Hypothetical Military Discussion

ah, that's an interesting one. The Swiss Pikemen were highly sought after by European armies as mercenaries. They were skilled enough to counter enemy cavalry and other pikemen without too much trouble. The Macedonian Phalanx, I believe, was mostly used a defensive formation rather than an offensive one. It was used a means of blocking the enemy infantry while allied cavalry breached the enemy lines. Let's face it, no sane person is going to charge head-on into a wall of 6 metre sarissas.

I reckon the Swiss would win this one--even if assuming the Macedonians had cavalry and supporting infantry to back them up, the Swiss were well trained for such situations.

This topic seems to be a bit dead at the moment, so I will try adding another point for discussion.

Who would win?

20,000 men of the Imperial Roman Army (including 8,000 Legionaries, 10,000 Auxiliaries and 2,000 Praetorians)during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and lead by none other than Marcus himself VS. 20,000 men of the Han Dynasty Government Army lead by Cao Cao (A warlord, chancellor of Han and later the state ruler of the kingdom of Wei). This battle takes place in mountainous terrain, with steep and narrow passes through mountains with no flat land and a dense forest off to one side. Each side has all of their respective technological war machines & strategies to play with. The weather is dense fog in the morning, with a clear day by noon, and heavy rain by evening (plus a thunderstorm at night).

I think this is a tough one, both sides were highly organised and disciplined and were known to be masterful at the art of warfare.

Given the terrain, I'm guessing that cavalry is pretty much irrelevant and it's all close quarters infantry. The flexibility of the legionnaires and their prowess at close quarter combat will give them an advantage.

I'm not really sure why anyone would want to fight in that kind of location though...

I would like to point out that though the Roman Legionaries were highly skilled at melee combat, the Chinese at this time were incredibly skilled at launching massive volleys of arrows. If you've seen the movie 300 and the Persian arrows "blotting out the sun", it's kinda like that, but everything is supported by equally skilled infantry with armour and weapons just as good as those used by the Romans.

Both sides liked to fight in tight formations and moved in organised groups, thus making easier targets fore ranged weapons, but both sides also fought with a "tortoise" formation that utilised infantry shields like a tortoise shell.

I think it comes down to tactics. The Chinese I think would have the tech advantage but the Romans had good armor. So depending on who was able to use the fog the best they could sneak attack in the morning, surround and slaughter by 3 p.m and eat dinner by rain fall

The British would win, almost comically in fact. At the first thunder of an artillery gun, or roar of a musket, what do you think these warriors from ancient times would do? Your comrades falling beside you and quickly dying from things that you didn't even see hit them, holes torn through their metal shields that they had placed so much confidence in. The Greeks would scatter before the second volley, and if the Spartans remained, they'd be torn to shreds by the second volley of Musket fire. In other words..No chance of victory for the Greeks/Spartans.

THANKYOU! i was waiting for someone to pick up on that!

If bullets were so useless against armor, why didn't the Brits wear it?

A Knight's breast plate made of iron will take a hit from an early musket at longish ranges but up at closer ranges a musket ball will have no problems piercing it.
Hopelite armour is made of bronze which is a (relatively) soft material also you don't need to hit center mass a stray shot hitting the extremities is more than enough to cause horrific wounds.

Edit: Muskets started life as specialist armour piercing weapons before they became light enough to be more widespread and issued to whole armies allowing for better mobility and firepower. These guns were designed to punch holes in armour so if armour of the era was ineffective what does that say about bronze age armour?