

[troytheface]

having a broader grasp of history-moreso than than everyone on this board combined-i suggest some may be wary of statements seemingly trivial or nonsensical- that happen to be true.

the evidence is clear