Could 100 spartans win a fight against 100 marines if they were given 2 weeks of bootcamp training + modern weaponry? No vehicles allowed
Preparedness & self-sufficiency community
Could 100 spartans win a fight against 100 marines if they were given 2 weeks of bootcamp training + modern weaponry? No vehicles allowed
>Athenians had an overwhelming 25 to 1 advantage
>pretends like this has any relevance to the question posed
This is like asking if a cardiologist could perform a brain surgery if he was given 2 weeks of training and all the equipment necessary. The answer is obviously no and you should make better threads.
>if a cardiologist could perform a brain surgery if he was given 2 weeks of training
you'd be surprised, being a surgeon is a lot like being an auto mechanic, you need a knack for it and some experience but you can basically fix any old thing that comes your way, the brain isn't a whole lot more complicated than your heart system
>the brain isn't a whole lot more complicated than your heart system
YOU CAN LITERALLY REPLACE THE HEART WITH A MECHANICAL PUMP, YOU FUCKING IDIOT, THE BRAIN IS FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN THE HEART.
>anime cyborgs are real IRL
>He doesn't know
that has no relevance to the complexity of the surgery itself. the difference between a cardiosurgeon and a neursurgeon is the last 2-3 years of their +10 years education, and most of the skills needed in both areas are interchangeable.
If you want a medical analogy then a better one for this would be some medieval faith healer whose only diagnosis was 'yup, that looks like a bad case of demons in your blood' and whose only treatment was leeches and herbal suppositories being given two weeks to train as a modern neurosurgeon.
They'd get their shit rocked.
Bootcamp is literally teaching you to wash your ass after you wash your face
If they were on the defense they'd be dangerous. Even with minimal training, disciplined and motivated troops with weapons parity are a serious threat.
>could someone with 2 weeks of training in a completely alien method of warfare fight people with extensive experience and institutional knowledge of said warfare
We're talking about marines
Not in 2 weeks, probably in 6 months if you restrict it to small arms and enlistedmen. They'd have a lot to learn besides marksmanship to be effective. Marines, surprisingly, would have a higher literacy rate, which the Spartans lacking would make a lot of things difficult for them to learn quickly. The one advantage they have is that they won't shit themselves and cry when they start taking large numbers of casualties, at least if they're Spartiates and not the mongrels the Spartans were relying on at the end of their existence.
Weren't most of the spartan soldiers nobles and would therefore be literate?
yeah I guess the language barrier still would remain, unless we ignore that and assume you have some greek instructors
Athenians thought they were all illiterate savages. Reality of the situation is that they were probably literate enough to communicate with each other and conduct effective logistics. Problem is they've never driven a car, used the Internet, can't do basic algebra, etc. You'd have to teach them things that come so naturally to a modern person that we don't even think about it. The odds of them learning to operate a tank or helicopter effectively in the time frame is virtually 0.
OP specified no vehicles. In an actual combined arms situation yeah the Spartans would get wiped. But imagine close quarters urban combat with highly motivated and disciplined troops that welcome death in battle. 2 weeks of rigorous training to familiarize the Spartans with firearms and other basics would be good enough, especially for a unit already trained and familiar with one another. I certainly wouldn't want to be fighting with no vehicle support 1:1 against those guys.
I think they'd need enough time to make modern tactics second nature. There are plenty of brave souls willing to fight to the death that we've utterly trounced in infantry combat. What makes the US better than a bunch of goat herders is money and training. The bravery would have to be annealed out of them to some extent, they'd have to figure out new unit tactics, and they'd to have the time to do what Spartans did most effectively -- train relentlessly. I think it's definitely doable on a relatively short time frame, I just think 2 weeks is too aggressive.
At the end of the day a gun is a gun. Untrained africans can pose a threat with them. If the marines had to clear them out from a defensive position it would be a tough ask.
>Untrained africans can pose a threat with them.
Untrained Africans are a serious threat in all environments. Armed or not.
>But imagine close quarters urban combat with highly motivated and disciplined troops that welcome death in battle
That is some of the worst case scenarios for the spartans, they were infamously stiff and inflexible in battle, which is a death sentence in urban warfare.
they wouldn't even be able to maintain formation on the move
I hate to break this to you, but the Spartan battle record over their historical period is basically bang average compared to every other Grecian city state. They aren't some kind of ubermench warriors, they're pretty much the exact equal of any ancient military in terms of effectiveness.
They don't welcome death, routed the same as anyone else, and their ENTIRE conception of war is "work out, firm tight, and push"
They're deeply opposed to ANY firm of technical training on a cultural level. They'd outright reject most modern forms of training as pointless and spend all their time in the gym or practicing formations and movement instead.
Nobility reading and writing is a modern idea. People had scribes to do that shit for them pre modern. Also the very idea of being a noble want really a thing in Sparta or much of Greece, at the time. You had freemen, or citizens of some kind and then slaves and outsiders. Spartans were ruled by a council of oligarchs with two kings as executives. But they were closer to Roman consuls than actual kings. Also the Spartans would get rocked fucking hard. Combat training for usmc cooks is longer than 2 weeks.
>Nobility reading and writing is a modern idea.
No, it was also standard in the ancient world.
Literate back then != what would count as literate today
Could Spartans erase years of training with 2 weeks of bootcamp? No
This, nothing short of years of indoctrination would erase the core Spartan identity which included show boating and facing your enemies head on. Modern combat relies on spending most of your time waiting for the enemy to put itself in an unfavorable situation which the Americans don’t mind doing, but these Spartans raised from birth to view themselves as nothing short of the peak of all humanity? No chance, they’d bayonet charge right in
If they were brought here and trained? They'd be too sick to fight after spending that much time exposed to all the pathogens of the past thousand years.
Could 100 marines win a fight against 100 spartans if they were given 2 weeks of bootcamp training + ancient weaponry?
No, it's almost like training proffesional soldier takes longer than 2 weeks. Is this secretly a Ukraine thread?
The ancient man's brain was far more high functioning than the modern domesticated retard brain. Plus, back then every man of every background was a soldier. Especially in Sparta, the 30% of that society that were non-slaves had no other background, they were all made to be career soldiers. There was a more diverse bunch of brains, meanwhile the US military is all trash monkey retard brains. Especially the Marines which are regarded as the dumbest branch. You'd essentially have geniuses vs retards.
>The ancient man's brain was far more high functioning than the modern domesticated retard brain
Explains why your post was so fucking stupid.
Kek, 1,000 spartans with 2 weeks training couldn't take 100 marines, they know nothing about fire and maneuver or even enfilade and defilade.
They wouldn't understand what the fuck was happening when guys started dropping with the enemy still 500m away.
2 weeks is not enough, but give them proper training and they would be an absolute nightmare to dislodge from a defensive position.
There are many misconceptions about Sparta, but their training to adapt to extremely brutal conditions from a very young age is not a myth.
Spartans are a bad matchup. They spend years and decades fighting in close formation, fighting shoulder to shoulder with their fellows. 2 weeks isn't going to change that and against modern weapons that habit is going to get them killed.
there's already a new vegas thread up
Any youtube videos of someone spraying an AR from 100ft at period authentic shields?
a better question is would marines be able to fight spartans if they were given a two week crash course on ancient combat. the answer is still marine victory though, simply due to thousands of years of evolution in strategy and warfare
>a better question is would marines be able to fight spartans if they were given a two week crash course on ancient combat.
Not the slightest chance. Not because Spartans are magical or whatever but because melee combat training takes a long time and is very specific. The hand to hand training Marines get would not provide significant overlap when dealing with armored shield and spear combat.
It'd be like when people from other combat sports Box with seasoned boxers and get their heads caved in, only way worse because at least those sports usually have some comparable movements and striking.
the hard counter to a phalanx is skirmishing. the typical marine combat load is upwards of 100lbs. that's a metric fuck ton of skirmishing capability in terms of bows and arrows
Their draw weights after only two weeks of training would be dogshit. Skirmishers were also generally backed by heavier infantry.
Absolutely fucking not. They'd have zero institutional knowledge of what's going on, and absolutely no modern tactics innovations carry over. Small unit tactics do NOT apply to cold weapons.
You wouldn't eradicate their instinct to stick together when endangered during these 2 weeks
>100 spartans win a fight against 100 marines i
Spartans; pure humans whose eugenics society trains them in all aspects to be soldiers since they can walk.
Modern Marines; hamburger idiots, physically, mentally and emotionally inferior in all aspects barely humans when compared to the Spartans. They drop in Afghanistan, fuck up and then write fake books and lie and then make films about it.
2 weeks of training Spartans in modern tactics would make them win against any marines
2 weeks of training modern Marines in ancient hoplite tactics would make them lose against any ancient Hellenic troop.
boot-camp sucks, so just assume actual training that is directly useful in combat, not making your bed and saluting.
This is true.
- The Spartans were trained from a very young age to march, to hunt, to sneak, and to fight. Spartan youths and boys were kept hungry so they would learn how to steal, and were punished only for being caught, rather than for theft itself. Those punishments were severe.
The Spartans know how to move stealthily, in ways that cannot otherwise be trained. They know suffering, cold, and hunger.
- The Spartans are ice-cold killers. They literally hunted their slave caste, the Helots, for fun and games. Of those 100 Marines, it's likely that not one of them has ever killed a man. Many of the Spartan adults have already killed with spear and knife, at arm's length.
- The Spartans are superior in terms of their physical capabilities. They can march faster, for longer periods of time. They can go for longer periods without food, water, or rest.
If you give Spartans training in marksmanship, ambushing, etc., and if you teach them what modern warfare is like, they'll be the most fearsome light infantry ever seen on Earth. It's possible that 25 Spartans could take 100 Marines, in that case.
> The Spartans were trained from a very young age to march, to hunt, to sneak, and to fight
I know burger education is bad but come on.
> t. hasn't heard of the Agoge.
> t. hasn't heard of the Agoge
I have, and that is why I know that this claim is retard. Agoge’s main function was to create citizens loyal to the state, not to serve as some sort of “military training”, a concept that would be utterly bizarre to ancient greeks.
Have you read Xenophon's account of their education?
- They were beaten regularly
- They weren't given shoes. "Instead of softening the boys' feet with sandals he required them to harden their feet by going without shoes. He believed that if this habit were cultivated it would enable them to climb hills more easily and descend steep inclines with less danger, and that a youth who had accustomed himself to go barefoot would leap and jump and run more nimbly than a boy in sandals."
- They weren't given clothes, save for one cloak a year. "And instead of letting them be pampered in the matter of clothing, he introduced the custom of wearing one garment throughout the year, believing that they would thus be better prepared to face changes of heat and cold."
- They had to steal food to supplement their meager diets, at substantial risk to themselves! "Obviously a man who intends to take to thieving must spend sleepless nights and play the deceiver and lie in ambush by day, and moreover, if he means to make a capture, he must have spies ready. There can be no doubt then, that all this education was planned by him in order to make the boys more resourceful in getting supplies, and better fighting men."
As for Plutarch: "All their education was directed toward prompt obedience to authority, stout endurance of hardship, and victory or death in battle."
Moreover: "Moreover the rhythmic movement of their marching songs was such as to excite courage and boldness, and contempt for death; and these they used both in dancing, and also to the accompaniment of the flute when advancing upon the enemy. "
> The boys in Sparta were lashed with whips During the entire day at the altar of Artemis Orthia, frequently to the point of death, and they bravely endured this, cheerful and proud, vying with one another for the supremacy as to which one of them could endure being beaten for the longer time and the greater number of blows. And the one who was victorious was held in especial repute. This competition is called 'The Flagellation,' and it takes place each year.
Spartans were just built different.
>Beating and starving kids is military training
Lol. Funny part is that for all the hype the spartan hoplite was actually pretty middling for aristocratic infantrymen during the period and got utterly destroyed any time the enemy used actual tactics instead of just charging forward. Also
>Spartans were just built different.
Taking in account they constantly ran out of food during their raids into the Attic(which was meant to destroy athenian food production), they weren't.
>got utterly destroyed any time the enemy used actual tactics instead of just charging forward.
Don't exaggerate. They utterly crushed the Persians despite the Persians having plenty of time to set up and shower them with arrows at platea.
>They utterly crushed the Persians despite the Persians having plenty of time to set up and shower them with arrows at platea.
The spartans literally stood still getting pelted by arrows until their allies charged, it was some retard shit.
Yes, but they still won, and it was utterly decisive. And honestly, the "bad omens" were probably to cover for them being utterly unsure of the wisdom of advancing with the Persian cavalry lose on the battlefield
we know what the Agoge was, problem is that Sparta has been turned into a meme by pop history. You know they didn't even do weapons training in the """"military barracks"""" because preparing was seen as eliminate and unmanly? Their training involved dancing, playing musical instruments and body weight exercises. They hadn't even developed phalanx formation by the time of the Battle of Thermopylae. The Greeks thought they were great soldiers because nobody in the rest of the Hellenes had a professional army at this point, they were all levied farmers. Pop history and hollywood turned a story about a last stand into something else. The Greeks were massacred at Thermopylae and they never intended to lose here. The plan was to hold the Persian host back in an area without logistics to feed their army and they failed. Athens was immediately sacked afterwards. It was a catastrophe for the Greeks but Hollywood has spun it into something else.
There are two types of retards concerning sparta, even among academics.
Type 1: SPARTA WAS THE BESTEST!!!!
Type 2: Sparta was achshually a meme
You are just type 2.
> They hadn't even developed phalanx formation by the time of the Battle of Thermopylae.
You show you have absolutely zero clue, you are probably thinking that the only phalanx formation is the macedonian one or Zeus knows what the fuck your damaged brain is doing.
I'm not sure how its possible to be so wrong in so few words.
>we know what the Agoge was, problem is that Sparta has been turned into a meme by pop history.
I doubt you know, because otherwise you would remember that one part includes killing and stealing without being caught.
yet they lost wars anyways. curious.
The people they lost to were either equally hard or had substantial strategic advantages. Besides, no civilization remains great forever.
the athenians, despite being boy-lovers, were equally chad
>spartans were kept hungry
>spartans are superior in terms of physical capabilities
these two things are at odds. Hungry kids don't grow, and calorie deficiencies are probably the number one reason for lack of development. If you keep all your kids hungry you're basically begging for kids who are undersized or lack muscle development on average, which is probably exactly what the Spartans got.
No. Please stop fetishizing Spartans, it got old a long time ago. 300 was 2006, let it go.
PrepHole was taken over by Reddit awhile back. just sit back and kek
No. The change in warfare goes so far against everything they've known and trained in all their lives (pretty much since they could stand upright) that it would take a hell of a lot more than 14 days to get them to even understand it, and a lot longer than that to make them any good at it. The Spartans could probably bench more than your average Crayon, but that's about the only thing they've got going for them.
Average Greek was 5'4" to 5-8" and probably 140-150lbs, and they didn't exactly eat protein heavy diets, so benching more is very unlikely.
Spartans were literally famous/infamous for their shit-tasting food that was nonetheless nutritious, like the black broth.
Which, again, isn't protein heavy. They weren't malnourished, but they'd be smaller and weaker than the top 10% of Marines.
>than the top 10% of Marines.
on the other hand none of the marines have ever been in serious melee
>Which, again, isn't protein heavy.
Blood and meat have no protein?
Black broth has meat, yes, but it wasn't the only thing they ate or even close to it. Same as anyone else in the area, they'd be primarily consuming grain, and still end up smaller than modern people.
Neither were most spartans. Only the two front ranks in the hoplite phalanx could actually reach their opponents. A few people would filter forward to step over casualties, but the vast majority are in the back, pushing, relatively blind to the actual fight until the rout happens and they get to chase down and murder fleeing men.
Go ahead anon, explain what the fort ranker is going to be doing with his 8ft dory.
keeping calm while the Americans instantly panic
You are a fucking cretin.
People were placed in base of their status of noobs or elite or anything in between, and if (IF) the battle was quick the rear ranks would not fight much, FOR THAT BATTLE.
But others would be fought with not always the same people, which would give to most an experience. Also, do you think that the only movement from the back and front was due to casualties?
Somewhat, you extrapolate from all of this that the same guys would be on the front all the time and none else would have combat experience.
You are an incredibly dumb and autistic arrogant idiot.
Do you think the phalanx exchanged ranks?
Because no period source ever makes ANY mention of it. No reconstruction suggests that it's even physically possible.
>If the battle was quick
Hoplite battles were almost universally quick
>Others would be fought with
No source suggests this. Plenty imply the opposite, with the wealthiest, best trained, and best armored, and most important men universally fronting the phalanx in every city state, including Sparta, because anything else was socially unacceptable- to be in the front ranks was a matter of immense pride- and utterly retarded because placing better men anywhere other than the front or rear rank was a total fucking waste.
Read a book, retard.
Bruh I'm pretty sure they rotated ranks every now and then.
That was the romans. The average hoplita phalanx was to dense and the average greek soldier too indisciplined too allow for mid-battle rank rotation.
No. If you think they did, you do not understand the subject matter. A phalanx that tried to rotate ranks would die. Immediately. It doesn't have anywhere near the drill to do this, it doesn't have the tactical control, the men wouldn't WANT to rotate, and they couldn't, and didn't, break off to reorganize once engaged. They had no capacity to do anything at all once in contact besides advance forward.
They literally had centuries where war consisted purely of marching to a workably flat battlefield, the phalanx forming up, psioli advancing to throw shit and occasionally shoot each other and maybe hit the odd hoplite, and the retreat so the phalanxes can advance, spear fight for a time, and then crash into each other and physically shove the opposing formation apart while stabbing them, or, in most cases, break into a shambling run, smash into each other, and start shoving. This didn't vary. It isn't a simple case of ritualistic behavior, either, as they fought other cultures the same way.
Half the reason Spartans were feared is their simple ability to advance together, calmly, at the walk. Tactical innovation was rare enough that something as done as ekdromoi was a significant change. Sane again with the eventual Theban use of very deep columns attacking and refusing flanks.
>Could 100 spartans
yes, they are already professional shock infantry, they're gonna be like fish in water
>Could 100 spartans win
No. People forget this, but the 100 Spartans got their asses kicked the first time too.
they’d win if no modern weapons were allowed
A much more interesting question is the reverse. If you took us marines full of 6'+ nordics and Blacks with modern reason, weight teaining, anxieties, values, neurotic tendency, and aversion to discomfort and hands on gore, could they take on Spartans in open battle with hoplite technology and a few weeks training. Marines are pulled from top 10% of corp as far as iq and fitness.
Almost certainly not. Whichever one you transport forwards/back to the others time is going to be out of their depth due to the massive cultural and technical changes as well as the differences in warfare give an unbeatable advantage to whichever side gets the home turf advantage. For this sort of comparison you need to use at least vaguely comparable groups, otherwise it's just apples and oranges.
If you want to use the Spartans you've got to compare them to some other pre-gunpowder army at the very least.
Time slip happens and William's boats crossing the channel get chucked into 55BC. Runs into Cesar in the vicinity of Hastings, who wins?
Assuming we take from the top 10%, there's at least one marine who has a degree in Ancient history, or at least, payed really, really close attention in Ancient History class.
Thus, we can assume they would have an at least rudimentary, at best comprehensive understanding of Spartan battle tactics.
The same cannot be said for the Spartans regarding marine tactics.
A macedonian phalanx, for instance, would prove quite successful if adopted by our marines, against the shorter spears of the Spartan phalanx.
Furthermore, when we say "Hoplite technology", what does that mean?
Is it a stock standard hypothetical arena pit fight?
Or can marine combat engineers get creative with using bronze-age technology alongside modern-day understanding to gain a technological edge-as befitting their role.
I imagine the invention of iron or blackpowder would make the scales just a bit unbalanced, or even something simpler such as the adoption of Cataphract or full plate armor (This is the top 10%, so such feats are not impossible)
>Thus, we can assume they would have an at least rudimentary, at best comprehensive understanding of Spartan battle tactics
A literal chimp could understand Spartan battle tactics, it was literally just form a line and charge.
>A literal chimp could understand Spartan battle tactics
hoplite tactics were revolutionary at the time, literal shock infantry
>hoplite tactics were revolutionary at the time
They weren’t, actually revolutionary stuff was manipular/macedonian tactics, the hoplites meanwhile were regarded as being retard-proof, literally anyone could assemble a phalanx according to the greeks themselves.
rome was a small city state with a king at the time
"hoplite tactis" is too generic and includes classic stuff but also Epaminondas coming up with oblique order at leuctra.
It depends entirely on the quality of the training program. They're going to be bigger, stronger, and smarter, and that shit MATTERS in phalanx combat. On top of that, Spartans do not engage in much weapons training. They wrestle, they drill moving in formation, and they engage in military dance - which does actually have value - but an intensive week of spear practice, with 12 hours a day devoted to it?
Nothing equivalent, and that could produce two ranks of Marines who can get their spears in the Spartan front rankers eyes 3 times in ten, which would be devastating. It's the same with sword training, the Greeks held a general view that a boy was born naturally knowing all he needed to know about it.
If the training misses something, they get bowled over and die.
We went over this
>Not the slightest chance. Not because Spartans are magical or whatever but because melee combat training takes a long time and is very specific. The hand to hand training Marines get would not provide significant overlap when dealing with armored shield and spear combat.
>It'd be like when people from other combat sports Box with seasoned boxers and get their heads caved in, only way worse because at least those sports usually have some comparable movements and striking.
maybe with a year of training, but a couple of weeks? not a chance in hell. Fighting with a spear and shield is tremendously different than the kind of melee fighting the Marines would be trained for. They'd have all the wrong reflexes, all the wrong instincts.
They'd be able to "become" better fighters than the Spartans due to the advantages of size, modern training methods, etc, given enough time but there's not really a substitute for practice.
>Could 100 spartans win a fight against 100 marines if they were given 2 weeks of bootcamp training + modern weaponry? No vehicles allowed
Probably not, you'd need more than 2 weeks.
Conversely if you took 100 marines, gave them 2 weeks of hoplite training, and put them up against the spartans in their own element, the marines would win, just by virtue of being much bigger and stronger due to modern caloric abundance growing up.
>Our ancestors, who had to hunt and gather their food before the invention of agriculture, were more physically active than we are. Their bones were much stronger, too. A new study shows that human skeletons today are much lighter and more fragile than those of our ancient ancestors.
>Spartans were hunter-gatherers
lmao, well, the point still stands, even medieval peasants had stronger bones than modern people
You mean with modern weapons? No, absolutely not.
A better question would be whether 100 marines could defeat 100 Spartans in a melee fight, assuming the marines were given some training. The marines would likely be taller, stronger and overall more physically fit than the Spartan midgets, given their modern training, so the question is whether or not that would allow them to overcome the Spartans' superior skills.
It would definitely be interesting. Ancient Spartans were smaller, sure, but tough as nails, and trained since childhood in fighting and playing dirty (Pankration style).
This is the stupidest thread I’ve ever seen, the answer is clearly yes
I'm not sure how accurate this is, considering there's no way in hell they were 1.78m tall, aside from some outliers. People from that part of the world are genetically short, and the diet back then meant they were even shorter, even if the Spartans had more protein in their diet than the average Greek.
The Varangian guard, which consisted of norsemen, were considered giant, muscular pieces of physical perfection compared to the local Byzantines, but were shorter than the stated height of the Spartans listed in the picture, and were also short by today's standards.
Everything I e seen from reenactors and historians who are heavily invested- and actually handle the gear regularly - puts them as shorter than that, but in the same weight range.
Which makes sense, because that range of height and weight is comically lean.
Spartans are overrated they got fucked hard by other Greeks and later Romans.
no because the Spartans were more retarded than crayon eaters
without their helots they were useless
2 weeks isn't enough to train a soldier right now so no.
Marines don’t do shit until the artillery softens up wherever they gotta go, and we all remember what napoleon said about that