SPARTANS, TONIGHT WE DINE IN HELL!!! (AC: Odyssey has 300)

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

You sold me game. And jeez the Spartan/Greek Hoplite armor looks gorgeous (even though they kinda look a bit more fantastical then the real thing)

 

[SckizoBoy]

Yeah, I'm kinda excited for an AC game for once... even though I won't treat this as AC, pretty much at all!

Lip sync was off at the end, but I think that isn't anything to do with the game, just a bad edit. Still, for once, a depicted Leonidas approaching showing his actual age... a tad disappointed that you'll actually play as him instead of Aristodemus, give them an excuse to have a survivor who sneaks back, following Eurytus, and he recovers the king's shattered spear in the aftermath of the battle... or something...

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

And jeez the Spartan/Greek Hoplite armor looks gorgeous (even though they kinda look a bit more fantastical then the real thing)

They go overboard on the musculature on the muscle cuirasses, as usual, but otherwise it's fairly plausible.

Other than that, the biggest thing is that the armor is uniform. Realistically you'd see a wide range of equipment, since Hoplites weren't professionals with standardized equipment, but citizen-soldiers who had to provide their own equipment. At minimum the spear and shield needed for the phalanx formation, but aside from those, they had anything from no armor at all for the poorest to a full bronze panoply for the rich.

Then again, it's Assassin's Creed. It's never been too bothered by these kinds of inaccuracies.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Other than that, the biggest thing is that the armor is uniform. Realistically you'd see a wide range of equipment, since Hoplites weren't professionals with standardized equipment, but citizen-soldiers who had to provide their own equipment. At minimum the spear and shield needed for the phalanx formation, but aside from those, they had anything from no armor at all for the poorest to a full bronze panoply for the rich.

Not so in this case. For all the Greek city states, that is true, except Sparta. Being the poster boy of ancient Greek militarism, the panoply of full Spartiate men was supplied by the state (had to be, since men had no right to private property (i.e. money) until their term was up, hence the financial independence of women, a fact of which irked most other Greeks). Notably, Spartan shields were the only ones that were completely uniform for a given generation of soldiers (the prominent lambda being a constant).

 

[Casual Shinji]

I was somewhat interested, till I saw a bunch of those conversation sections. Jesus, they look bad. If you're going to attempt shit like this Ubisoft, at least make sure it's somewhat compareable something like Horizon: Zero Dawn's dialoge scenes/faces. If you can't even manage that don't bother please.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Other than that, the biggest thing is that the armor is uniform. Realistically you'd see a wide range of equipment, since Hoplites weren't professionals with standardized equipment, but citizen-soldiers who had to provide their own equipment. At minimum the spear and shield needed for the phalanx formation, but aside from those, they had anything from no armor at all for the poorest to a full bronze panoply for the rich.

Not so in this case. For all the Greek city states, that is true, except Sparta. Being the poster boy of ancient Greek militarism, the panoply of full Spartiate men was supplied by the state (had to be, since men had no right to private property (i.e. money) until their term was up, hence the financial independence of women, a fact of which irked most other Greeks). Notably, Spartan shields were the only ones that were completely uniform for a given generation of soldiers (the prominent lambda being a constant).

Is it wrong to say that Infantry in Antiquity were miles better then Infantry in the Medieval era?

I look at Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionaries and they all looked decked out in metal plate armor and large shields to make phalanxes/shield walls with. Here is Rome 2's screenshots of them


https://i2.wp.com/www.r27.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/twrii_wos_spartan_logo_1417593600.png?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=1

https://www.mobygames.com/images/promo/original/cf1474d3112a44668dc634642f915881.jpg

But then I look at Medieval infantry in the for of Men-at-Arms and they look rather lesser in comparison to what Ancient Greece and Rome had. I mean look at the Men-at-Arms here in both Braveheart (The English mind you) and Kingdom of Heaven:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsYpKRbRFlc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG8YoqrNMEA

 

[Saelune]

Other than that, the biggest thing is that the armor is uniform. Realistically you'd see a wide range of equipment, since Hoplites weren't professionals with standardized equipment, but citizen-soldiers who had to provide their own equipment. At minimum the spear and shield needed for the phalanx formation, but aside from those, they had anything from no armor at all for the poorest to a full bronze panoply for the rich.

Not so in this case. For all the Greek city states, that is true, except Sparta. Being the poster boy of ancient Greek militarism, the panoply of full Spartiate men was supplied by the state (had to be, since men had no right to private property (i.e. money) until their term was up, hence the financial independence of women, a fact of which irked most other Greeks). Notably, Spartan shields were the only ones that were completely uniform for a given generation of soldiers (the prominent lambda being a constant).

Is it wrong to say that Infantry in Antiquity were miles better then Infantry in the Medieval era?

I look at Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionaries and they all looked decked out in metal plate armor and large shields to make phalanxes/shield walls with. Here is Rome 2's screenshots of them


https://i2.wp.com/www.r27.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/twrii_wos_spartan_logo_1417593600.png?fit=1000%2C563&ssl=1

https://www.mobygames.com/images/promo/original/cf1474d3112a44668dc634642f915881.jpg

But then I look at Medieval infantry in the for of Men-at-Arms and they look rather lesser in comparison to what Ancient Greece and Rome had. I mean look at the Men-at-Arms here in both Braveheart (The English mind you) and Kingdom of Heaven:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsYpKRbRFlc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG8YoqrNMEA

This is just from memory of looking too much into metallurgy for DnD purposes, but if I remember correctly, the big difference is the metal itself. Copper and bronze is inferior to iron and steel when it comes to weapons and armor.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I was kinda expecting this. Also this will be the first AC game I try since it apparently is more RPG-themed now and is using the peloponesian war setting which I learned a lot about growing up. Hopefully they don't mispronounce too many names XD.

 

[Elfgore]

Yeah, I'm kinda excited for an AC game for once... even though I won't treat this as AC, pretty much at all!

I think they've realized this too, don't treat these games as Assassin's Creed games. Treat them like historical fiction titles with some themes connecting them all. I don't think it's to outlandish when the two best Assassin's Creed games had as little to do with the overall plot as possible.

It's why I'm looking forward to this. I love Greek history and I loved the gameplay of Origins. So count me in!

 

[meiam]

I hope they polish up the gameplay, I played origin for a few hours and the environment was amazing, I loved just moving around and seeing all the different landscape, but as soon as gameplay started I just didn't care anymore and ended up dropping it. There's no more parkour, you can climb anything straight up, so moving around isn't fun. They went for a bit more souls like gameplay, but didn't bring in the stamina mechanic so it didn't gel together at all and ended up just being a button smasher. Loot was uninteresting and a pain in the ass. Sneak mission were just too easy, when combat is so easy why even bother sneaking?

They're on to something good with this new formula (seriously, fuck Desmond and the present stuff), they just need to give it that tiny bit of polish for it to work.

 

[SckizoBoy]

Is it wrong to say that Infantry in Antiquity were miles better then Infantry in the Medieval era?

Yes and no, as it depends on too many factors: which period of Antiquity (Mycenaean Greek, Imperial Athenian/Spartan/Theban, Alexandrian/Diadochi, Royal Roman, early/mid/late Republican Roman, early/mid/late Imperial Roman); which period of the Medieval era (early/high/late); which nation/state (too many to list); are we involving firearms at all etc. etc. As there were loads of chronological and geographic quirks. Further, there are the individual parts of the army and the circumstances of combat.

I look at Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionaries and they all looked decked out in metal plate armor and large shields to make phalanxes/shield walls with. Here is Rome 2's screenshots of them

What you've got to understand is that popular media's representation of the panoply of Antiquity & the Medieval era is, by and large, well-intentioned, but wrong in a myriad of petty ways.

Funnily enough, shit film though it is, 300 is one of the few films that has represented the othismos vaguely correctly, albeit just once. It's notable that full bronze hoplite armour was rare and expensive. Most hoplites of the phalanx would have worn linothorax (for a multitude of reasons: lighter; cheaper; easier to maintain; size differences mattered less; greater emphasis on the shield for protective purposes) and since a linothorax greave is weird, it was a distinctly Greek oddity that hoplites only wore greaves on their left calf (can't remember whether Spartans did this as well or not). Even for the Spartans themselves, the bulk of the line infantry was Perioeci/Perioikoi (roughly 75-80% of the heavy infantry), the four thousand (or so) Homoioi at Plataea being the largest assembly of Spartiates in recorded history. And given the nature of wars amongst the Greek cities, Spartans rarely fought alone (as in as the rulers of Lacedaemonia in isolation), typically fighting with Corinthian allies, so the full bronze breastplate, crested Corinthian helmet, red tunic, kilt, doru and lambda adorned aspis would only really be seen in one tenth (or less) of a Spartan led army. Anyway, one day, I'd love to see a well represented corps of Sciritaea...!

As for the Romans, I'll stick with the mid-Republic manipular legion, 'cos that's the most iconic. Hastati had leather armour with a low number of large circular discs for added protection, Principes wore mail/scale and only triarii (i.e. one fifth of the non-skirmisher legionary infantry) wore full torso metal plate. The Latins/socii would be decked out in similar armour to the Greeks of the day. So depictions tend to be exaggerated, if perhaps not unduly.

But then I look at Medieval infantry in the for of Men-at-Arms and they look rather lesser in comparison to what Ancient Greece and Rome had. I mean look at the Men-at-Arms here in both Braveheart (The English mind you) and Kingdom of Heaven:

Ah, Braveheart, you and your messing up of the Battle of Stirling Bridge (well, all of them, at that). For one thing, the Scottish had some darned good tricks up their sleeve (nowhere did they do a schiltron, IIRC), and their armies were borderline indistinguishable from the English in reality. Anyway, the English (or any European) man-at-arms wasn't bad by any means, just disadvantaged by being a product of his times (illiterate and bound to the feudal system that lacked formal military training for anyone other than the king's and senior nobles' guards, like the deployment of Harold's Huscarls at Hastings). However, loads of factors would lead to various units of the Medieval era to be stand-outs and be able to form the bases of strong armies (Swiss mercenaries come to mind, as do the Varangians, though they weren't that many).

Still, before Alexander, hoplites (& their successors... or not, as the case turned out to be) never fought well too far from their homes, and there's a reason why the Greeks never managed to establish a foothold in the Turkish interior. Medieval troops were disgruntled wherever they went...! I will betray my biases for hoplites, though. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of a hoplite to most, if not every, other non-firearm based infantry trooper, but for combat, give me a Hypaspist any day over anything else.

If nothing else, the difference lay not in equipment, but training. In Greek armies, training was comparatively easy (Spartans notwithstanding), as rhythms of marches and orders were dictated by chants/music, with position and role within a phalanx rendered quite logical. Alexandrian armies were composed of multi-ethnic troops whose specialties were reinforced by the necessities of their upbringing (Cretan archers being a standout). Roman armies got bootcamp on the Campus Martius prior to marching to war (or outright formal training once the Marian Reforms happened). The medieval stereotype of only the wealthiest getting weapons and training while the dregs getting a cheap polearm thrust into their arms and kicked onto the road is half true, but really overdone. Most competent leaders knew enough to dismiss unreliable elements of their army and make sure that their force could march and would fight at the end of said march. Of course, 'competent' is an operative word here.

This is just from memory of looking too much into metallurgy for DnD purposes, but if I remember correctly, the big difference is the metal itself. Copper and bronze is inferior to iron and steel when it comes to weapons and armor.

While this is true, people tend to underestimate how long ago the Iron Age started (depending on location, of course) and how stagnant iron-working was for several hundred years. The Romans had steel weapons to rival early Medieval weapons (& on average, up to the high era, Noric steel was famously high quality) for the simple reason that bloomery sophistication did not improve substantially for almost 1500 years.

 

[Kyrian007]

If it turns out to be a chance to go all stabby murderfest on a ton of Spartans, I may even get back into Assassin's Creed (haven't paid money for one since AC 4 because of the Unity release disaster.) If instead it comes over all laconophilic like the dumbass comic and worthless POS movie and makes the Spartans out to be the good guys... just one more reason to avoid AC.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Anyway, the English (or any European) man-at-arms wasn't bad by any means, just disadvantaged by being a product of his times (illiterate and bound to the feudal system that lacked formal military training for anyone other than the king's and senior nobles' guards, like the deployment of Harold's Huscarls at Hastings).

This might be nitpicky, but most men-at-arms weren't infantry, but fully armored (up to actual steel plate from about the late 15th century on) heavy cavalry, usually wielding lances. While they often did fight on foot out of necessity, it was not their primary military function. I'd say they aren't really equivalent to the hoplite or legionary. The Greek hippeis and Roman equites are probably a better match.

Though men-at-arms as cavalry wasn't a hard rule. Like the huskarls you mentioned, who did fight on foot. With big two-handed axes.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

If it turns out to be a chance to go all stabby murderfest on a ton of Spartans, I may even get back into Assassin's Creed (haven't paid money for one since AC 4 because of the Unity release disaster.) If instead it comes over all laconophilic like the dumbass comic and worthless POS movie and makes the Spartans out to be the good guys... just one more reason to avoid AC.

Clearly your ancestors must have been Athenians if you hate the Spartans and their movie so much lol

 

[SckizoBoy]

This might be nitpicky, but most men-at-arms weren't infantry, but fully armored (up to actual steel plate from about the late 15th century on) heavy cavalry, usually wielding lances. While they often did fight on foot out of necessity, it was not their primary military function. I'd say they aren't really equivalent to the hoplite or legionary. The Greek hippeis and Roman equites are probably a better match.

Though men-at-arms as cavalry wasn't a hard rule. Like the huskarls you mentioned, who did fight on foot. With big two-handed axes.

Good call, I seemed to have conflated men-at-arms and early serjeants-at-arms... though even sergeants-at-arms became mounted bodyguards in later years as well.

Clearly your ancestors must have been Athenians if you hate the Spartans and their movie so much.

LOL, could've been Theban (or Macedonian at a stretch), too!

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

And 300 is a great movie. Infact I go as far as to its Frank Miller's ONLY GREAT thing he has ever made. Compared to 300, Sin City, and his Daredevil and Batman pale in comparison.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Is it wrong to say that Infantry in Antiquity were miles better then Infantry in the Medieval era?

Yes and no, as it depends on too many factors: which period of Antiquity (Mycenaean Greek, Imperial Athenian/Spartan/Theban, Alexandrian/Diadochi, Royal Roman, early/mid/late Republican Roman, early/mid/late Imperial Roman); which period of the Medieval era (early/high/late); which nation/state (too many to list); are we involving firearms at all etc. etc. As there were loads of chronological and geographic quirks. Further, there are the individual parts of the army and the circumstances of combat.

I look at Greek Hoplites and Roman Legionaries and they all looked decked out in metal plate armor and large shields to make phalanxes/shield walls with. Here is Rome 2's screenshots of them

What you've got to understand is that popular media's representation of the panoply of Antiquity & the Medieval era is, by and large, well-intentioned, but wrong in a myriad of petty ways.

Funnily enough, shit film though it is, 300 is one of the few films that has represented the othismos vaguely correctly, albeit just once. It's notable that full bronze hoplite armour was rare and expensive. Most hoplites of the phalanx would have worn linothorax (for a multitude of reasons: lighter; cheaper; easier to maintain; size differences mattered less; greater emphasis on the shield for protective purposes) and since a linothorax greave is weird, it was a distinctly Greek oddity that hoplites only wore greaves on their left calf (can't remember whether Spartans did this as well or not). Even for the Spartans themselves, the bulk of the line infantry was Perioeci/Perioikoi (roughly 75-80% of the heavy infantry), the four thousand (or so) Homoioi at Plataea being the largest assembly of Spartiates in recorded history. And given the nature of wars amongst the Greek cities, Spartans rarely fought alone (as in as the rulers of Lacedaemonia in isolation), typically fighting with Corinthian allies, so the full bronze breastplate, crested Corinthian helmet, red tunic, kilt, doru and lambda adorned aspis would only really be seen in one tenth (or less) of a Spartan led army. Anyway, one day, I'd love to see a well represented corps of Sciritaea...!

As for the Romans, I'll stick with the mid-Republic manipular legion, 'cos that's the most iconic. Hastati had leather armour with a low number of large circular discs for added protection, Principes wore mail/scale and only triarii (i.e. one fifth of the non-skirmisher legionary infantry) wore full torso metal plate. The Latins/socii would be decked out in similar armour to the Greeks of the day. So depictions tend to be exaggerated, if perhaps not unduly.

But then I look at Medieval infantry in the for of Men-at-Arms and they look rather lesser in comparison to what Ancient Greece and Rome had. I mean look at the Men-at-Arms here in both Braveheart (The English mind you) and Kingdom of Heaven:

Ah, Braveheart, you and your messing up of the Battle of Stirling Bridge (well, all of them, at that). For one thing, the Scottish had some darned good tricks up their sleeve (nowhere did they do a schiltron, IIRC), and their armies were borderline indistinguishable from the English in reality. Anyway, the English (or any European) man-at-arms wasn't bad by any means, just disadvantaged by being a product of his times (illiterate and bound to the feudal system that lacked formal military training for anyone other than the king's and senior nobles' guards, like the deployment of Harold's Huscarls at Hastings). However, loads of factors would lead to various units of the Medieval era to be stand-outs and be able to form the bases of strong armies (Swiss mercenaries come to mind, as do the Varangians, though they weren't that many).

Still, before Alexander, hoplites (& their successors... or not, as the case turned out to be) never fought well too far from their homes, and there's a reason why the Greeks never managed to establish a foothold in the Turkish interior. Medieval troops were disgruntled wherever they went...! I will betray my biases for hoplites, though. Aesthetically, I prefer the look of a hoplite to most, if not every, other non-firearm based infantry trooper, but for combat, give me a Hypaspist any day over anything else.

If nothing else, the difference lay not in equipment, but training. In Greek armies, training was comparatively easy (Spartans notwithstanding), as rhythms of marches and orders were dictated by chants/music, with position and role within a phalanx rendered quite logical. Alexandrian armies were composed of multi-ethnic troops whose specialties were reinforced by the necessities of their upbringing (Cretan archers being a standout). Roman armies got bootcamp on the Campus Martius prior to marching to war (or outright formal training once the Marian Reforms happened). The medieval stereotype of only the wealthiest getting weapons and training while the dregs getting a cheap polearm thrust into their arms and kicked onto the road is half true, but really overdone. Most competent leaders knew enough to dismiss unreliable elements of their army and make sure that their force could march and would fight at the end of said march. Of course, 'competent' is an operative word here.

This is just from memory of looking too much into metallurgy for DnD purposes, but if I remember correctly, the big difference is the metal itself. Copper and bronze is inferior to iron and steel when it comes to weapons and armor.

While this is true, people tend to underestimate how long ago the Iron Age started (depending on location, of course) and how stagnant iron-working was for several hundred years. The Romans had steel weapons to rival early Medieval weapons (& on average, up to the high era, Noric steel was famously high quality) for the simple reason that bloomery sophistication did not improve substantially for almost 1500 years.

One question.

Could a Greek Hoplite Phalanx or Roman Tetsudo take on a large cavalry of Full Plated Medieval Knights?

 

[SckizoBoy]

And 300 is a great movie. Infact I go as far as to its Frank Miller's ONLY GREAT thing he has ever made. Compared to 300, Sin City, and his Daredevil and Batman pale in comparison.

You watched The 300 Spartans, the movie the comic was based on?

Still, as per Bettany Hughes 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story!' (in reference to Dilios riling up the Greeks prior to Plataea, as opposed to the historicity of the film, even though loads of people argue the latter as well, I just put it down to 'deliberately unreliable narrator').

 

[SckizoBoy]

One question.

Could a Greek Hoplite Phalanx or Roman Tetsudo take on a large cavalry of Full Plated Medieval Knights?

Depends on a number of factors, but I'll run with some 'usual' circumstances.

Greek Hoplite phalanx? Depends on the state the hoplites are from, as different states had different lengths of spears (doru). The Spartans' were (along with a few others) typically the longest (not a euphemism!) and shield-to-back could present a hedge of spear points three deep before the front ranks' shields and still engage in othismos. The lesser cities could only do two (both from less training and shorter spears). More spear points possible if they're just there to absorb a charge. If both sides know what they're getting themselves into, money's on the hoplites, because they'll either scrunch up to be properly shield to back and minimise the cavalry charge impact and basically have a local situation of ten hoplite spears to one cavalry spear (or something to that effect).

Roman testudo? Depends whether you allow the Romans to 'do their thing'. The testudo was only good against the ancient equivalent of small-arms fire and generally ineffective against cavalry. If in testudo formation, cavalry will ass-ram them so hard, it's really no contest, and even if it is from the front, the legionary didn't have the range of engagement that a hoplite did. However, against a mass of charging cavalry, the legionaries could easily change formations repeatedly to funnel charges into killzones. If permitted to use their pila, it makes the job a bit easier.

In both cases, the Knights are disadvantaged by the size of their targets and the protection. The infantry will just go after the horses (a dismounted Knight in full battle plate just needs to get unhorsed to be taken out of the fight as it's odds-on that he'll be flat on his arse), while the knights need to target heads and (realistically) only heads (most casualties will probably be from horses clattering into the formation).

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

One question.

Could a Greek Hoplite Phalanx or Roman Tetsudo take on a large cavalry of Full Plated Medieval Knights?

Depends on a number of factors, but I'll run with some 'usual' circumstances.

Greek Hoplite phalanx? Depends on the state the hoplites are from, as different states had different lengths of spears (doru). The Spartans' were (along with a few others) typically the longest (not a euphemism!) and shield-to-back could present a hedge of spear points three deep before the front ranks' shields and still engage in othismos. The lesser cities could only do two (both from less training and shorter spears). More spear points possible if they're just there to absorb a charge. If both sides know what they're getting themselves into, money's on the hoplites, because they'll either scrunch up to be properly shield to back and minimise the cavalry charge impact and basically have a local situation of ten hoplite spears to one cavalry spear (or something to that effect).

Roman testudo? Depends whether you allow the Romans to 'do their thing'. The testudo was only good against the ancient equivalent of small-arms fire and generally ineffective against cavalry. If in testudo formation, cavalry will ass-ram them so hard, it's really no contest, and even if it is from the front, the legionary didn't have the range of engagement that a hoplite did. However, against a mass of charging cavalry, the legionaries could easily change formations repeatedly to funnel charges into killzones. If permitted to use their pila, it makes the job a bit easier.

In both cases, the Knights are disadvantaged by the size of their targets and the protection. The infantry will just go after the horses (a dismounted Knight in full battle plate just needs to get unhorsed to be taken out of the fight as it's odds-on that he'll be flat on his arse), while the knights need to target heads and (realistically) only heads (most casualties will probably be from horses clattering into the formation).

Indeed. Out of the phalanx and the testudo, the hoplites probably have the best odds of beating a cavalry charge of knights in full plate.

Although I'd say they'd be better off not using their dory and fielding a sarissa instead. They would lose the added protection of their shields (the first row may keep them tho) because the sarissa is too heavy and long to use one-handed: up to 20ft comparated to the roughly 10ft dory. But they would gain an engagement range advantage over the knights' 15ft heavy lances. If the hoplites brace their pikes, they would essentially become a pike square, traditionally a good counter to frontal heavy cavalry charges.

Although that's assuming a frontal charge from the knights. If the knights manage to outflank the phalanx, the latter are thorougly screwed. The sheer momentum of the knights would probably bowl over the hoplites, shields or not.

But as you said, there's a lot of factors to consider.