You can only pick 2 to survive against the rest

300 Spartans fought off against an overtly more numerous enemy and held them back long enough with nothing but proper tactics.

>800 tops with 500 being shit vs better and heavier 930 with varied roles and strengths
Impossible to win. Best bet is to throw the Zulus in the melee to slow the enemy down and retreat with your other choice.

Attached: 1549672558855.jpg (1024x864, 96K)

>100 Samurai
You'd need 400 minimum to be even remotely comparable to any of those other armies.

And 60 Elephants because I don't care what fucking Total War you're playing, you make an army comprised entirely of Elephants and it's stomping fucking anything and everything.

Legion has the best chance in general. I think some sort of cavalry would be good as support - probably the horse archers for harassment and exploiting weaknesses in the enemy line.

Last time I checked, it was 7000 Peloponnesians (modern estimate), not just 300 Spartans.

Gothic armoured knights would not charge the enemy until they were already disrupted. I would choose myself Mongols and knights, or Mongols and Romans.

Spartans had a terrain advantage.

spartans with archer support.

Attila's elephants suck ass. High tier cav kills them EZ.

If we get terrain of choice, sure, but you need very specific situations where the spartans won't be flanked. Might as well pick archers and anyone else if they get a stocked castle to go with it.

>Greek phalanx could do decently
They are unironically some of the worst on the list.

That was only at the atart, the rest of the troops were sent off to defend the town areas when the Persians began flanking. Only 300 stayed behind to continue holding off the enemy forces.

Spartans never fought against 16th century gothic plate Knights charging in with nigh-invulnerable bullshit armor that you'd need to accurately stab gaps with conventional weapons, or puncture head-on at a nice angle with a crossbow or hammer in with a halberd.

They never fought unchaseable mongolian scum horsemen firing arrows at over 500m, way beyond what their spear throws could ever hope to catch.

They never fought the roman legion, employing literally their tactics, but a few hundred years into the future.
They never fought samurai, trained on horseback, archery, and shitloads of different weapons at a level abit better than "poke things with sharp end and stay in formation k?" that most historical armies were at.

Are you nuts? Only romans are better than them as far as foot soldiers are concerned. The worst are the vinikgs, the kangs, and the fucking Samurai.

Romans with the heavy cavalry. The heavy cavalry here actually have the biggest technological advantage

literally no difference between african spearchuckers and nordnigger spearchuckers, make it x500 for both of them

That's why you pick the Spartans and the Mongols.

>Gothic armoured knights would not charge the enemy until they were already disrupted
Because they were coward nobles fighting against equal tech.
Here they can trounce on rabble that mostly can't get past their armor.
Also, they can't say no if I double click them and right click them into the phalanx so that my other forces can actually engage properly.

Greek hoplites and Romans have fought each other before, and a Hoplite would absolutely beat a Samurai in a battle.

i choose this guyz

Attached: rhodcocks.jpg (230x219, 6K)

English Longbows and PROOOOOH

You are bringing tech that was outdated by the time of the Roman Republic into the fight. They simply hold no chance. Viking have steel weapons, samurai have steel, archers and syrups for the riders, at best they beat the Zulu IF the Zulu didn't have as many guns as their real forces had.

Why?

>a Hoplite would absolutely beat a Samurai in a battle
Only if you're biased.
Both are well trained, but Samurai come with a horse, horseback archery, halberds, all from a thousand years into the future.
Only fantasy Samurai would rush in with katanas and try to chop shields and spears with it.

Limit them both to the same age of metal and equipment, then your statement might be fine.

Romans and Elephants
>Zulus would fall apart again an organized army with a decent amount of men
>Spartans get fucked by any uneven terrain or any flanking action, and the Romans already defeated a superior Hoplite based army
>Long bows would only pose a threat until the gap was closed
>Too few knights to cause any real damage
>The samurai are romanticized thugs who were only good at killing malnourished peasants and the katanas would snap in half against any real armor
The only people who pose a real threat are the vikings and the horse archers.

And they would still beat the zulu, vikings, and samurai. They had better armor than all three, and even with inferior weaponry, they could easily still win for a variety of reasons.

>vikings
>threat
?????

A strong military bow could perhaps cast an arrow a distance of 500 meters, sure (Ottomans in particular were fond of flight shooting using specialized flight arrows and their records are approaching a kilometer).

But that's not a militarily effective distance. An effective distance is more like sub-hundred meters, and if you could deploy them such that they were protected, archers often were deployed to shoot almost in the melee, even (from the flanks, high ground, etc). Doubly so for horse archers who could ride parallel to enemy lines, rapidly shoot their arrows from very close range, and then retreat.

You are talking about a people that got invaded by iron age Celts who sacked Delphi. How can they fucking hold against Vikings?

>Yea Forums historians
>Le based Sparta superior, they would do well against forces in the future
Wartime strategy changes, the Spartans would be pretty outdated.

Roman centurions and Mongols, their dominance shows their effectiveness.

Didn't hoplites spear formations get replaced by legionaries because they were the first group/tactic that could reliably beat them?

>spartans throw spears at the elephants, or clash into melee against romans
>zulus throw a LOT of spears at the elephants like its hunting season
>Knights and Samurai have steel from a thousand years into the future, and are far better armored than anything Romans have ever fought before
>literally 0 solution to brits or mongol keshigs firing from at least 400m away from javelin and sling range

Still gonna lose a 7vs2.
And man, if Katanas are going to snap in half against any real armor, imagine what little good 300AD "steel" gladius does against 1500AD steel reinforced armor worn by knights and samurai.
Also, its a good thing legionnaire don't wear "real armor" then, what with the bare legs begging to be sliced by a naginata or longsword.

Well, good thing katana isn't a weapon of war. Samurai were horse archers.

Based and shogunpilled

I don't see any possible combination winning against the other 7.

>snowniggers
>threat
against unprotected monasteries and villages maybe

Attached: 1537708595635.jpg (378x481, 93K)

::::Teleports behind you::::
I only need one man armed with Hiten Mitsurugi Ryu!

Attached: 847169841228430465.jpg (367x500, 26K)

50 mounted archers are going to win, realistically. They could lose to the foot archers depending on the terrain the battle is fought.

The heavy cav is going to clean up anything that aren't the mounted archers, other than the elephants or perhaps the hoplites, however, they'd be able to run distraction against them.

The 50 mounted archers and 50 heavy cav is the best possible answer. You're honestly retarded if you say otherwise.

Attached: 1562926531573.jpg (750x941, 221K)

i would agree, but with those sheer numbers on the other side it's hard to really beat them. the best tactic would be hit and run which i guess the dual cavalry would be best at anyway.

Elephants x 2 will trample through everything.

That is exactly the strategy, nobody can stop them from doing it other than foot archers in the right conditions, but then the foot archers are going to get absolutely obliterated by heavy cav that they literally can't do shit against.

im sure that bronze would hold up against steel...

How could mounted archery counter heavy cavalry? They could not fire their arrows backwards, could they? Sincere question.

If you knew anything about history you'd realize horse archers+heavy cavalry mop the floor with everything else. It's not even close

By simply being uncatchable. Heavy cav will never ever ever touch mounted archers. It's just a war of attrition that would lead to heavy cav losing or a stalemate, in a 1v1.

Greek bronze weapons were actually pretty durable, and people have done tests showing that said weapons can puncture and dent Japanese armor without taking much in the way of damage.

Steppe hosemen were reported to be able to fire backwards. But even european light cavalry with javelins and later crossbows could just run away from heavy cavalry since they had way more endurance. Even so the good thing about light cavalry wasn't how useful they were during the battle but rather after and before it

>the laughable amount of arrows the 50 archers would need to carry each just to get rid of the 300 unarmored zulus
>the superiror numbers of japanese and british bowmen would eventually land enough lucky hits on the horses due to just sheer probability alone

Attached: 1562912665296.jpg (1125x2097, 185K)

You can fire backwards. That's called a Parthian shot (although it was widely utilized by all horse-archery cultures).

The mounted archers could literally run the zulus down with their melee weapons and win without firing a shot. That shit doesn't even matter.

Whether the samurai could win would depend on the compositon of their 100 men (which isn't specified) as well as terrain. The english longbowmen also depends on the terrain. Regardless, all 3 of them would be absolutely annihilated by the 50 heavy cav, so it doesn't even matter. Those potential weaknesses are easily covered.

Fuck Carthage.

30 war elephants are overpowered.

They can't do anything to mounted archers and can legitimately be beaten by legionaries and hoplites, if used correctly.

Just use fire bro

Spartans and Longbows.

>They could not fire their arrows backwards, could they?

do you not know what stirrups are for?

youtube.com/watch?v=gumuNn2PAQo

Lancers and Khergits. Lancers to take out the 100 bowman with their armor and the khergits can skirt around untouched and kill everything else with death by a thousand cuts

>100 samurai

Attached: 1300044776986.jpg (600x600, 35K)

I pick the x800 niggers. Now what do I order them around like it's Total War or do I see what they come up with?

unga bungas as the meat shield and elephants for firepower.

what they don't tell you is the samurai are actually just 100 mounted archers. twice as much as the steppe archers

Vikings x2
We're going to Valhalla.

This guy gets it. These are win condition comps

Stirrups were a pretty big deal for horse archers, but Assyrians, Parthians and other ancient cultures were employing tactics like Parthian shots before stirrups were invented. I recall reading the types of saddles they used (four-horned saddle and whatever) allowed the rider to brace himself against the saddle and thus be able to shoot from a more secure platform, even if they couldn't quite stand up like you could on stirrups.