Hypothetical Military Discussion

It would seem that academia has finally made it to a website that can sensibly discuss both real-world topics and still have an interest in hentai :D

For military buffs and history enthusiasts:

Who would win this hypothetical battle?

1,800 men of the British 22nd Regiment of Foot (circa 1788) under the leadership of General Cornwallis with the support of 1,000 cavalry and 4 guns (field artillery)

VS.

2,300 Greek soldiers and mercenaries (including 300 Spartans!) from the Battle of Thermopylae during the Persian Wars.

This battle takes place on a flat, open field on a clear day with a still wind.

Discuss

Assuming both sides are well supplied. The Brits without a doubt the artillery would soften and break up the Greek formations, by the time the Greek troops get close enough the infantry formations would have mowed most of them down with raking fire and the cavalry would go in and finish what's left.

This is especially true because the Greeks tended to favour densely packed phalanxes which artillery just loves.

Technology always win. To have any chance at all the Greeks would need more men than the Brits have ammunition. Add in the element of morale and even numbers wouldn't matter. Very silly scenario, if you ask me, come up with something more realistic.

And yes, I'm more or less a history enthusiast (how can you not be?)

okay, consider this:

the Greeks (especially the Spartans) preferred to fight in close-quarters and hardly ever used ranged weapons such as the bow and arrow. A regulation musket issued in the British Army in the late 18th century was terribly inaccurate and unreliable. This is why the Brits would fight in formation and fire all at once, they were increasing the odds of a musket ball actually hitting the enemy.

furthermore, it takes quite a while to load these things, and while the British were famous for their quick rate of fire (for the 18th century, anyway) they would have much trouble with native tribes even up until the 19 CENTURY because the enemy would get in close before they were all shot.

The British would win hands fucking down... The Spartans are good warriors but they wouldnt have a damn clue what they're going up against and the commander of the British would know full well to slaughter the Spartans immediately.

British muskets dont fire arrows either, Greek shields'll protect bugger all. (It really is NO CONTEST)

Knowing Spartan valor they'd probably want to show off in front of the other Greeks to get their blood up, I doubt every Greek would immediately rush the Brits besides the British dont even have shields... Hell they dont even have armour and all they have are those weird looking spears! (Har har har)

Only 2000 odd Greeks = No problem!!!

I don't think you read my reply the British use raking fire meaning each line fires one at a time while the previous reloads resulting in a constant stream of bullets. Not to mention the Greeks will be under constant bombardment by the artillery guns.
The 'regulation' musket for the British army was the Brown Bess it was accurate up to 160 meters with a hit probability of 75% and it was very reliable in well trained hands. Which was probably why it was retained for 100 years.

I'm not too sure what you're going on about the British having problems dealing with natives take The Battle of Rorke's Drift 150 British troops held off 3-4000 Zulu warriors.

Edit:
I also forgot to mention if the Greeks broke formation and charged (which is unlikely) they'll be vulnerable to the British Dragoons flanking them.

The side with more modern weaponry and more importantly, better medical technology to get people back in action.

I like the way this discussion is going so far, everyone is showing a good analysis on this situation. The British would surely win with their technological superiority in these conditions. Maybe I need to think of a better topic XD

In my opinion i believe that sure weaponry is a key role, but the strategy in which it is used is key, thats why i think that the greeks would win. Not only are they capable of returning fire with arrows, which can pierce through the targets clothing, but the moment that a large group of them gets close enough for hand to hand combat, the British will have no time to reload their muskets, which means it would be a slaughter.

But hey, the original greek formation is to get packed, doen't the percentage raise even higher? I mean, fire any where and you hit atlease 1 greek soldier. XD

What do you mean by 'sure weaponry' the muskets and canons used by the British had almost a century of honing through various wars. Sure it's not as long as melee weapons but it's more than enough to have perfected it to a near art form.

Your arrows don't out range the artillery shells and your phalanxes although strong at the front are extremely vulnerable from the sides which cavalry can take advantage of.

A crack musketman can fire 4 rounds a minute that's plenty of time for them to reload as the Greeks close the gap not to mention they're being constantly bombarded by explosive shells that love big concentrated phalanxes.

There's a good reason we now use guns and don't attack in phalanxes with spears and shields.

Since the terrain is flat the British have overwhelming advantages. Broken up terrain may give the Greeks some tricks to play, but unless they manage to break up the British forces and take them in detail, the choke points will only make the British advantage worse.

Brits would be familiar with Greek strategies. The Brits would have a couple of _thousand years_ of military tactics to their benefit.

The Greeks? They have ZERO experience against firearms or modern tactics. They'd be expecting their armor to help (and contrary to the movie 300, the spartans wore a lot of armor). The loud gunfire will affect morale, so would seeing people die from what seems to be invisible.

Outnumbered, outequipped, tactics 2000+ years out of date... The only way the greeks would win is via hollywood script and sheer guts and determination will make them prevail.

Ok, the majority of this discussion has put their money on the British from 1778. I think we should ditch the Greeks and give the redcoats a new enemy from history.

Have a go at this sea battle scenario:

HMS Victory (1737), a British 100-gun ship of the line under the leadership of Lord Horatio Nelson in a one-on-one encounter with a Chinese Ming Dynasty "Treasure Ship" (1420) led by Admiral Zheng He. Keep in mind that the Chinese Treasure ships were the size of football fields!

Not a relevant comparison the treasure ships were designed as luxury ships not warships.
The treasure ship though would have a range advantage but I suspect accuracy would have been dubious on the guns despite them having a range of 240 to 275 m and only have 23 of them.
The Victory would have a speed advantage as Junks are notoriously slow meaning it can use hit and run tactics.
Tbh the Victory would probably come out on top purely on the fact it has more cannons meaning the time it spends close to the junk it can pour more firepower into the slow treasure boat.
Bigger ships doesn't mean better this was proved when big gun battleships fell out of favour for aircraft carriers.

The Zulu would prove you wrong sir, as would the Vietnamese. Technology helps but it isn't a decisive unless the technology is so mindbogglingly ahead of the opposing army that any kind of strategy wouldn't work. I can easily see the Spartans defeating the British if the Spartan's have better logistics, better positioning and higher ground compared to the British.

It comes down to who has the better strategy to win the day, I love British history and I love the British Empire more then any kind of history and Empire in Earth History, but even I need to admit that this fight isn't a open and close debate.

Also, if your talking about a Military Discussion, try and give more details, where are they fighting? How is the terrain? How is the weather? How is moral among both sides? Everything can effect the course of a fight.

Which is why it's a pretty open and shut case for this battle.

Okay so, the battlefield is open and flat, and with clear weather. This gives the Brits an enormous advantage already.

With the British having vastly superior technology, the only chance that the Greeks would have would be the 300 Spartans, simply because they would never break rank under any circumstances.

That being said, the rest of the Greek army would likely not even come within melee range of the 22nd due to the losses inflicted by artillery and gunfire as well as being terrified by the sheer noise and destructive force of the guns. They would most likely rout before they engaged the British.

To take it a step further, you said it was 1788, which means that muskets and cannons were actually becoming extremely potent and accurate weapons. Maybe 50 years earlier and this could've been a debate.

To take it even further, the Greeks used extremely tight formations. This was one of their greatest strengths after all, but in a battle with guns, it would only make the Greeks easier targets for artillery.

Swiss Pike vs Macedonian Phalanx.