# Rome vs Sparta



## Brian G Turner

So, it was suggested that the spartans would have easily defeated the Romans:

http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5538&page=3&pp=15

I contend that the Romans of any period under any decent general would have defeated the Spartans under *any* Spartan general. 

Point 1: Spartans were barely able to overcome the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, and even then the Athenians helped the Spartans immeasurably by killing off their own generals at a whimsy (not least Socrates) and banishing others (such as Thucydides) through an ugly process of mob rule.

In fact, it wasn't the Spartan's military powress that won the Peloponessian War, but the Athenian's political denigration and subsequent funding of doomed whimiscal expeditions and subsequent poor military planning.

Point 2: The Romans, with proper discipline under a proper general (ie, Julius Caesar, Scipio, etc) would have defeated most any contemporary army - additionally, whilst the Romans never won every single battle they fought, they will brilliantly resourceful and many times able to come from military defeat in a single battle, to complete military victory of an entire campaign. 

Discuss...


----------



## Alexa

"Any" spartan general against "any" roman general ? I don't know, Brian. It's  notoriuosly recognized spartans life was only discipline, self-denial and simplicity. They were practically all their life soldiers. Spartans make me think at mercenaries (sp ?) nowadays.


----------



## Leto

No discussion. In the 2nd century BC, Sparta was absorbed by Rome's legions. 
IMO, more than pure military technics what went in favour of Roma was its administrative and economic skills.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Leto said:
			
		

> No discussion. In the 2nd century BC, Sparta was absorbed by Rome's legions.
> IMO, more than pure military technics what went in favour of Roma was its administrative and economic skills.


 
In the 2nd century BC Sparta was nothing.  When you consider that Thermopylae was 480 BC, and marked the begining of the end of Sparta.  Put 300 Roman soldiers in the pass of Thermopylae back in 480 BC, I would give them hours if not minutes.


----------



## Brian G Turner

People always make a point of there being a few hundred Spartans - but don't forget the 10,000-15,000 allies (inc. Thespians) who supported the Spartans. 

In similar instances, 300 Romans under a decent commander would have probably done even better.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Don't be stupid. The Romans would not have lasted a single day.  The Spartan unique endurance training allowed them to survive for so long.  The Greek allies did little to nothing, they did not hold the other pass and in the end it was only Spartans who fought.  You have to ask the question why the allies are never mentioned?


----------



## Leto

I have to agree with Lacedemonian than in pure fighting skills, Spartan soldiers were more efficient than Roman ones.
But war are not won only on fighting skills, organization, spy network and supply circuit are also vitals. In this aspect, Roma as a whole entity was better than Sparta.
I'm not sure Roman army would have let themselves in such doomed position (although they had they share of defeat along Roman history).


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Didn't Boudicca almost wipe out half the Roman army?


----------



## Leto

Nope, because not half the Roman army was up there.


----------



## Tsujigiri

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> Didn't Boudicca almost wipe out half the Roman army?



Boudica was defeated because she faced the legion in a pitched battle, which was a stupid tactical mistake. The Romans on the field were undeniably the terror of the classical world.
If she had used her normal tactics of guerilla warfare then there is a reasonable chance that we would all be speaking Islam....

What does this have to do with Rome vs Sparta?


----------



## Alexa

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> The Greek allies did little to nothing, they did not hold the other pass and in the end it was only Spartans who fought. You have to ask the question why the allies are never mentioned?


 
Maybe because they were not loved at all by thir neighbours and I think among ordinary spartans, too. How could a mother happily agree to give his boy of 7 to be trained as a soldier for life ? Spartans didn't accept new citizens easily, so they could't keep many trained warriors for decades. The hatrad and rebellion was without limit among those conquered. I didn't like the selection they made with unfitted children at birth either. A life given entirely to the state is not life, it's slavery. But this is my opinion.

We have to consider Sparta was only a city-state and in direct rivalty with Athens. The spartans had their moment of glory and power as Roman Empire later. I belive each army had their valuable generals and a war between romans and spartans depend a lot on the period of confrontation and the generals in charge.


----------



## Tsujigiri

As a point of note, seven was the age at which children achieved legal status, and was also the age where parents were allowed to show public grief for the death of their child.

Don't make the mistake of applying modern western values and morals to classical historical societies, we may have inherited many things from them, but still many more are alien to us.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

The Spartan state was the original fascist state.  Pure bloods etc etc


----------



## littlemissattitude

Alexa said:
			
		

> How could a mother happily agree to give his boy of 7 to be trained as a soldier for life ?


 
In Sparta the women were pretty much as tough as the men were.  They were the ones who told their sons and husbands to either come home carrying their shields or on them.  In other words, the women were telling the men to either win or don't bother to come home at all.  That's a pretty cold attitude.


----------



## Alexa

Tsujigiri as we live into a modern society, I have no choice than consider that as a very barbaric tradition. 

Lacey you really don't want to put greeks against you ?  Maybe nazi found their model good to use it in their arien rase.

Littlemiss, they had no choice. A man could not stable till his thirthies. Or that age was very old in that period. Far away from his family he didn't know how to behave with his wife and his children. A woman with children was condemned to sacrifice the boys to the state and keep only girls in good healty. You know what's interesting ? With all their barbaric traditions, spartans aloud women to get an education. They were not trained exacly like boys, but not far away in fighting.

My history teacher used to say when we were not good in class, that we shoud have received a spartan education to appreciate our present life better.  And that marked me for ever.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Individually the Spartan warrior was far superior to the common Roman soldier (they did train for war from childhood after all!)
However, the strength of the Roman forces was in discipline & tactics rather than force of arms so the Spartans may have met their match on this one. After all, many of the Gauls were superior fighters to the romans, but they got slaughtered!

But, comparing the Romans and the Spartans are a bit difficult. The Romans had early siege weapons fer christs sake! The Spartans would have been massacred with ballista bolts etc
You can't really compare 'different time' armies as the knights of medieval europe would probably have ridden right over a roman/spartan army & genghis khan's horde would have wheeled around them shooting arrows from all directions.

It's probably fairer to compare similar era armies to each other 
Sparta vs Thebian Sacred Band
Rome vs Carthage 
etc etc


----------



## Brian G Turner

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> The Greek allies did little to nothing, they did not hold the other pass and in the end it was only Spartans who fought. You have to ask the question why the allies are never mentioned?



The Spartans left a memorial for their king, which simply mentions themselves. Sort of self-serving, and helps create the romantic history that there were just 300 Spartans holding off the entire Persian army.



			
				Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> Don't be stupid. The Romans would not have lasted a single day. The Spartan unique endurance training allowed them to survive for so long.



Ok, then I contend that the Romans would not only have held the pass, but would have entirely kicked the Persians back into Asia.

For a start, the Spartans only had so few go because the rest of Sparta was holding one of its world-famous "Let's be late for battle" festivals. 

So the first point of note is that if early Imperial Rome were involved, you immediately have different figures involved - probably at least two full legions with auxillaries, defending the pass. 

If the Romans thought the Persians a serious enough threat, there may have been a good 3-4 legions.

That means you're immediately talking about around 20,000 disciplined soldiers, who so long as they had proper logistical support and experience, could be expected to defeat the undisciplined conscripted Persian army.

Additionally, stick a proper general in charge, such as Julius Caesar, and you can bet that the Persians would never had stood a chance.


EDIT: Winter's Sorrow is quite right, too - but it's a fun discussion.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Throughout this discussion you question the Spartan tactics, as if they were poor or didn't have any.  The fact is that the Spartans were the model for the Roman army.  Obviously warfare and strategy advances with time.  

The Spartans were trained to fight for several days non stop without sleep etc.  This is what allowed them to survive for so long in the pass.  What part of the Roman training endorsed this?  None.  Don't talk rubbish about them winning the battle against the Persians.  There were about 2 million Persian soldiers fighting against the Greeks at that time.  Rome never faced an organised army of any worth, and when they did they struggled and succeded by luck.  

Stick Alexander the Great in charge of 20,000 Spartans and set him onto the Roman Empire.  Now we're talking.


----------



## Brian G Turner

The Romans were always happy to learn from whomever had proved their standing, and there's no doubting that Sparta had an influence - Sparta itself apparently became a place on the Roman Tourist Map once they had the place conquered.

The point about drawing in a proper fighting force is one that you can't counter, though - it was a poor move on the Spartans to send what was in effect a token force, rather than the few thousand that Sparta could have actually mobilised - that's not a mistake that Romans would make. Rome was fond of facing larger numbers and proved time again they could go against uneven odds, simply on the grounds that the Roman phalanx was a single steel stabbing machine, and most armies they defeated couldn't match that level of discipline - where present.

As for Alexander leading Spartans - well, Alexander publically hated the Spartans, so I don;t see him ever caring to lead them anywhere.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

He also publicly hated the Persians but led them and in fact became one.


----------



## polymorphikos

If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.


----------



## Tsujigiri

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.



I think that may have been the most pertinent comment in this debate...


----------



## Brian G Turner

polymorphikos said:
			
		

> If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.



I concede to Polymorphikos.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Personally, I think the reputation of the ninja is largely inflated. 
Japan was very isolationist during this period - so the ninja became almost mythical figures whose stories grew with the telling.

Mind you, there's no denying they look pretty cool


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Any Ronan worth his salt would despatch with ninjas....


----------



## Tsujigiri

I have a peculiar vision of Ronan Keating taking on ninjas.....


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Mr Bean.


----------



## Stalker

No ninjas needed. Romans would simply pick up the time for attack that would coincide with the next religious holiday in Sparta. 

Add to this that even in its best days, Sparta alone could put to the army ranks no more than 14 thousand soldiers. - Ha! 1,5 legions.
Back in 2 cent. BC, Rome skillfully provoked differences between Greek political unions. Divide et Impero!


----------



## Blue Mythril

Poly, I love your style.

Now the Romans and the Spartans are both personal favourites of mine, but pitching them against each other is a tad unfair. Firstly, the Roman's have the advantage of hindsight, they know the tactics, strengths and weaknesses of the Spartans.

The Spartans legendary status (now remember Plutarch's tales of the discipline, abstinance and cruelty towards helots of the spartans were written several centuries afterwards and _are_ the legends which developed after the fall of Sparta) drew from the fact that they were unstopable in Hoplite warfare. Their peculiar cultural characteristics enabled this, but basically it was their discipline, training, and the fearsome reputation which preceeded them which allowed them to win so often. Now if we were to pitch the Roman's against the Spartans in hoplite warfare... well then that just wouldn't be fair to the Roman's as they are a later, evolved army. 

However, much as I love the Spartans always, the key in this debate to who would win doesn't come down to tactics, numbers or any of that. It boils down to culture. 

Now the Spartans, for all their glory, were finally defeated because they stubbornly stuck to tradition and did not allow their fighting style to evolve. hence they were finally destroyed by a general at Leuktra who used his cavalry to steamroll the hoplite phalanx on an angle and thus effectively remove all of Sparta's expertise, which were solely focused on the hoplite phalanx.

The Romans on the otherhand (depending of course upon which period and under which general) were much more flexible and inventive. They changed with the times and could therefore be innovative.

When it comes down to it, it is the factor of innovation versus tradition which would decide the outcome of any conflict between these two forces.

I'm sorry Lacey, I'm with you. Put the Romans in the same circumstances and fighting style as the Spartans (in their hey day) and there'd be no competition, but then they wouldn't be Roman.

However, come to think of it, it does also boil down to who's the general. Crassus versus Leonidas would be a very different story to say Agrippa versus Kleombrotus


----------



## Rane Longfox

I said:
			
		

> Ok, then I contend that the Romans would not only have held the pass, but would have entirely kicked the Persians back into Asia.
> 
> For a start, the Spartans only had so few go because the rest of Sparta was holding one of its world-famous "Let's be late for battle" festivals.
> 
> So the first point of note is that if early Imperial Rome were involved, you immediately have different figures involved - probably at least two full legions with auxillaries, defending the pass.
> 
> If the Romans thought the Persians a serious enough threat, there may have been a good 3-4 legions.
> 
> That means you're immediately talking about around 20,000 disciplined soldiers, who so long as they had proper logistical support and experience, could be expected to defeat the undisciplined conscripted Persian army.
> 
> Additionally, stick a proper general in charge, such as Julius Caesar, and you can bet that the Persians would never had stood a chance.


 
You say that, but if they were in the same pass, additional numbers make sod all difference. Which is _why_ the Spartans were able to hold it in the first place.

I thought Leonidas was generally regarded as one of the best "War Kings" the Spartans had ever had? Even before Thermopolae...


----------



## Brian G Turner

Blue Mythril said:
			
		

> the key in this debate to who would win doesn't come down to tactics, numbers or any of that. It boils down to culture.
> 
> ...
> 
> When it comes down to it, it is the factor of innovation versus tradition which would decide the outcome of any conflict between these two forces.


 
Great points, Blue.


----------



## Drachir

Blue Mythril seems to have the best analysis of the question.  The Spartans were crushed at Leuctra by the Thebans in 371 B.C.  This is long before the Romans had developed their miltary machine.  Suffice to say that the Romans easily defeated the divided Greeks city states and would have had little trouble with the Spartans even if the Spartans were at the peak of their power.  

There are a few points to consider.  One is that the Spartans were professionals, training from infancy to be warriors.  However, the typical length of enlistment for the Romans was seventeen years.  I doubt that there would have been much difference betwen the fighting skills of a Spartan or a Roman.  

Second, the Roman legion was a much more flexible organization, capable of adapting to changing conditions on the battlefield much more rapidly than the relatively inflexible Spartan phalanx. This is seen from the fact that Spartan generals usually joined their men in combat since they had little or no influence on a battle once it started.  

Third, the Romans did not conquer the Mediterranean world by accident.  Simply put their military skills were far superior to that of anyone else during that time period as the Greeks, including the Spartans, found out to their sorrow.  

There have been a number of very good books written on the subject of strategy and tactics.  One of the best I have read is _*The Art of War in the Western World *_by _*Archer Jones.*_  It was published in 1988 and is available at a discount at most online book stores.  It cost me $35 when it first came out but can be had for about $16 now.  If you are really into military history give it a read.  The book is superb.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

Rome versus Sparta?

Well, my answer in Carthage would win. Come on Hannibal my son! Kick some Roman ass again! If Carthage had just sent some reinforcements the Roman Empire would never have expanded the way it did which personally I'd think is great.

I'm Welsh by the way and not a big fan of the Romans.


----------



## Stalker

You are cheating! Menelaos, king of Sparta wasn't Welsh! 

And you should be Gamilkar Barka to call Hannibal your son!


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I know, I admit it. I'm a historic mess, I don't know who I am!!

Since I'm Welsh can I be King Arthur or are you gonna throw back the theories of Arthur being some Roman guy? lol


----------



## Leto

No, just point Arthur's story is a conglomerate of old Celtic legends (not only Welsh), Roman mythology and Medieval re-hashed history. And mostly has no connection with Sparta.

P.S. : Delenda est Carthago.


----------



## Stalker

Even before that new movie King Arthur I read the theory of Arthur's and his Round Table deriving from Sarmatians. 

Sir Thomas Mellory didn't mention that!


----------



## evanescentdream

Tsujigiri said:
			
		

> If she had used her normal tactics of guerilla warfare then there is a reasonable chance that we would all be speaking Islam....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to nitpick or anything, but Islam is a religion, not a language. The tongue spoken by most Muslims is Arabic.
> 
> However, I do agree that we would we be worshipping Allah in that situation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Fightin gobbo

Sorry to bring this topic back again but i think its an importaint fact that the romans were the elite of the mediterrainian peoples in the way of war
what the spartans had to offer was meerly their hard life and toughness
anything else such as technology,training,etc the romans had but in superior
i know i ramble on about the celts alot but they probly fit into the majority of ancient european warfare situations
Celtic warriors were excellent they were extreemly similar to the spartan soldier,they where raised in a extreemly hard life style were the ability to fight and be tough was seen as the standard skills that every man and woman should have-also Germanic/Celtic europeans invented the basically all european martial arts(with the exception of greco-roman and afew others)
as individual fighters and martial arts they were superior to every one in europe,asia minor and africa at the time but as a team they had little tactics and rarely had teamwork or co-opperation

the roman legionary was a poor fighter as an individual but unmatched as a member of a team

considering the celts terrorized and pretty much walked all over greece many times the spartans seem to be abit out of their leage

the romans were the only people the celts ever feared and the only people to defeat the celts in battle quite regularly-so id say that the romans wouldnt have too much trouble with the spartans since theyre already having to fight the celts a people who i personally see(as a person who studies and practices european martial arts) who where in my opinion much mroe sucessful at war than the spartans-so rome would easily counquer the spartans(infact they did)


----------



## genisis2

I have ended the debate here. Proof positive that the Spartans would kick Roman *aaaaaaaaass*!!!!http://download.ifilm.com/qt/portal/2773266_300.mov
Check out these flying monkeys! The Romans would not have a chance


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

I dare say that the Mongols would have kicked all their butts.
Mobility, flexibility and raw aggression in equal measure.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

I'm back! The Welsh Menelaos who favours Carthage  

Anyway, I've recently come to the conclusion that yes Rome would probably win if you had a sort of 'Battle of Champions' type situation. Take 300 Romans and 300 Spartans and let them loose on each other, yes the Romans would probably win.

However, it cannot be denied that such a match would be an unequal as having soldiers of World War Two fight modern day soldiers. Rome grew into the mighty powert that it was once Sparta was in her decline, military tactics had changed and even Romans like Augustus Caesar were 'fans' of the old tales of Sparta.

One could say that Sparta influenced Rome in several ways i.e full time military, the two consuls acting very much like the dual monarchy of Sparta and the heavy focus on a warriors life.

I enjoy the fantastical type debates like this but it would be like saying British Empire at its height versus America of today, America would win hands down but it doesn't take away from the awesome power that the British Empire commanded.

The Phalanx versus The Legion did happen and Rome won, conquering Greece. The Legion was a military evolution similar to how the Phalanx replaced the style of fighting seen in 'The Iliad' and therefore did mean that Rome was almost destined to win.

Then again, a good general can take any disadantage and someone turn it into an advantage. I would like to see a Roman army versus a Spartan army, both with good...if not great generals in command. It would be interesting but unfortunately I have to agree that Rome would emerge victorious as the Phalanx was too rigid when compared to the Legion.


----------



## Fightin gobbo

im just setting the fact that really the roman armies are highly evolved and influenced by the greek military and the romans have more than just legionaries they also include the best of whats around then
thats what made the roman army stronger every time it conqured a nation
they took the best of everything in the known world
Best fodder:Roman legionaries Best fighters:Celtic warriors Best cavalry: Scythians Best archers: Persians Best technology and science: greek scientists and roman engineers

Sparta wasent an undefeated fighting force-the reason for the good reputation was that they where the best in GREECE not europe and the fact that the Celts,Romans and Persians walked all over them plenty of times means that while the spartans were the best soldiers among other greeks they where still out matched by many other armies
being a hard man who knowsn how to perform phalanx formations and is good at greco-roman may be good against many enemies
but when your a spartan soldier and some crazy blue ******* who is tougehr and a better fighter jumps you and sodemizes you with his sword taht dosent mean youre the best- also the fact that the romans have defeated the spartans on various occassions-because they DID invade greece and they DID rule over and bully the greeks for a long time


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Just to clarify. The Persians didn't "walk all over" the Spartans plenty of times and as far as I know the Celts never got that far into Greece to ever face Spartans in battle unless you can quote me wrong. By the time the Romans faced the Spartans they were already on the decline having been beaten & weakened by it's war with Athens and conquered by Philip's Macedonia.


----------



## Fightin gobbo

well the celts had reached athens at atleast one battle and the persians had terroized greece for a long time and they had plenty of conflict with the spartans-one of the biggest motives towards alexander the great invading the persians was because of persia invading and defiling greece and burning down the acropollis in athens

and i just hope your not one of those people who think the celts where only inhabiting gaul and the british isles because they had alot of contact with greece-its where the greeks got their salt and most of their iron from


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

No I am not 'one of those people' who assume Celt = Gaul & Britain.
There was a substantial trans-alpine and spanish celtic presence for instance before they were driven out by the Romans and likewise in the areas north of Greece but you still haven't said in which battle the Celts beat the Spartans.
Athens was not city-state renowned for it's soldiers.
Persia, although it had a long antagonist history with Athens and Sparta only ever sacked Athens, not Sparta and they never ruled them for very long before they were driven out.

And personally, I think Alexander attacked the Persian Empire because he needed to provide his huge, diverse and culturally different army with a common goal and also tempt them with riches to avoid them splintering back to their various parts of Greece.


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos

In the years after the invasion of Greece by Persia there was still a considerable threat posed by the Persians. It was for this reason that Athens set up the Delian League, a group of city-states that would contribute a certain amount of money to maintain the defensive capability of Greece. 

It was also set up to further antagonise the Peloponesian League (headed up by Sparta) Despite the Persian Invasion being over, the war did continue and Greeks were beginning to take the fight over to Anatolia (Turkey) and many of the Greek islands that had been conquered by the Persians.

Athens soon moved the treasurey from Delos (the site where the Delian League was sort of based) to Athens where it almost began to run an Empire of sorts. This, and other actions, led to a war between Athens and Sparta known as the Peloponesian War. After the war, Sparta emerged victorious and suddenly found itself ruling over quite a little empire. Due to Sparta's extreme xenophobia 'devolution' was the road they went down, they cut off alliances between cities, set up oligarcies or tyrannies in various places but it eventually failed.

Athens regained their freedom only to lose it again once Phillip of Macedon invaded and conquered the weakened city states. By this time problems within Sparta had grown so much that Phillip didn't even bother attacking them, they were no longer a threat or any kind of power.

In contrast to the 'heroes of Thermopolyae' by the time Alexander came into power he drafted soliders from various states into his war against the Persian Empire but left Sparta out. His reasons for going to war were simple...his father had already planned it, the armies were ready and Persia had always threatened to invade Greece again.

By the time Rome came to Greece, Sparta was nothing. It's time had been and gone, from what started out as several thousand true Spartans there were only a few hundred left. It had simply burned out, their greatest victory (other Athens) had dealt them their deathblow.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

The concept having only pure bloods was without a doubt the reason they did not survive as a force.  Otherwise in their prime there has not been a force to match them in the history of mankind.  Though Nazi Germany were also very impressive as a military force.


----------



## Spartan27

This is Spartan27, having researched the Spartans for approx 15 years I read some very strange comments regarding who would be capable of beating the Spartans....Please remember the height of the Spartan power dates to 490-480 BC, given those dates, there isn't another human warrior, given the same numbers that could defeat these men in combat. Also remember that the Spartans were only shells of what they were when the romans came to greece and the northern peoples. I'm afraid to say that the greek city states *of this particular period of time would* have deteated the romans as well (including the northen peoples).


----------



## Spartan27

This is Spartan27, for the ones who question, consider that the average height of a Spartan warrior was 5'10", weight approx 185-200 lbs (all muscle), the average weight of the shield was between (depending on in-lays) 17 to 27lbs, the armor was an additional (at the very least) 20lbs. You are talking of a very, very strong man. This does not include his spear. There have been archealogoical digs that have uncovered full battle armor from Thermapolyie, and then using computer algorthymic calcuation, confirms that the man would have to be at least 5'10" to correctly wear this armor. Using this algorthymic calculation, you can then forecast that not only would the Spartan defeat any known period warrior in combat, he would have (depending on which culture he was fighting against) kill ratios of anywhere from 5 to 1 (roman) to up to 35-40 to one (which was the Spartan to Persian kill ratio). From other calculations note these:
Spartan against Mongols (3 to 1)
Spartan against Celts (4 to 1)
Spartan against Gauls (6-7 to 1)
Spartan against Egyptian (15 to 1)
Spartan against Samurai (3-4 to 1)
Spartan against Indian (not American) 8-9 to 1)
Spartan against North African (10-15 to 1)
Spartan against Roman (5 to 1)
Spartan against Athenian (Greek) (even)
Spartan against Viking (3 to 1)
Spartan against Chinese (10-11 to 1)
Spartan against Persian (depending on which historian you base and set your delta component is anywhere from 30 to 1 all the way up to 100 to 1).

These are facts, not fiction......can easly be looked up using modern computer algorthymic techniques, archeological facts and some historic knowledge (found in your local library).


----------



## Winters_Sorrow

Well it's all interesting 'facts' but completely ignores the element of tactics and strategy in warfare.
The Romans were able to defeat much larger forces not because they were individually better than their enemies but that they were more disciplined and trained to fight as a unit.

I'm not saying that the Spartans would have lost, I just question your methodology as individually, the Spartans may have been stronger but as a unit they were not as advanced, strategically, as Romans/Mongols etc (they couldn't be, because those forces were hundreds of years later and had hundreds of years worth of technology and precendent to draw upon)


----------



## The Ace

Let's look at the Roman Soldier of the 1st and 2nd centuries AD; gaulish helmet, spanish sword, celtic armour (chain-mail, the commonest type), samnite javelin, shield unknown and bound together by roman discipline and training.  He is supported by the finest cavalry and archers in the known world, and can count on the support of heavy artillery. He is a mongrel, but an absolutely deadly one. If the Spartans were allowed to control the field, they would indeed be hard to beat, but lashed by arrow-storms, harried by cavalry, then attacked on the flanks by the maniples AFTER they had thrown their pila, the result would be very one-sided in the Roman's favour, despite the Spartans' advantages in size,strength and toughness.


----------



## Spartan27

It does not mattter, take 100 Spartans against any 100 of the warriors that I have listed, and you get the same result.  The kill ratio may vary somewhat, but the outcome is the same. Spartans win. One thing to remeber as well, as we are dicussing this topic, the Greeks were weaken by the fact that they continuly fought against themselves, if they had succeeded to truly unite under a "Republic"...this would have stood to well into the 14th or even the 15th century. remember they had the smarts, the technology and the "resolve".


----------



## Spartan27

This is Spartan27, guys, you are missing the point, I am not talking about a legion vs. a greek army tactics that are 250 to 300 years older, I am talking about simple taking 100 Spartans (in their full battle gear against any 100 warriors, give them the "same" weapons, and there is no way the Spartans lose.


----------



## Delvo

Some of the points against Sparta here have not been right, like that the few who went to Thermopylae were covering for a festival (they were buying time for the rest of the Greek army to prepare) and that they had help there (surrendering isn't helping much), and that they were repeatedly clobbered by various others (huh?). But I still have to bet against the Spartans here for two reasons:

1. We can't ignore what a big factor numbers are, and the Romans had tremendous numbers. (This, in turn, was due to a handful of cultural, rather than military, factors that tended to increase those numbers instead of holding or decreasing them.)

2. Whatever motivation and morale the Romans had, although I'm not saying it was ideal or perfect, it had to be better than the life of endless slavery and misery that the Spartans were drafted into, gutting the life out of their lives, giving them nothing to fight FOR but only just the endless fight itself.


----------



## Spartan27

Delvo this is Spartan27, you are correct in a couple of items however, if you see my last posting I am only stating warrior vs. warrior, the Spartan will win. Now if you look at a "united greek city state" against a roman army...this would be to close to call, m


----------



## Spartan27

This is Spartan27, one final thought for today..please ponder this fact...with regards to Roman vs. Spartans, does anyone remember what a Thracian (by the way...a Greek) by the name of Spartacus do to the famous roman legions...come on now folks?? 

Tactics aside and strategy (if staying alive long enough can be considered strategy)....the romans would have fought very hard...only to lose to a much more powerful and brutal opponent (that last word BRUTAL is key here). Other than the Spartans, the Romans would have defeated everyone else...just not the Spartans.

Conscripts against a total warrior from the same race whose born and bread to be a warrior from the age of 7.....come on guys.....not a chance.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Welcome, Spartan27. 

As for warrior vs warrior - that was the point of organised battle. The size, strength, and musculature of individual units was irrelevant, as neither determined success nor a kill ratio - it was a combination of strategy, formation, intelligence, morale and luck.

You also make a point of highlighting the Spartans at their prime - but the date you set falls immediately before the Peloponnesian war against Athens - when the Spartans were unable to defeat for 70 years what would be by your argument a much inferior foe. In fact, the whole war was so exhausting for both regional powers, it made them ripe for conquest once Phillip walked out from Macedon.

Overall, the point isn't to say that the Spartans were not respectable warriors - certainly Rome gave them their due. But the point about the strength of the Roman army is simply one of organisation.

A bad Roman commander could always be defeated by a better enemy - cf, Hannibal at Cannae, or Varrus in the Black Forest - but under a good leader the Romans could apply organisational skills unmatched by any other for _centuries_. That in itself sets them apart from the Spartans.

2c.


----------



## Spartan27

Hello Brian...this is Spartan27,

I put the height of the Spartan at this date range simple because on August 11, 480 BC, they *crushed *a Persian Empire that was represented by numerous asian minor cultures,and which was bigger than anything in the west (including the Roman empire, which for the most part was inhereited from the ancestors of the Greek Alexander the Great in the east, they all were already "hellanized"). 

You keep mentioning army strategy, do you think strategy came into play at Thermapolyae? The only strategy was that the greek pesaant traitor was paid for information to by-pass the Spartans at the pass.

If this single event did not take place, the Persians would have been defeated right then and there....no question about it. It comes down to strenght both physically and mentally, and pure power to focus on being an absolute killing machine and more BRUTAL than anything else that there ever was.  In addition to how this warrior was "made".

The romans would have lasted maybe 1 to 2 hours of this type of pitched fighting (*Spartacus* proved that my friend not once but many times).

In addition, the Athenians were not inferior and in some ways were better but not always. But if I had to choose 100 warriors (technology aside) it would be without question a *Spartan of 480 BC.*

Sorry your argument does not hold water, history has proven that.

And kill ratio is exactly what it is all about Brian, sorry but you are not correct with your analysis.

One final thought, I mentioned this perviously, if Greece would have been united as in a republic do you think anything would have stood in there way?

Not a chance....decomcracy got in the way...remember?


----------



## Brian G Turner

Spartacus doesn't really prove anythng about the issue, other than the Romans were sometimes defeated. 

As for Thermopylae - the Spartans were leading the expedition, rather than fighting alone - there was a good 10-20,000 troops from other cities, especially Thespians, if I recall correctly.

I think a general point about this whole argument is that the Spartans and Romans of the early Imperial period were using very different fighting styles, and that in comparison of their peak, the Romans were using a far more advanced form - so direct comparison is difficult.


----------



## Zulu

Spartan 27, forgive me if I remain puzzled about this algorthymic formula.  I have briefly searched the net for the training regiment of a spartan warrior and have only found the much repeated, bathed in wine at birth, given to the state from 7 to 60, and deprived of any comfort or luxiories.  Maybe you can direct me to a site or reference that explains the training regiment that would have afforded the spartans these super human powers.  As it stands, the spartans led very basic, 'roughing it' sort of lives, but there are plenty of 'roughing it' ancient societies.  Is there a site that explains and demonstrates the algorthymic formula you speak of?  Just curious.  And about those North Africans?  And when you say China, does it mean regular chinese foot soldiers or perhaps shaolin monks?


----------



## Spartan27

Zulu said:


> Spartan 27, forgive me if I remain puzzled about this algorthymic formula. I have briefly searched the net for the training regiment of a spartan warrior and have only found the much repeated, bathed in wine at birth, given to the state from 7 to 60, and deprived of any comfort or luxiories. Maybe you can direct me to a site or reference that explains the training regiment that would have afforded the spartans these super human powers. As it stands, the spartans led very basic, 'roughing it' sort of lives, but there are plenty of 'roughing it' ancient societies. Is there a site that explains and demonstrates the algorthymic formula you speak of? Just curious. And about those North Africans? And when you say China, does it mean regular chinese foot soldiers or perhaps shaolin monks?


 
Zulu, first I never said the spartans were superhuman..you said that.

I guess you had some trouble finding the following (just to name a few):

Spartan warrior training

1. historia - volume 7, issue 5

2. terminology

3. only the strongest

4. who were the greek warrior spartans

5. spartan education

These are but a few, and they go into detail. 

As for the North Africans...those would be the Carthagians (sp?). As for the Chinese..would it matter? Or do you believe the monks could overcome the laws of gravity like they do in the movies? Just wondering. Do you want me to provide you with the formula as well?


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Mate did you get your 'formulas' from a computer game?  They are both crude and ridiculous.  

I do not have the energy to plow through this thread and pull appart arguments, so I shall make my points and leave it at that:  

1 - The Spartans had very limited leadership.

2 - The Romans had far superior commanders.  They also had far superior numbers and more varied military units.

3 - The Macedonians had far superior commanders.  Alexander would have tore Sparta to pieces in a short period of time.  

4- Sparta was built for war but not conquest.  Would they have coped in Germania or India?  Unlikely.  

I love the story of Sparta. The Spartans were excellent soldiers as they were conditioned from early childhood to war.  However, they lacked the leadership, numbers and diplomacy to beat any real global force.  Their battle with Persia was a freak scenario.  

Your references are poor too.  

Good luck.


----------



## Spartan27

Lacedaemonian said:


> Mate did you get your 'formulas' from a computer game? They are both crude and ridiculous.
> 
> I do not have the energy to plow through this thread and pull appart arguments, so I shall make my points and leave it at that:
> 
> 1 - The Spartans had very limited leadership.
> 
> 2 - The Romans had far superior commanders. They also had far superior numbers and more varied military units.
> 
> 3 - The Macedonians had far superior commanders. Alexander would have tore Sparta to pieces in a short period of time.
> 
> 4- Sparta was built for war but not conquest. Would they have coped in Germania or India? Unlikely.
> 
> I love the story of Sparta. The Spartans were excellent soldiers as they were conditioned from early childhood to war. However, they lacked the leadership, numbers and diplomacy to beat any real global force. Their battle with Persia was a freak scenario.
> 
> Your references are poor too.
> 
> Good luck.


 
Excuse me mate, but I believe you just want to engage in a verbal battle, which I won't do. But where are your refereces to counter my points. There are literally hundreds of books avialable to prove my points. You assume way too much.

As for leadership, you are completely incorrect regarding the Spartan Leadership. You call the persian battle a freak scenario...you must be kidding. 

Either you are joking or you have a lack of knowledge on this point.

Regardless, this is my last post on this subject. Ciao


----------



## that old guy

Spartan27 said:


> But where are your refereces to counter my points. There are literally hundreds of books avialable to prove my points. You assume way too much.


 
JB Bury's _*A history of Greece to the death of Alexander the Great*_  is actually extremely critical of the Spartan military structure. IIRC, his view was that the biggest problem facing them is that they could never campaign outside Sparta without worrying about a Helot revolt.

And, more to the point, the Spartans were badly defeated by the Thebans, on just about equal terms at Leuctra. In fact, the Spartans and their allies actually *outnumbered* the Theban forces, though they were on the low ground. It almost seems like the Spartans started swallowing their own propaganda, or perhaps they couldn't cope with a military genius like Epimondas supposedly was. Sparta lost that battle, lost that war, and was stripped of quite a few sattelittes. To say nothing of the fact that Epimondas waltzed right into the Pellopenese after the battle and the Spartans could do nothing to stop him.


----------



## Lacedaemonian

Spartan27 said:


> Excuse me mate, but I believe you just want to engage in a verbal battle, which I won't do. But where are your refereces to counter my points. There are literally hundreds of books avialable to prove my points. You assume way too much.
> 
> As for leadership, you are completely incorrect regarding the Spartan Leadership. You call the persian battle a freak scenario...you must be kidding.
> 
> Either you are joking or you have a lack of knowledge on this point.
> 
> Regardless, this is my last post on this subject. Ciao



I was hoping to engage in a verbal battle.  This thread is geared up toward that level of discussion.

Thermopylae was a freak scenario.  It was one battle.  Had the Persians continued onto Sparta they would have in all likelyhood destroyed it.  Sparta achieved very little in military conquest.  All other armies mentioned achieved a great deal more.  This point does not require referencing as it is undeniable fact. 

I would only ever consider referencing theories.  Let's face it Ladybird books do not require referencing.

Once you correctly reference your arguments, I might consider doing likewise.      

Sparta had poor leadership - fact.  They had the greatest army in the world and did nothing with it.  In the end they were almost destroyed by the Helots when the Dorians of Messenia had their uprising.  They were in a sense destroyed by their slaves.  

I would not have been so strong on you Spartan had you yourself not been so strong on others in this thread.


----------



## Spartan27

Lacedaemonian said:


> I was hoping to engage in a verbal battle. This thread is geared up toward that level of discussion.
> 
> Thermopylae was a freak scenario. It was one battle. Had the Persians continued onto Sparta they would have in all likelyhood destroyed it. Sparta achieved very little in military conquest. All other armies mentioned achieved a great deal more. This point does not require referencing as it is undeniable fact.
> 
> I would only ever consider referencing theories. Let's face it Ladybird books do not require referencing.
> 
> Once you correctly reference your arguments, I might consider doing likewise.
> 
> Sparta had poor leadership - fact. They had the greatest army in the world and did nothing with it. In the end they were almost destroyed by the Helots when the Dorians of Messenia had their uprising. They were in a sense destroyed by their slaves.
> 
> I would not have been so strong on you Spartan had you yourself not been so strong on others in this thread.


 
Well I couldn't stay away...because if you look at the posts here by others they like you are looking at the end of the Spartan power. I specifically mentioned more than once the height of the Spartan power was from 480 BC and prior to that date.

The others including you are incorrect with your assumptions...I did not assume...you did.

The Spartans were the best trained, strongest, most brutal and at the time period I mention, had the best leadership of any of the Greek city states...That is a fact (as you say...mate). I wasn't hard on anyone here. If you don't like the Spartans have the courage to say so...I on the oher had in fact gave cudos to both the Romans (which is the very reason I started to post here). I have no clue as to what you are currently talking about and who you are comparing. Alexander and his army was 150 years after the Spartans beat the living crap out of the persians...that is FACT not fiction.

Again, if you what a verbal exchange I might be inclined..but I'm a bit busy to waste my time....I can be just as strong friend. Anyway this thread was about the romans vs. the spartans....who would you pick...I know your a smart person....cause you would pick the Spartans...right mate!


----------



## MemmoN

This Is Sparta!!!1


----------



## gigantes

wow, pretty-cool thread.

lot of historyphiles here, i take it.

kind of late to get into this debate, so i'll just salute you all for your passion and interest in anything that goes beyond the year 2000 (getting to be a rare trait, you know).


----------



## sergios

before you can talk about war, you have to do some reasearch about the society, habbits and the culture of these to completely different peoples. The enviroment was also completley different. Rome had lush surroundings and Sparta was more a hill-like enviroment, more than Rome. If you look to the tactics the military of both "nations" use you can make some guesses. And thats that nothing more than guesses. its the same as comparing the ace flier "the red baron" and an F-14 of today. a pointless discussion because of the different period, most of you don't even consider the habbits, enviroment and other things what makes a society of people. That is history not some summary of millitary facts and " if this than that could have happend"


----------



## Spartan27

sergios said:


> before you can talk about war, you have to do some reasearch about the society, habbits and the culture of these to completely different peoples. The enviroment was also completley different. Rome had lush surroundings and Sparta was more a hill-like enviroment, more than Rome. If you look to the tactics the military of both "nations" use you can make some guesses. And thats that nothing more than guesses. its the same as comparing the ace flier "the red baron" and an F-14 of today. a pointless discussion because of the different period, most of you don't even consider the habbits, enviroment and other things what makes a society of people. That is history not some summary of millitary facts and " if this than that could have happend"


 
Welcome sergios, actually there has been much discussion about society, habbits and the culture. As for the comparison you mention regarding the red baron and an F-14 of today, that's a bit drastic if you apply that to th Spartans and the Romans.

All we discuss is whatif's that's the whole point in having a discussion in the first place.


----------



## mosaix

sergios said:


> before you can talk about war, you have to do some reasearch about the society, habbits and the culture of these to completely different peoples. The enviroment was also completley different. Rome had lush surroundings and Sparta was more a hill-like enviroment, more than Rome. If you look to the tactics the military of both "nations" use you can make some guesses. And thats that nothing more than guesses. its the same as comparing the ace flier "the red baron" and an F-14 of today. a pointless discussion because of the different period, most of you don't even consider the habbits, enviroment and other things what makes a society of people. That is history not some summary of millitary facts and " if this than that could have happend"



Interesting point about the "red baron" and an F-14. I've often wondered if a missile could home in on a cloth and wooden-strut bi-plane and whether the F-14 could travel slow enough for the pilot to use other weapons such as cannon.

Also what happens if your enemy refuses to 'keep up' with your technology and goes back to basics. The Viet Cong are an example and let's face it the planes used in the 9/11 attacks were just battering rams really. In Iraq it was 'planes, sophisticated weapon guidance systems and modern tanks that got the troops into Baghdad but now the style of fighting has changed - it's suicide bombs and mines by the side of the road.


----------



## The Ace

Slightly off-thread, but stick the Red Baron in an F-14, I sure as hell wouldn't want to face him in an F-14.


----------



## MemmoN

Polynikes vs Titus Pullo = Pol


----------



## Delvo

mosaix said:


> I've often wondered if a missile could home in on a cloth and wooden-strut bi-plane and whether the F-14 could travel slow enough for the pilot to use other weapons such as cannon.


Some missiles could, maybe all... but it would be a waste of resources to use them when a few "bullets" would eliminate the enemy's plane anyway. For that matter, it would be a waste to fly an F-14 against them at all. A modern(ish*) fighter jet like the F-14 can hit targets on the ground including stick-&-fabric tents, so the WWI plane's speed and materials wouldn't be a problem, but the F-14's main use is against other planes, to eliminate threats that the allied forces it's protecting can't handle very well. But a WWI plane isn't such a threat. If one approaches a modern force's ground position and they can't just take cover someplace where its gun can't hurt them, they'll shoot it down from outside its weapon's range with modern heavy machine guns like a .50" or SAW, and/or small light missiles like shoulder-mounted SAMs and RPGs... perhaps even a standard-issue rifle on "auto" setting or sufficiently carefully aimed... stuff no infantry unit would be without, much less basic troop transport vehicles or even some supply delivery vehicles. Using a F-14 or such against minor threats like this would be like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer; you bring in the heavy stuff when you need it because the light stuff wouldn't do.



mosaix said:


> Also what happens if your enemy refuses to 'keep up' with your technology and goes back to basics. The Viet Cong are an example and let's face it the planes used in the 9/11 attacks were just battering rams really. In Iraq it was 'planes, sophisticated weapon guidance systems and modern tanks that got the troops into Baghdad but now the style of fighting has changed - it's suicide bombs and mines by the side of the road.


The second of your three examples is an example of an enemy stealing and using our modern technology! A true "just a battering ram" wouldn't have gotten anywhere near as much momentum, and even if it had, it wouldn't have been as damaging because the real destructiveness in that case came from their jet fuel, not their mass and momentum. And being loaded with explosives/flammables makes it more like a very big bomb/missile than a ram.

As for the other two, the enemies there don't "refuse" to modernize; they would love to because they know it would make them more effective and powerful, but they don't because they can't (at least they don't to a greater extent than you already know they do, since they aren't using swords and spears). There is no advantage in effectiveness to be gained from non-modernization. If there were, we'd just not do it, and they wouldn't be trying hard to get modern stuff as much as they can. The illusion that there might be is cast by a combination of other factors:

1. Tactics that make the most of minimal resources... but which would also make the most of greater resources if used in combination with them
2. The tendency in the last 5-6 decades for the more powerful entity to hold back and not do the damage it could do, apparently due to lack of political, philosophical, or moral will to do it
3. Media and political pundits and such who exaggerate the importance of #1 because they have an interest in making it seem as if an inferior force were more effective than it is

==============================
*I added the "ish" because the F-14 began production in the 1970s and was decommissioned by the Navy last year, and there's another kind of plane now that's a whole "generation" more advanced, against which anything of the F-14's generation, including our own F-15, F-16, and F-18 is pretty much helpless.


----------



## MemmoN

Thebans defeated the Spartans, Macedonians defeated the Thebans, Romans conquer Macedonia. You could potentially have a roman spartan fighting a spartan, I'd say the hybrid Lakedaemonian would prevail.


----------



## Spartan27

MemmoN said:


> Thebans defeated the Spartans, Macedonians defeated the Thebans, Romans conquer Macedonia. You could potentially have a roman spartan fighting a spartan, I'd say the hybrid Lakedaemonian would prevail.


 

You are mixing up almost 300-400 years of gap time in your statements above.

Thebans defeated the Spartans over 150 years after the hieght of Spartan power. The Macedonians defected the Thebans (who also outnumbered  the Thebans 3 to1) in 346 BC, Romans Conquer Macedonia well after Alexander had turned to dust.

The only force to defeat the Spartans during the height of the Spartan power in *one single battle* was Athens...that's it no other force, Spartan won the *Peloponesse war*.

As I have said before, if the Romans were around at the time of the height of Spartan dominance, the romans would have fallen.


----------



## EricD

Rome. One the field of battle, with several well-ordered Roman Legions, they were undoubtably superior to their Spartan counterparts. For Sparta's great strength lay in the phalanx, that hard block of spears and armour. But it was a slow, rigid formation. Roman speed of manuever would make flanking the Spartan phalanx a rather easy. Combined with the infamous Roman artillery and military engineering, it would be a hard-fought battle but ultimately be won by the legions of mighty Rome.


----------



## Spartan27

EricD said:


> Rome. One the field of battle, with several well-ordered Roman Legions, they were undoubtably superior to their Spartan counterparts. For Sparta's great strength lay in the phalanx, that hard block of spears and armour. But it was a slow, rigid formation. Roman speed of manuever would make flanking the Spartan phalanx a rather easy. Combined with the infamous Roman artillery and military engineering, it would be a hard-fought battle but ultimately be won by the legions of mighty Rome.


 
Hi Eric,...I highly doubt that 100 let alone 1000 roman soldiers against an equal amount of spartans using the *same equipment* would beat the spartans. Very highly doubt that indeed. Sparta's great strenght lay in each and every man. The romans never trained like the spartans, nor has any other soldier/warrior. The difference between the romans were they were soldiers, where as the spartans are warriors. And given equal terms, equal arms, and the same amount of men...say 1000, the romans would loose the moment they realized that they were in a no win situation (i.e. it comes down to man-to-man combat in the end).


----------



## MemmoN

Sparta lost at the hot gates to Persia, thats 2. I always found it odd how the Spartans began working with the persians against other greeks after Thermopalyae, but then again so did other greeks against the spartans.


----------



## sarakoth

Lacedaemonian said:


> Don't be stupid. The Romans would not have lasted a single day. The Spartan unique endurance training allowed them to survive for so long. The Greek allies did little to nothing, they did not hold the other pass and in the end it was only Spartans who fought. You have to ask the question why the allies are never mentioned?


 
Actually, the three hundred Spartans alone would've lasted about five minutes. Three hundred men is not nearly enough to cover Thermopylae. All the Persians had to do was charge. However, seven thousand Greek hoplites in Phalanx formation could hold off the Persians for a few days. The 300 Spartans in the end, when everyone else left, lasted very little time. It is their bravery that's remembered, not their strength (although Spartans are well-known as strong warriors, that's not the point in the Battle of Thermopylae) I think you're taking the "300" film as history; it's no where close.


----------



## sarakoth

Spartan27 said:


> Hi Eric,...I highly doubt that 100 let alone 1000 roman soldiers against an equal amount of spartans using the *same equipment* would beat the spartans. Very highly doubt that indeed. Sparta's great strenght lay in each and every man. The romans never trained like the spartans, nor has any other soldier/warrior. The difference between the romans were they were soldiers, where as the spartans are warriors. And given equal terms, equal arms, and the same amount of men...say 1000, the romans would loose the moment they realized that they were in a no win situation (i.e. it comes down to man-to-man combat in the end).


 
It's really not fair for them to use the same equipment. They won't be used to each other's equipment.

The Romans' mobility in battle and the strength of their pila (similar to the Spartans' spears) would tear the Spartans apart, who relied on the brute force of a dense formation. Besides, I could name a few warrior races that surpassed the Spartans. (Mongols)


----------



## nj1

I'd go for rome.

In a face to face battle of even numbers Rome would win because;
The Spartans used round shield to protect the body, the stabbed over thier shoulders useing 8foot ash spears aimimg for the face, neck and upper body of the enemy. The Spatan sword was designed to hack at the enemy, again aiming for the upper body.
What made the Spartans such a good unit was the stength and technique to push the front ranks of the enemy back. 
The Romans were also prolific in this technique so things should be even.
The romans had larger square shields which protected most of the body, their technique was to crouch into the shield and stab at the legs, torso and preferably the groin area, most of the time they fought blind and just mechanically stabbed at the enemies lower torso's. 
Thier short swords were designed for fighting in a tight space and to stab not hack at the enemy. 
Therefore the romans would be protected be thier shield from the cumbersome spears of the Spartans and would decimate them with thier short shords. Also the Romans were trained to manouvre in formation, while the Spartans fought in a straight ahead fashion.
Now, if you put one Roman against one Spartan, both with a shield and sword, then I'd go for a Spartan win everytime. They trained thier whole life's from the age of about eight to wrestle, spar and fight, while the roman was trained from a much later age to fight as a unit.


----------



## svalbard

The Roman legion's tactics would have won out in the end against the Spartans. They would also have massive numerical superiority against the Spartans, who were never the most numerous of races. 

Yet if the Romans had faced the Spartans under some of their more enterprising generals, like Brasidias, then it could possibly have come down to a coin toss up. The Spartans were also experts at sending generals to hotspots to organize the locals defense against the Athenians. Syracause is an example of this. Brasidias in Thrace is another. At their height the Spartans were formidable.


----------



## svalbard

sarakoth said:


> Actually, the three hundred Spartans alone would've lasted about five minutes. Three hundred men is not nearly enough to cover Thermopylae. All the Persians had to do was charge. However, seven thousand Greek hoplites in Phalanx formation could hold off the Persians for a few days. The 300 Spartans in the end, when everyone else left, lasted very little time. It is their bravery that's remembered, not their strength (although Spartans are well-known as strong warriors, that's not the point in the Battle of Thermopylae) I think you're taking the "300" film as history; it's no where close.



One of the reasons the Spartans did not last as long when their allies left is because the Persians had navigated the mountains and were able to attack from both the front and the rear. There is also a little thing called exhaustion that would have prevented the Spartans from holding out.


----------



## sarakoth

svalbard said:


> One of the reasons the Spartans did not last as long when their allies left is because the Persians had navigated the mountains and were able to attack from both the front and the rear. There is also a little thing called exhaustion that would have prevented the Spartans from holding out.


 
Exactly my point.

Unlike in the film "300", the Spartans were humans, not gods.


----------



## nj1

When i read Gates of fire Steven pressfield, it was said that the allies fought by rotation, but the Spartans spent the most time in the front line. So by the end they were all carrying some sort of wound and were litterally exhausted. Due the other allies leaving the field, the remaining Spartans were too few in number to hold a solid line acoss the wall and therefore retreated to a small rise for a 'last stand', the immortals proceeded to cut down the remaining warriors with a barage of arrow fire, the defenders had next to no weapons left and many didn't have shields.
No one could withstand such odds for a long period of time.


----------



## svalbard

sarakoth said:


> Exactly my point.
> 
> Unlike in the film "300", the Spartans were humans, not gods.



I agree. But at the time the Spartans were considered the preeminent warriors  in Greece, although quite a lot about their society was repugnant. Also the at the following battle of Platea, the sight of ten thousand Spartans completely unnerved the Persian army. This was, I think, in no small part due to the reputation of the 300 at Thermopalyae.


----------



## Machaon

Can somebody tell me when did the Romans win a important battle against Persians-Phartians? Even there emperor where captured... yes Vespasian... only one! the Great Gulian.. but he was more Hellen then Roman.. had started to win until a cristian of his own armee asassinated him... On the other hand we Hellens won and destroyed the Persian empire...
Greetings from GYTHEION, SPARTAS PORT.


----------



## Machaon

I said:


> In similar instances, 300 Romans under a decent commander would have probably done even better.


 
i wont agree with you. the Legion was more capable to move, only roman had space around him... very good. but not in the straights of Thermopyles( we greeks call it so) there the Spartan Falanx and the Thespian Falax did the Job better.

Greetingz from GYTHEION-LAKONIA


----------



## sarakoth

Machaon said:


> i wont agree with you. the Legion was more capable to move, only roman had space around him... very good. but not in the straights of Thermopyles( we greeks call it so) there the Spartan Falanx and the Thespian Falax did the Job better.
> 
> Greetingz from GYTHEION-LAKONIA


 
Yes the Romans were better suited for mobile warfare, but they were also skilled melee fighters. Roman legionaires were professionals, and some have went through literally decades of training and combat (no worse than Spartans). Also, the Roman legion had a formation similar to the Greek phalanx using their pila.


----------



## The Ace

The strange thing about Roman defeats is how seldom they were repeated.  Yes, Boudicca achieved some success, but she still lost.  Hannibal's reluctance to attack Rome itself may have been his downfall, but while he was stonking around Italy, Roman armies were taking out Carthaginian allies and obliterating the Carthaginian forces in Spain.

  Hannibal was recalled by a Carthage on the brink of defeat as the second Punic War ended (like the first and the third) in a Roman victory.

  The Spartans may have beaten the Romans the first time they met, but Rome would get it's revenge the second time.


----------



## MrWall

Some, eh, lets say interesting comments on history in this thread!

Firstly opinion. I don't have one. Sitting on teh fence maybe but I need parameters. Numbers, generals, equipment, etc etc

So for you to say, as Spartan27 does, that the spartans would win 1vs 1, I doubt it. The martial artists of asia would be my bet for a basic 1 on 1 battle, but they wouldnt fare well in a pitched battle. So for me that 1vs1 chart is a load of rubbish

Next you say that 100 vs 100 Spartans would win. Actually there is a good chance of this. As a basic swordfighting unit (+pikes), with no other units/weapons involved the Spartans were almost as good as the legend makes out (according to most sources), and the phlanx formation would not suffer from its weaknesses if it was just a unit of 100 vs a unit of 100.

BUT, grow the numbers again and you have another different answer. As started a cavalry charge on the angle sees a phlanx off very effectively. Are the romans siege weapons allowed? Archers? Cavalry?

And remeber at that level genreals come into play. And one of the majr problems with the spartan set up was no real link in command between general and phlanx leader, or more accurately that was it. Fine in teh way spartans waged war but by the time you reach roman war tactics it is much more sophisticated and the spartan model would be cumbersome

So for me it entirely depends on the scenario, no force is ever going to be able to be crowned best in the world and everything

EDIT: and thats ignoring things like supply lines, navies, politics etc etc

Oh and for the person earlier (cant remember who) that said Sparta had weak leadership because it didnt go and conquer, they didnt want to.  A simple study of spartan politics of teh time showed they wer much more interested in kicking some butt, and then going home again.  Vast empires weren't something that appealed to them.  For me this isn't weak leadership, its identifying whats important to the people


----------



## Spartan27

MrWall said:


> Some, eh, lets say interesting comments on history in this thread!
> 
> Firstly opinion. I don't have one. Sitting on teh fence maybe but I need parameters. Numbers, generals, equipment, etc etc
> 
> So for you to say, as Spartan27 does, that the spartans would win 1vs 1, I doubt it. The martial artists of asia would be my bet for a basic 1 on 1 battle, but they wouldnt fare well in a pitched battle. So for me that 1vs1 chart is a load of rubbish
> 
> Next you say that 100 vs 100 Spartans would win. Actually there is a good chance of this. As a basic swordfighting unit (+pikes), with no other units/weapons involved the Spartans were almost as good as the legend makes out (according to most sources), and the phlanx formation would not suffer from its weaknesses if it was just a unit of 100 vs a unit of 100.
> 
> BUT, grow the numbers again and you have another different answer. As started a cavalry charge on the angle sees a phlanx off very effectively. Are the romans siege weapons allowed? Archers? Cavalry?
> 
> And remeber at that level genreals come into play. And one of the majr problems with the spartan set up was no real link in command between general and phlanx leader, or more accurately that was it. Fine in teh way spartans waged war but by the time you reach roman war tactics it is much more sophisticated and the spartan model would be cumbersome
> 
> So for me it entirely depends on the scenario, no force is ever going to be able to be crowned best in the world and everything
> 
> EDIT: and thats ignoring things like supply lines, navies, politics etc etc
> 
> Oh and for the person earlier (cant remember who) that said Sparta had weak leadership because it didnt go and conquer, they didnt want to. A simple study of spartan politics of teh time showed they wer much more interested in kicking some butt, and then going home again. Vast empires weren't something that appealed to them. For me this isn't weak leadership, its identifying whats important to the people


 
Hi Guys, I'm back....doesn't matter who goes up against the Spartans...in the end the Spartans would be carrying their shields back to Sparta...period. Ask the the many cultures the Persians threw at them at 480BC...in fact there are many books written in the U.S., Europe and Asia that tells the same story.....and almost every miltary arm in the world have this battle and the Spartan training to this day as the basis for thier training as well...Seals, Green Berets, etc. etc.


----------



## skeptic_heptic

sarakoth said:


> Exactly my point.
> 
> Unlike in the film "300", the Spartans were humans, not gods.




This is true, but that does not mean Xerxes was not a god.  He surely believed he was.  I am convinced as well.


----------



## Angmar Assassin

If it hasn't been pointed out yet, or if people are just to dumb to figure it out on their own, Frank Miller's "300" is NOT a work of history. It's a graphic novel with historical overtones and backdrop, but is not meant to be a historical documentation of the Battle of Thermopylae.


----------



## Drachir

This thread seems to have an enormous lifespan.  I do not know if anyone has approached the topic from this point of view; that namely warfare is more than just about the training of individual soldiers.  The Topic is Rome vs Sparta, not a Roman vs a Spartan.  Spartan military tactics were fairly inflexible; that is they only knew of one way to win a battle; put up their superbly trained warriors against warriors with lesser training and simply outfight them.  However, whenever they ran into an enemy that used superior battlefield tactics they had trouble.  Rome, on the other hand, was famous for its ability to adapt.  Given armies of equal size it seems logical to assume that the Romans would find a way to exploit the Sparta's prime weakness; namely the rather inflexible nature of its military formations and its military thinking.  

The inflexibity of Spartan military thinking is clearly shown at the Battle of Leutra Battle of Leuctra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia in which a fairly simple change of formation resulted in a disastrous defeat for Sparta.  In addition,warfare is more than just a battle or so; it is the abilty to maintain an army in the field even after a defeat and this is where Rome shines as was shown in the Second Punic War in which successive defeats by Hannibal failed to destroy the Roman abilty to fight.


----------



## Jinny_Afersin

Leto said:


> No discussion. In the 2nd century BC, Sparta was absorbed by Rome's legions.
> IMO, more than pure military technics what went in favour of Roma was its administrative and economic skills.


I really agree with you


----------



## TheGreenDragon

Rome could easily defeat Sparta. At the height of its power, Rome's legions were almost invincible. Aslo, while the Spartans were excellent warriors, they did have their fair share of weaknesses (sorry if any of this has been said earlier): 

1) the Spartan system was not conducive to having a large populatuion. At the height of Sparta's power there were only at most 9000 Spartiates.

2)Their tactics were very inflexible and did not change. Once an enemy learned their strategies, Sparta would be a much easier opponent. Also, Sparta's tactics were only effective in pitched battles, not siege or naval warfare, severely limiting their military capabilities.


----------



## Connavar

Im reading Spartan history and I must say I'm surprised people lack of knowledge about the numbers of army of Sparta in the war against Persia.  Battle of Plataea there were 10 000 free Spartans and 35 000 Helots.

I must say its unfair comparing Sparta to Rome cause at Spartas times army didnt go in with more 10 000 vs 10 000 soldiers.  In Rome glory days that was very small and alittle more than a legion.

If Rome did have similer numbers,techniques of the ancient city states of Greece nothing says they would win against Sparta.

One thing you can say Sparta military power is that for close to two centuries after their prime at they lost only one land battle at full strength.   Rome lost many more than that and would have been destroyed if they were from earlier times where you could decline after a big battle.

Them controlling provinces and getting never ending soldiers,good economy to rebuild is far different to smaller army times of Sparta's prime.

Sparta's unique culture negative sides finished them, made them not grow big enough but at the small army times they were impressive.   Thats why they lead the Greeks in land battles in second Persian Invasion.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

Connavar makes a great point here! The numbers of men in a Greek fighting force was far smaller than that of a Roman force.

Its tough to truly name a victor. If there was less dissension between the Greek City States during the Hellenistic Era, and more unity was prevalent, then the outcome of Roman Conquest in Greece (other then The Pyrrhic War, however that was technically a Greek Victory) may have differed from what actually occurred.

Aside from historical information, a few well trained Spartan Phalanxes in my mind would match up well against a Roman Legion of similar size. However, this does not take into account the many other weapons and military units incorporated in the Roman Army, such as the Ballista.

The Roman Army, if incorporating its full versatility of weaponry is *slightly* favored over the Spartan Army. However, if it were, "Legion vs. Phalanx," the outcome of the battle would be decided by the general. In other words, it would be an equal match up.


----------



## nj1

Sargonthegreat said:


> the outcome of the battle would be decided by the general. In other words, it would be an equal match up.


 

But surely the Roman general was better trained than a Spartan, tacitcally wise. 
The Spartans were lead by thier kings right? while the Romans were lead by generals who had spent time as tribunes etc out on campaign so would have more battle experience surely?

I know, the kings of Spartan would train as warriors from a young age, but in greek times, i thought most battles were toe-to-toe scraps with the better side winning, the only other consideration was terrain. also the 'king' or general would be somewhere in the melee in most cases.
Romans behaved in a  more controlled manner with generals actually controlling the shape of the battle.

Surely that would give them an edge?


----------



## Dimentio

Sparta would never have beaten up Rome alone, if not leading an alliance of Hellenic city-states. And even then, it would have been hard.

You overestimate the Spartans. They had neither strategy nor tactics, just muscle-power. The Theban leader Epaminondas crushed the Spartans in the 4th century BC by revolutionising warfare, and he was leader of a state the very size of Sparta, not an alliance of Italic cities like Rome.


----------



## Connavar

Rome was crushed,beaten too after their prime.  Rome was not_ a city state that was five villages.
_ 
There are several Epaminondas for Rome too.

Tactics was totally different in Rome's prime and Sparta's prime.  Rome tactics would be suicide against medieval armies.   That's the danger of comparing different that are many centuries apart.

Speaking about the famous Phalanx, it wasn't even obsolete when the Romans conquered Greece.

_
However, the phalanx, as a military tactic, did not disappear. There is some question as to whether the phalanx was actually obsolete by the end of its history. In some of the major battles between the Roman Army and Hellenistic phalanxes, Pydna (168 BCE), Cynoscephalae (197 BCE) and Magnesia (190 BCE), the phalanx performed relatively well against the Roman army, initially driving back its infantry. However, at Cynoscephalae and Magnesia, failure to defend the flanks of the Phalanx led to defeat; whilst at Pydna, the loss of cohesion of the Phalanx when pursuing retreating Roman soldiers allowed the Romans to penetrate the formation, where the latter's close combat skills proved decisive._


----------



## Drachir

I've made an earlier post to this thread many months ago, but since it is still running I thought I would post again as a few new points have been made.  Assuming we are speaking about Rome and Sparta at the height of their military proficiency then a Roman army would almost certainly defeat a Spartan army of equal size for several reasons.  
1. Organization - the Roman army was the best organized military machine of ancient times, capable of delivering troops to battle in excellent order.  
2. Flexibility - the Roman army was not a one note military organization.  It was quite capable of adapting to changing situations and different terrains.
3. Training - the Roman army was a professional organization that emphasized strict discipline and a high level of conditioning and training.  Sparta's warrior culture had this as well, but I see no advantage for Sparta here over a veteran Roman formation.  
4. Leadership - Spartan generals, who usually fought with their men, generally had little control over their army once combat had begun.  Roman generals often changed tactics in the middle of a battle to exploit a weakness or deal with an enemy threat.  
5. Experience - The Spartans generally fought other Greeks, their only foreign adversary being Persia who sent lightly armed and poorly trained mass levies as spear fodder against them.  The Roman army at the height of it power had knowledge of many different enemies and had adapted to defeat them all.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Interesting thread. No time to read it in full, but I do wonder whether a better question might be Rome Vs Macedonia (under Philip II or Alexander).


----------



## Dimentio

thaddeus6th said:


> Interesting thread. No time to read it in full, but I do wonder whether a better question might be Rome Vs Macedonia (under Philip II or Alexander).



Rome actually pwned Macedonia thrice, under Philip V and Pericles. And they commanded a much more technologically fearsome Macedonian Army. Rome was initially beaten by Macedonia, but just sent another army when the first one had been routed.


----------



## Connavar

I think he meant the great days of Philip,Alexander against Rome in their prime.  Both huge empires.  

More balanced than a small city like Sparta vs Rome.


----------



## Dimentio

Connavar said:


> I think he meant the great days of Philip,Alexander against Rome in their prime.  Both huge empires.
> 
> More balanced than a small city like Sparta vs Rome.



You mean Rome in the first century AD vs Alexander's Empire in the 4th century BC? 

I think Alexander could probably have won most battles, but that Rome eventually would have won the war and trashed Alexander's Empire into shreds. 

As for 4th century Rome vs 4th century Macedonia, Alexander or Philip would probably have erased the Romans from the pages of world history.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I have to say that I think Philip or Alexander would've beaten Rome. Certainly at the same time, and possibly later on. It's quite hard to assess. The Macedonian army was the best in the world, and both men were great leaders. Alexander was a strategist and tactician and he had brilliant siege engineers. 

Then again, the Romans were patriotic maniacs who didn't even surrender after Cannae, and bounced back after Hannibal spanked them repeatedly.

Would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Alexander had lived a few decades longer.


----------



## J-WO

thaddeus6th said:


> Would've been interesting to see what would've happened if Alexander had lived a few decades longer.



  Read an interesting speculative essay by Toynbee once.  Had Alexander lived a few more decades and actually bothered to stop conquering, he would have turned his attention to consolidating his massive empire.  Quick transport would have been necessary and most the components were already in existence (steam power, tracks) for some form of Hellenistic locomotive.
 Only the ancient world's slave power held it back.

 Imagine! A transalexandrian express with Jesus Christ on board as a ticket collector. Now thats what I call an alternative history...

 (Sorry if I've gone off subject)


----------



## thaddeus6th

Haha, I remember hearing on QI how the ancient Greeks had steam power but never realised its potential. Apparently they had trains, just pulled by oxen rather than powered by steam.

Maybe we'd all be writing in the Greek alphabet if he'd lived long enough to secure the empire and have his son(s) grow to adulthood.

Then again, he might've been a rubbish peacetime emperor.


----------



## Dimentio

If Greece had ushered in the steam power era, we could have been on the moon in the 7th century.


----------



## Drachir

Dimentio said:


> If Greece had ushered in the steam power era, we could have been on the moon in the 7th century.



This is getting off the topic I think., but the development of steam power in ancient Greece the way it was used in the 18th century would have been a very unlikely development.  In order for a technology to develop is must fit into the proper historical environment and ancient Greece did not have that environment.  For one thing it lacked supplies of coal, which was unknown as a source of fuel until centuries later.  It also did not have large scale production of iron which is also necessary for steam production.  And finally, Greece was a slave society in which there was little need for power machinery.


----------



## J-WO

That's as maybe, but there's no denying that both Rome _and_ Sparta wouldn't have been a match for the Hellenistic interstellar Empire of the 11th century AD.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

Rome vs. Macedon

Let's consider a few factors



Organization: Both armies were extremely organized with a variety of different types of infantry, cavalry, siege engines, ect.



Diversity: Macedon probably beats Rome here only because it controlled an area of territory with more distinct cultures that used different military tactics and technology



Technology: Obviously the answer to this is simple: Rome. The Romans came later so of course they had better technology, but was better enough to make that big of a difference?



Training: While the Macedonian military was well trained, Rome probably slightly beats them out here. The reason for this is because much more of the Roman Army had been trained in the same manner and therefore fought more cohesively. The reason for this is because while Macedon employed Greek Warfare training throughout western Asia, it was not as effective as the training in the Italic states under Roman control.



Patriotism: The Romans probably beat out the Macedonians in this situation. If you read up on the history of Alexander's conquests, you'll notice that many of his soldiers did not want to continue the campaign into the greater section of India. The Roman Legions, who swore allegiance, fought gallantly not only for their state but also for the many riches



Size: The size seems to very equal between that of the Macedonian Army and the Roman Army, at least in engagements. Therefore, this would probably not be a major factor.



Generalship: While the Romans had extremely good control over their army, Macedon wins this for one and only one reason only: their generals were able to control their military as well as the Romans even though it was much more diverse.



Fighting Experience: This is an even draw. Both armies were extremely experienced.


----------



## Scifi fan

Rome came up with their legion specifically to beat the phalanx system of the Spartans, and at the Battle of Cynoscephalae, destroyed the Greek power structure forever.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

You have to keep in mind though that the Macedonian Army wasn't only mad up of hoplites. It was probably the most diverse, well trained military force in the classical world.

Legions were not created for the sole purpose of beating greek military forces as well. While they did fight the Greeks first in the Pyrrhic War, the Legion had been developed much before then in order to defeat other Italic peoples.

This is not to say that structurally the Legion was better suited for warfare than the Phalanx. The key difference between the Legion and Phalanx was that the Legion was more flexible than the Phalanx. In all other aspects, the two fighting styles were generally equal.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

Sorry, I made a spelling error.

*made


----------



## manqingbaqi

all of you guys are WRONG! i'l give you guys the best satisfying answer.

1. if the romans fought the spartans as a whole. meaning an army for an army, surely the spratans would lose. no need to say it. why? romans had numerous types of infantry. auxila, hastati, legionaries, archers, cavalry. and of course superior maneuverability. they are flexible where as the spartan were trained more to fight forwardly against a target in the front. the phalanx formation. the focus of the phalanx, the power is all based in the front. the romans could see this flaw easily and surround the spartans. phalanx formation are the weakest at the sides and back. they do not have enough flexibility to turn to the sides and use the phalanx formation, as the phalanx purpose is to smash against the enemy's front line and come in close grip with the front and push, block, stab. again... etc


2. if we're talking about single man fighting. one spartan vs one roman. one on one. mannnn the legionary would have his ass kicked anyday. spartans are trained at the age of seven, alot of you might say "so what? the romans are diciplined". sure they are but spartans are trained to fight at close quarters, there training were far more cruel and harder than the roman legionary. dont forget people that spartans aren't just good at using the spear, the REAL SLAUGHTER begins when the spartan draws his sword and chop you down. they are the champion at close quarter combat with swords. im sure everyone has seen the movie '300" no need to say how fiercm they fight. roman legions on the other hand are more superior as a whole. they fight together in formation as a team. you never see a roman legionary walks up alone to the enemy and starts chopping away. but a spartan would and can.


3. so the answer would be. army vs army. romans win due to flexibility and various different types of troops.


4. one on one.  spartan would win hands down. 


5.also the reason the romans took over greece was because romans were at their prime and greeks weren't. sparta is a small state and they barely have more than 10.000 hoplites at any given time. also during the time when rome took over. greece was degrating. spartans were'nt as strong as they were during thermopoly. they just can't produce enough men to fight.


6. IF the romans agree to fight only forwardly against the spartans. meaning no maneuvering, no surrounding, no archers, no cavalry. just men against men attacking only the front. the spartans would also win. because nothing can beat 'the forest of spears' PHALANX are at the strongest when fighting off FRONTAL opponents. and spartans physics are also much much more fit. the romans will be push back by the heavy spartan shield and the phalanx formation that will eventually break the roman line. phalanx tactics are to push against the enemy and stab, push and stab. romans would be block, stab, block stab. roman formastion is that the front line fights and the rest holds the front person's back to keep the line in place. whereas phalanx. the hoplites at the back would push together against the men at the front, to produce a more powerful push. so yeah there you go.


----------



## Drachir

I like your modesty, manqingbaqi.  You do make a good point, however.  A Roman army would undoubtedly defeat a Spartan army and since that was the question I think you have answered it.  I do think you underestimate the fighting quality of the average Roman soldier, but the post was not about one-on-one combat.  If it was then the Romans should be allowed to use their gladiators; professionals, who I suspect, would have given even the best Spartan warrior a run for his money.  
Your last point does overlook the fact that the Spartans were defeated at the battles of Leutra and Mantinea by opponents using essentially the same tactics as the Spartans.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mantinea_(362_BC)
Battle of Leuctra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## thaddeus6th

I thought Leuctra and Mantinea were where Epaminondas invented the oblique order, and that's why he won?

The Spartans won the war in the end, I think.


----------



## Drachir

At Leutra it was pretty much the usual shoving match, but the Thebans reversed the usual order, placing their elite troops opposite the Spartan elite troops and increasing the thickness of the phalanx five-fold.  

And you are right.  With fewer troops elsewhere the Thebans were forced to march their troops at an angle against the Spartans in order to completely occupy all of the Spartan front line.  It was a tactic based on the fact that the Spartans always used the same battle formation.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

You all do state great points here. I think that Rome would probably defeat Sparta (even if both were in there prime) when fighting in a battle with the same numbers. However, if Rome were to take its Legionaries and send them solely against Sparta, they would probably lose in a close contest. Both are formidable forces and hard to compare because of differences of time periods.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

Sorry for the double reply.

Is this thread dead?!?!

Keep the Rome vs. Sparta thread alive and the debate continuing.


----------



## J-WO

Surely there's a Q.E.D logic in the fact everyone used the phalanx and then gave it up? If both systems were of equal worth they'd be contemporary with each other right up until the fall of Rome. Rome's later enemies would have adopted the Phalanx system as a viable reply, rather than ignore it as the outdated system it so obviously had become in the face of the legion.

1- Throw javelins at phalanx and weaken it.
2-Use big shields to soak up Phalanx's attack.
3-Use short swords to cut down spear heads.
4-Get in close and stab a bunch of guys now holding long sticks.

With a few exceptions, this seems to be what happened. War evolved.


----------



## dustinzgirl

manqingbaqi said:


> 1. if the romans fought the spartans as a whole. meaning an army for an army, surely the spratans would lose.



Army for army, nobody thought the Americans would defeat the Brits.


----------



## J-WO

dustinzgirl said:


> Army for army, nobody thought the Americans would defeat the Brits.



Ah, we let 'em have it. Wasn't worth the time and trouble.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

The Americans and the British are a different story. There were different factors involved that led to the American victory. I would like to hear someone's opinion who thinks that the Spartans would defeat the Romans and what their reasoning behind this is.


----------



## Drachir

dustinzgirl said:


> Army for army, nobody thought the Americans would defeat the Brits.



Never forget that the battle that turned the tide in the US Revoutionary War was fought was Yorktown, which was won with French support.  More than anything else the entry of France into the war on the side of the rebels convinced the British that the war was no longer winnable.  And there is also the fact that many members of the British Parliament had argued against forcing the American colonies to remain in the British Empire.  These members steadily gained support as the war progressed.  Even so, the war was a near thing for the victorious Americans.  Largely ignored by many American historians is the fact that a very large part of the colonial population supported the British, not the rebel cause.  At the very most support for opposing the British was probably never higher than about 60%, a fact that was conveniently ignored by historians who were attempting to create the myth of American unity aganst the British oppressor.


----------



## Sargonthegreat

If it weren't for the French, there would not have been an American victory.


----------



## dreamhunter

Funny, but you forgot the Russians.


----------



## dreamhunter

You know, putting some army from the 500s BC against another from the 100 - 400 AD time frame is surely going to be fraught with all sorts of uncertain speculation. The weapons are different, the armour, the fighting style, the technology, the logistical challenges and abilities etc. etc.

All in all, though, I would say that the Spartans were out n out battlefield brawlers, for want of a better term. Like, you wouldn't mind having a bunch, or a battalion, of them on your side in a single, individual battle. With guys you could rely on to fight to their deaths, to the last man, who would?

But we don't know that much about their ability to stage and hold a long, protracted, drawn out war. Or to conduct a long campaign of invasion and subsequent occupation. In which I would say the Romans repeatedly proved their talents.

There is one way to test it, though. Have some guys from one modern country, say Britain, trained up in the pure Spartan way. Then have another group, also from Britain, drilled to fight the pure Roman way, using precisely the same weapons and armour as the Spartan group. Set them up against one another, then see who wins.

The point is, if I were a Roman commander training up my army for a war in 300 AD, the Spartan way would definitely be one of the 'must have' modules in my overall training programme. It would be a cool way of pepping up your men's pure warrior spirit, wouldn't it?


----------



## dreamhunter

J-WO said:


> That's as maybe, but there's no denying that both Rome _and_ Sparta wouldn't have been a match for the Hellenistic interstellar Empire of the 11th century AD.


 
What? You mean Byzantium? Basileios n stuff, right?

Naaahh, they got beat by a bunch of Oghuz Turkmen barbarians led by Alp Arslan in the Battle of Manzikert, in 1071, didn't they? Which sort of paved the way for the birth of the coming Seljuk empire soon after.


----------



## J-WO

dreamhunter said:


> What? You mean Byzantium? Basileios n stuff, right?
> 
> Naaahh, they got beat by a bunch of Oghuz Turkmen barbarians led by Alp Arslan in the Battle of Manzikert, in 1071, didn't they? Which sort of paved the way for the birth of the coming Seljuk empire soon after.



No, I mean the Hellenistic interstellar Empire, mate. Founded by the God Emperor Alexander and, by the 11th century, in command of nine fleets of FTL-capable space Triremes and the architects of a spacelift temple to Zeus built on alpha centauri nine. Who else would I mean?

Byzantine? Seljuk? I've really no idea who you're talking about...


----------



## dreamhunter

Hey, what's that you're smokin, kid?

Oh! You mean the New Hellenistic Empire, led by the George God Emperor Alexander from the Bush. Of course. K.

But he's been toppled off his oh-so-proud, high-n-mighty throne by none other than Hannibal himself, hasn't he? You know, the New Hannibal. A smarter, more handsome, more peace loving, more civilised, enchantingly charming, elegantly eloquent Hannibal.

Long live the New Hannibal.


----------



## J-WO

Sorry, Dreamhunter, just resurrecting a silly riff that arose halfway down page 9 of this very thread. 

But yes; ALL HAIL THE NEW HANNIBAL AND HIS CYBERNETIC LEGION OF STAR-ELEPHANTS!!!!!


----------



## Sargonthegreat

Let's get this thread going again.


----------



## J-WO

Please lets not.



J-WO said:


> Surely there's a Q.E.D logic in the fact everyone used the phalanx and then gave it up? If both systems were of equal worth they'd be contemporary with each other right up until the fall of Rome. Rome's later enemies would have adopted the Phalanx system as a viable reply, rather than ignore it as the outdated system it so obviously had become in the face of the legion.
> 
> 1- Throw javelins at phalanx and weaken it.
> 2-Use big shields to soak up Phalanx's attack.
> 3-Use short swords to cut down spear heads.
> 4-Get in close and stab a bunch of guys now holding long sticks.
> 
> With a few exceptions, this seems to be what happened. War evolved.



I can't keep repeating myself.


----------



## dreamhunter

Why not?

If someone can make and use a shield big enough and hard enough to soak up a phalanx surge, then an array of such shields could also be used by the phalanx to bounce off any little shower of puny javelins.

Someone using a short sword to cut down spear heads would have to be moving really fast, at top speed really, for the duration of the battle, which could last from morn till dusk, if he's to avoid getting a spear in his throat, face or gut, while he's busy lopping off spear heads. Now, only a Hercules or an Achilles could do that sort of stuff.


----------



## J-WO

dreamhunter said:


> Why not?
> 
> If someone can make and use a shield big enough and hard enough to soak up a phalanx surge, then an array of such shields could also be used by the phalanx to bounce off any little shower of puny javelins.



Phalanx shields were comparatively small and would have to be lifted to block most javelins. Lifting a shield over your head in a phalanx was difficult and would help to disrupt the phalanx itself- just what the Romans wanted. Plus the Roman javelin--the pilum--was designed _to_ hit shields and then buckle-- breaking up the phalanx formation and negating the shields.  



> Someone using a short sword to cut down spear heads would have to be moving really fast, at top speed really, for the duration of the battle, which could last from morn till dusk, if he's to avoid getting a spear in his throat, face or gut, while he's busy lopping off spear heads. Now, only a Hercules or an Achilles could do that sort of stuff.



Yep, they call it professional training. And using a body shield. And using the enemies growing lack of cohesion.


----------



## dreamhunter

Nope. When I said only a Hercules or an Achilles could do it, I was just giving a nod to ancient legend. Whereas, in a real-world battle theatre, not even a Hercules or an Achilles - the Special Forces guys of the ancient world - no matter how well trained he was, could last more than three hours - _at most_ - of constant, non-stop sword wielding at _top speed_. Your arm muscles start going numb, then jamming up, pretty fast afterwards. The more muscles you have, the faster they go.

As for professional training, the average Spartan started his at seven years old. The average Roman at twenty years old. So the average Spartan has a thirteen year advantage of _professional training _over the average Roman.

As for your average body shield, there's still the face and throat left uncovered. Besides the arms and the legs.


----------



## Carthigian

Look, lots of you guys watch too many movies. 300 is a really, really bad interpretation of the battle at Thermopayle. Why? Well, I don't remember Persians being big lizards. 
And by the way, the Greek allies with the Spartas actually helped. Lacaedemonian is misinformed. The allies, did little, but they were still an active part of the fight, if not providing rear support.  And yes, rear support actually helps. 
And why wouldn't 300 romans survive that long. Remember, you have to be carefull which time period you are talking about. The early roman armies were barbaric, so they would last about 2 seconds. But the Roman Legionaries could simply form a tsuetedo, block persian arrows, then form up again as ranks, and fight with their swords. 

And many people think romans can't fight phalanxes for their life. Those people are wrong. True, if the Romans are pressed for time, then they are screwed, but if they are simply in 1 to 1 with a phlanx, the Romans will eventually weave through the spears, and massacure Spartans. The SPartans would not be able to fight back because their long spears would be too far to stab the Roman, and a single legionary could kill 500 dudes or something. The Spartans would be sitting ducks.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Welcome to the forum 

I partially agree. You're right that there were others present (700 helots and some others, I think), which tends to be overlooked.

It's really hard to assess the Legion Vs Phalanx question, though. If we had seen Scipio Africanus against Alexander the Great, we might have got a fair answer. When Pyrrhus invaded he won two out of three battles against the Romans, and lost the third due more to his own flawed plan and bad luck (his elephants stampeded over his own army) than Roman excellence.


----------



## J-WO

The Spartans had a whole lot of Thebans with them, who get a pretty bad write-up from Herodotus. Which I've always thought was very churlish of him, considering they had exiled themselves from their city to fight for Hellenic freedom and stuck around to fight with the Spartans to the bitter end.

Er... don't know why I mentioned that, really. I guess I just think those guys deserved better from history.


----------



## Null_Zone

J-WO said:


> The Spartans had a whole lot of Thebans with them, who get a pretty bad write-up from Herodotus. Which I've always thought was very churlish of him, considering they had exiled themselves from their city to fight for Hellenic freedom and stuck around to fight with the Spartans to the bitter end.
> 
> Er... don't know why I mentioned that, really. I guess I just think those guys deserved better from history.


 
They were never going to get a fair deal though.

Too far from the sea for Athenian blackmail to work.
Saved by Sparta from Athernian vengance at least once.
Manages to defeat Sparta in a war, more than Athens managed.
Has a more successful land empire that Athens.

Then throw in the tendancy of "historians" to have saved Athenian literature over that of other Greek City States to the point we lack their accounts of important cults in other cities, well the Thebans never had a chance.


----------



## Tinsel

Which army would win between the Spartans and the Romans?

I have only read some history on the Spartans. I'm wondering how it is possible to create a warrior group, although they did have the mentality where strength was valued and they did rule over many slaves. They focused on military training, including coordinated war fighting. It was likely a strong army or at least a so called professional army.

I should read a lot more but I have never found the will to do so. I read a bit on the Athenians. The main comparison is made between the Athenians and the Spartans.

What I will say, is that the Spartans perhaps were unified, but so were the Athenians, because the country side met together in Athens for religious festivals.

When you are unified, than you have something to fight for. I don't think that this was the only civilization that produced a great wealth of specialization, but the thing that is central is that the Spartans controlled a large slave population, and it was a terrestrial army. Than when that slave population was freed, than the Spartans could not continue to exist. Were they even an army in actual fact? They did fight in some wars, but what they were was an elite class.

Now the Romans were soldiers were they? but really the group that spread their goddess where soldiers lead by Alexander the Great; the Macedonians. The Persians were soldiers? Anyway, the ones that set out to conquer were the soldiers more so than the groups that acted defensively, and in the age of Sparta, I thought that the Spartans were somewhat isolated, but than I didn't read a hell of a lot, at least not yet.

So if the Romans invaded Sparta, than the Spartans would defend themselves but probably be overwhelmed especially when surrounded by slaves, yet they would fight to the death. The Romans would win.


----------



## paranoid marvin

On any given day (within reason) any army could beat any other with due consideration taken for tactics, morale and leadership. The thing about the Romans was that it was more about the campaign than the battle ; they would quite happily withdraw to regroup , and I'm not sure if the Spartans were as disciplined. The Romans would grind you down over a series of land and naval skirmishes , ruthlessly and inexorably coming at you again and again until you either surrendered or were wiped out.

Weaponry-wise , the at-a-distance phalanx of the Spartans would be no match for the up-close-and-personal gladius. The Roman tank tortoise shell would steam-roller through and then split it apart like a pack of cards - with the cavalry on hand to mop up with no opposition (the Spartans only employed mercenaries as cavalry)


----------



## sloweye

*in his best Harry Hil TV burp voice*

Theres only one way to settle this....._*FIIIIIIGHT!*_


----------



## Tinsel

The Mongols did well in battles, including against the Romans. Didn't they capture the city. That seems out of place, but I see the point where strategy played a large part where the armies had similar equipment and tactics. The battle lines were set up a certain way and than they all ran in. Than against a new type of foe, they were all vulnerable.

I'm sick of hearing about war, however if a person belonged to one of these ancient groups, there might be a greater sense of purpose aimed at warfare. That was a completely different world than the one we live in now.

One wonders which group a person should chose to belong to. Some short life that would see me though a few battles, and than the grave might work just fine. It would probably be an exciting life.


----------



## Snowdog

If you're going back to the original assertion of the OP - that a Roman army _of any period_ would beat the Spartans, then no, they wouldn't. The Romans lost almost all their early battles against the Greeks, but they had numbers on their side, and learnt quickly. Any battle could be lost (as has already been said) but I would back the Romans in a war against the Greeks every time. They had more men and were more adaptable.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

Of course Rome would win. Sparta mostly coasted on their vaunted reputation.


----------



## Menion

Rome would win by pure numbers.


----------



## the smiling weirwood

Well they also had more advanced military technology and a much larger talent pool to draw generals and officers from, so it's not just numbers.


----------



## Zethniti

The period when Sparta was an independent city was about 500-400 BC, while the period that we think of as Rome are ca. 100 AD, meaning that the romans would lie 600 to 500 years ahead of Sparta in technology (besides the romans at that time ruled all lands around the mediterranean and was considered a great power even by china, which was a very arrogant empire at the time).

Of course, when you say "the romans at any time", you could choose the Kingdom of Rome at the same time as Sparta was independant, which was actually smaller than the norwegian city that I live in (which is 106 square kilometres). Then I believe the spartans would have won.

However, if you choose the traditional definitions of Rome and Sparta, then consider "4 Legions ar marching to Sparta" (in theory 40 000 of the worlds best soldiers) and if they failed, the romans would just send more. If the entire roman army failed, the romans would just train and send more, as that was the attitude they had to such things.


----------



## Zethniti

However, the Roman legions often had great problems when facing a small group that used guerilla tactics, and so it is very hard to tell who would win.

(Im not really sure of how exactly the Spartans fought, but the Romans favoured placing armies which would then charge each other, although the great generals often did quite a bit of other things in addition to trick the enemy, probably being why they became the great generals


----------



## jchris

Lacedaemonian said:


> Don't be stupid. The Romans would not have lasted a single day.  The Spartan unique endurance training allowed them to survive for so long.  The Greek allies did little to nothing, they did not hold the other pass and in the end it was only Spartans who fought.  You have to ask the question why the allies are never mentioned?



Watch out for troll language!

And by the way, I'm pretty sure the Ancient Romans conquered Ancient Greece. And isn't this argument kind of like asking, "Who would win in a fight, Nazis or Americans?" 

Rather strange debate, no?


----------



## Nik

D'uh, it's like the simmering flame-war on SpaceBattles over SW vs ST...

One entity is a shaky alliance, the other is a genuine Empire, with all the advantages of depth and numbers...

Assuming mid-Period Romans, they'd probably lose a succession of battles and Eagles to the Spartans, then wheel up an overwhelming number of legions, complete with ballistas and such. They'd set up a fortified camp with those killer trenches to anchor their flank and the Spartans would fight to the death...

Game Over.


----------



## Spartan27

I have not been here in a while, and glad to see the comment thread going strong on this....

I think the easiest thing to say is...would the Roman Soldier defeat a Spartan....the answer is NO. Roman soldiers were 95% conscripts....while the Spartan was trained from the age of 7.

The Spartan Warrior is the best, strongest and absolutely unrelenting. While you can argue all day long about armies and sending more and more and more men in to face the Spartan's, The Persians had more men then the Spartans and more than the Romans...And we all know what happened to them....In the end, I highly doubt the Romans would have wanted to see 10,000 Spartans....The Romans would have been wiped out...PERIOD.


----------



## J-WO

The Roman Imperial legions were not conscripts, actually. They also had a method of warfare that had made the phalanx obsolete centuries before. That really is the history of it, I'm afraid.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Spartans would fight to the last man , whilst Romans would retreat,regroup and come at you again. And again. And again, until you were defeated. They would grind you down through strength of numbers, brilliant startegy and a flat refusal to be defeated. The only way to beat Rome was to wipe it from the face of the planet, which is something the Carthaginians failed to realise. Although they won absolute victories against Rome they never dealt the final blow, which is something they came to regret when the Romans eventually defeated them and raised their capital to the ground.


----------



## Vargev

I would personally put a fully arrayed Spartan phalanx against a roman legion anyday of the week. And i'll tell you why, the spartans fought not as individuals but as a unit.

Every man was a trained killer, from the age of 7 every spartan that was allowed to live, (that being accepted at birth) went under the agoge, where they learned stealth techniques, military training, hunting, loyalty to the unit, and a dozen more aspects.

Every Spartan warrior was a specimen of pure strength and ability, of the finest genestock, because if they weren't they were left under mount Taygetus to die.

In addition to all this the Spartan phalanx is a giant bulwark made of the strength of those who made it up, they could withstand bow, they could withstand sword using their lambda shields, that's assuming the enemy got close enough to use a sword a spartans typical weapon was the Javelin which they could use equally adeptly up close, like a spear or at range. Once they had used their javelins they would revert to their short swords which they were just as good at using.
At the time the Spartan phalanx was a match for an army ten times its size, thats why a Spartan warrior was one of the most feared of all enemies at the time.

Also lets not forget, Alexander the great, the most celebrated general of all time, was a Spartan, so was Achilles. Alexander in particular went on to conquer most of Persia.

So if I was to choose between Spartan at the height of its power, against Rome, sorry I would pick Sparta.

Edit: That being said, there is almost 400 years of history seperating the two, its like comparing those fighting in the 1600's to Hitlers third reich, It's a moot point really.


----------



## J-WO

Vargev said:


> I would personally put a fully arrayed Spartan phalanx against a roman legion anyday of the week. And i'll tell you why, the spartans fought not as individuals but as a unit.
> 
> Every man was a trained killer, from the age of 7 every spartan that was allowed to live, (that being accepted at birth) went under the agoge, where they learned stealth techniques, military training, hunting, loyalty to the unit, and a dozen more aspects.
> 
> Every Spartan warrior was a specimen of pure strength and ability, of the finest genestock, because if they weren't they were left under mount Taygetus to die.
> 
> In addition to all this the Spartan phalanx is a giant bulwark made of the strength of those who made it up, they could withstand bow, they could withstand sword using their lambda shields, that's assuming the enemy got close enough to use a sword a spartans typical weapon was the Javelin which they could use equally adeptly up close, like a spear or at range. Once they had used their javelins they would revert to their short swords which they were just as good at using.
> At the time the Spartan phalanx was a match for an army ten times its size, thats why a Spartan warrior was one of the most feared of all enemies at the time.
> 
> Also lets not forget, Alexander the great, the most celebrated general of all time, was a Spartan, so was Achilles. Alexander in particular went on to conquer most of Persia.
> 
> So if I was to choose between Spartan at the height of its power, against Rome, sorry I would pick Sparta.
> 
> Edit: That being said, there is almost 400 years of history seperating the two, its like comparing those fighting in the 1600's to Hitlers third reich, It's a moot point really.



-The Spartans didn't use javelins on the battlefield, they used 6-7ft spear called a Dory. The Romans, however, did, and that played a significant role in wrecking phalanx formations time and time again. 

-Interestingly, the Romans also fought as a unit. In fact they are quite famed for it.

-Actual evidence for the Spartans leaving babes at Taygetus is non-existent. Bodies found there have been between the ages of 16-50 (ish) and are most probably that of criminals and traitors. The baby thing seems to be an Athenian fiction (though, of course, infants were exposed throughout the ancient world, it wasn't for eugenic reasons). Its highly debatable whether killing physically suspect children would have any chance of creating some mystical 'super race' anyway.

-Alexander The Great was not a Spartan. He was Macedonian. Neither was Achilles- he was a Myrmidon, a mythical people who lived (if I recall rightly) in Thessaly. 

-Though its not remotely my area of expertise, I'll go out on a limb and say the German army of the WWII era- with its automatic weaponary, artillery, aerial bombardment, armoured vehicles and train-powered logistics would anihilate any force from the 1600's with their... muskets and hats (though I'm happy to be corrected). Its a vaguely similar, though not as extreme, situation between the Spartans and Romans in a hypothetical fight.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Vargev

Also let's not forget a Spartan is a Hoplite, an elite type of soldier certainly, but just a soldier. Termed Spartans as Sparta was where they originated from, there were hoplites across Greece.

The Spartan phalanx was designed to take ground and hold it, no matter what, and this they did on numerous occasions, notably at Thermopylae, but also against Athens and Corinth. Also they were by far the best at doing this, for example they did not flee, or break as roman units sometimes did, if you plonked a unit of 1000 spartans on that hill and asked them to defend it, they would, with their very lives, you would have to wipe out the entire unit to get them off that hill, which is hard for any army to do. 

The reason why I would pit a fully armoured Spartan say from the 6th century B.C. against a roman legionary, is that in single combat I would bet the legionary would last a matter of seconds.

The problem with Sparta was that as a state, as a people, they were just to damned stubborn and too headstrong, they quite rightly believed themselves to be the best warriors in all of Greece, which led to a kind of arrogance, as though almost a victim of their own success. They would never bow before anyone, they would never march under anothers banner, that was why they never participated in Alexanders conquest of Persia, although in later years they got over their stubborness and did.

Sparta became an isolationist state within Greece, their allies deserted them because of this stubborn refusal to reform, or to be allied with the rest of Greece, and so Sparta fell into decline, by the time the Roman legions arrived with their radically advanced weapons and technology they were a shadow of what they once were, so it was a no contest.

If the Spartans had of reformed and embraced the changes that were coming, and the technology they no doubt were aware of instead of their rigid adherence to centuries old military doctrine and tactics. They could have utterly crushed the roman legions that opposed them.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Don't forget though this is Rome vs not Sparta - not 2 men fighting , nor a legion nor even a battle or campaign. Rome lasted an awful lot longer than Sparta, and still has influence on the world to this day, whereas Sparta cannot say the same. 

Whether it's numbers, tactics (although the Romans made some shockingly bad tactical decisions at times) or sheer bloody-mindedness not be defeated, Rome at it's peak would never have been defeated by Sparta at it's peak.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Marvin, I agree with your latter paragraph absolutely.

Rome took a battering from Hannibal and lost colossal numbers of men, but still won the war.


----------



## Spartan27

I find it very hard to believe, a roman legion would have defeated an equal number of Spartan's...Roman's were good, but the fact remains the Spartans were the BEST. There will always be a best, and then there is everyone else....those are the facts.

It would have been some battle a 480BC Spartan Army of say 5,000 against the best roman legion (imperial?)...I would give the Romans about 2 hours before they turned and ran. In other words...ZERO CHANCE


----------



## thaddeus6th

That's one of the biggest differences. Rome evolved a system where it could withstand huge losses and still churn out massive armies (cf Second Punic War) whereas the system of Sparta necessarily limited the scale of the armies it could put into the field.


----------



## J-WO

Spartan27 said:


> I find it very hard to believe, a roman legion would have defeated an equal number of Spartan's...Roman's were good, but the fact remains the Spartans were the BEST. There will always be a best, and then there is everyone else....those are the facts.
> 
> It would have been some battle a 480BC Spartan Army of say 5,000 against the best roman legion (imperial?)...I would give the Romans about 2 hours before they turned and ran. In other words...ZERO CHANCE


 
Well, I guess if the word 'best' is written in capital letters that's the end of the argument.

One can only assume that the Thebans, having defeated the Spartans in a major land battle are PLUSBEST. And the Macedonians, having defeated Thebes, are DOUBLEPLUSBEST.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Which is better : ten thousand £1 coins or ten £50 notes? A £50 note is better than a £1 coin, but you have to consider other factors when deciding.


----------



## mosaix

Spartan27 said:


> ....those are the facts.



I think it would be more accurate to say "_that is my opinion_".

This debate is pointless and I'm surprised the thread is still going after all this time.


----------



## J-WO

mosaix said:


> This debate is pointless and I'm surprised the thread is still going after all this time.



It sure is. And yet I'm hell-bent on trying to hold the pass with my phalanx of almost-certainly-correctness against an endless horde of Just-watched-_the 300_-on-DVD invaders.

And darn it, I'll keep on doing it. I figure the only way I can lose is if one of them bribes a chronsmember to show them a secret pathway in the mountains between here and the science/nature forums, thus surrounding me.

The irony, of course, is that I'm the pro-Roman guy.


----------



## Varangian

Vargev,

Are you suggesting that the Roman Legions did not fight as a cohesive unit? 

This is an almost pointless argument because the two forces (Spartan and pre-republic Rome) were second to none during that time on earth. The word Testudu for instance (tortoise shell) was a Roman tactic to protect all sides of the legion (including the top), the Romans had archers and heavy 'artillery' in support (like the Scorpion for instance). 

Historians have aruged that a British regiment around the time of the Battle of Waterloo would be incapable of besting a Roman Legion (simply because some of the finest infantrymen could only reload and fire a musket 3 times during 1 minute).

It's an interesting agument, but one that cannot be won by either side I feel, the Spartans were a warrior race and the best fighters in the world for their time. The Romans, however, were professional soldiers who lived and breathed to fight and kill. They were also treated by their superiors in rather harsh ways like the decimate punishment:

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/concepts_decimate.html

Both Spartans and Romans were extremely tough.


----------



## markdienekes

Rome would win in my opinion... the Spartans would simply be too short on numbers... 
From 400 BC to 250 BC, the Spartan citizen body (military manpower) fell from about 3000 to 700 men (Paul Cartledge, _The Spartans_, p.231). They really never had a large body of soldiers... which would have been ultimately run down by Roman military power. 

If they met at the height of their powers, Sparta would still lose in my opinion. Rome never fought wars like the Greeks and would continue to fight until there wasn't a Spartan left alive (which wouldn't have taken too long to be honest).


----------



## Peter Graham

Never mind all this Rome v Sparta stuff.  Do we think Nessie could beat the Surrey Puma in a game of shove ha'penny?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## thaddeus6th

Peter Graham, that's just silly.

The Beast of Bodmin Moor would beat both of them.

Incidentally, I agree with the aptly named Mark Dienekes. Rome and Sparta's differing styles (one expansionist, the other maintaining a hegemony without really building an empire) meant that once Rome reached a certain level of power there could be only one winner. Sparta's approach worked well in Greece, but it couldn't stand up to an empire on its own.


----------



## J-WO

thaddeus6th said:


> Rome and Sparta's differing styles (one expansionist, the other maintaining a hegemony without really building an empire) meant that once Rome reached a certain level of power there could be only one winner. Sparta's approach worked well in Greece, but it couldn't stand up to an empire on its own.



This. This right here.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Spartans could beat Romans? Ha , wait 'til Biggus hears of this!


----------



## woodsman

Peter Graham said:


> Never mind all this Rome v Sparta stuff.  Do we think Nessie could beat the Surrey Puma in a game of shove ha'penny?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter



Ah Peter - always good for some light-hearted humour  

Give me one Obelix and I'll crush either & both.


----------



## J-WO

For the sake of balance you understand, I'm just gonna leave this here...

http://davidbrin.wordpress.com/2011...py-wall-street-kids-are-better-than-spartans/


----------



## Snowdog

Read David Brin's article, and while he's correct about *300* which was rubbish, Brin himself ignores some pertinent facts.

1. The Spartans were feared throughout Greece and recognised as the pre-eminent military force in that part of the world. The citizen-soldiers of the other city states couldn't match them man for man on most occasions. Most of those citizen-soldiers (above Thermopylae) bent the knee to Xerxes without a fight, not because they were cowards, they just recognised reality.

2. The Spartans treated their slaves pretty appallingly in order to preserve the dominance of a minority, but Athens was also a slave state, though not so brutal. Slavery was widespread and accepted as normal just about everywhere in the ancient world.

3. The fleet at Artemisium was actually commanded by a Spartan, Eurybiades, although he usually deferred to Themistocles.  And it wasn't just an Athenian fleet, it was an allied fleet, even if the Athenians had most ships.

4. Suggesting the Spartans "let down" the Athenians by inconveniently dying I think is foolish. Did Davy Crockett let down Texas by dying at the Alamo? The truth is that Santa Anna made some tactical blunders after the Alamo without which he may have staved off the annexation of Texas, at least temporarily. If he had, the lives lost at the Alamo might have been just a footnote in history, but that would have in no way lessened what those men achieved there. The fortunes of war meant the fleet had to retreat, not any failure by the Spartans and their allies at Thermopylae.

Brin's diatribe seems motivated primarily by his dislike of Frank Miller. *300* was an awful film, historically inaccurate and badly made on many levels, but the inaccuracy charge could be levelled at many Hollywood films, e.g. *Braveheart*, *Objective Burma*, *U-571*, etc, as well as almost any historical epic you care to mention.


----------



## J-WO

As I say; sake of balance.


----------



## TL Rese

i luved the 300 film!  however, i thought of it more as a fantasy film than historical.  the historical inaccuracies in gladiator bothered me more, coz it seemed to be trying more to be a historical film, than 300.

after watching 300, i'm convinced spartans could defeat anybody - "sparta!!" =P


----------



## Starchaser3000

Though between 500-400 B.C. the Romans, or anyone else for that matter was not a match against the Spartans. But eventually the Romans developed superior technological & tactical advantages that allowed them to eventually pwn the Spartans as well as the rest of the Greek kingdoms centuries later. So I guess in their military prime the Spartans were superior to the Romans, but eventually the Romans adapted and were able to conquer them as well as the rest of the western world.


----------



## Peter Graham

Let's get down to brass tacks here.

A soldier - be he Spartan or Roman - is just a man.  Fitter and stronger than most, granted, but not imbued with superhuman qualities.

He will be armed with one or more sharp bits of metal and will protect himself from harm with one or more bits of metal clothing.

He will generally be trained to use his weapon and to do what his leader tells him.

Military tactics in this age are not generally that complex.  Once you have two armies lined up facing one another, you can either attack or defend.  

If attacking, if possible you seek to weaken the opponent first - physically and mentally - with missiles or toffs on horses.  You then run at them and hope a) that they leg it or b) that if they don't leg it, you cut them up quicker than they cut you up.

If defending, you seek to minimise damage from missiles or toffs on horses.  When the other lot run at you, you stand in a big pack and hope to cut the other lot to bits.

I'd argue that morale is utterly crucial.  In an evenly matched fight, the side which breaks last is likely to win.  Contrary to popular belief, horses generally wouldn't charge into packed squares of foot.  The idea of the charge was that the enemy would not be able to stand there as your dragoons thundered down on him and would bottle it and bolt before you reached him.  Cavalry usually could not penetrate squares which did not break and just fannied around at the edges, being shot at.

Logistics and planning is also crucial.  Picking your moment and picking your battlefield.  Ensuring that you can be resupplied.

I'd also argue that fate also plays a part - in the age of musket, a battle could turn on a sudden downpour.  Disease can weaken armies and usually killed many more soldiers than the enemy did.

So, in answer to the central question, much more depends on weather, disease, location and morale (which we are told that both Rome and Sparta were good at) than on the physical prowess of the individual soldiers.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Starchaser3000

You make good points. Still, I have no doubt that the Roman army during the era of the Pax Romana would have decisively defeated the Spartans from 500 B.C. Yet I believe the Spartans would have beaten the Romans in 500 B.C.


----------



## Peter Graham

Starchaser3000 said:


> You make good points. Still, I have no doubt that the Roman army during the era of the Pax Romana would have decisively defeated the Spartans from 500 B.C. Yet I believe the Spartans would have beaten the Romans in 500 B.C.



Presupposing all other things are equal - which they never are in the real world.

As I understand it, Rome tended to do well when pitted against enemies who held the individual prowess of the warrior in higher esteem that being a cog in a military machine.  Stripping yourself naked, covering yourself in woad and then charging at your enemy with a huge chunk of iron in your hands might work if your enemy is doing the same thing, but is unlikely to work  if your enemy stands in a mechanical line, takes the force of the charge and then stabs you at close quarters, by which time you don't have swinging room and your lack or armour is starting to look a bit unwise.

Although the Romans glorified killing in the name of theft and conquest (just as all empires do), they did at least work out that at the most basic level, the business of killing could be organised.  It  was about achieving the result, not seeking individual glory as though war was just some big game.

The little I know about Sparta suggests that there were certain similarities in approach, so unless we can demonstrate that Spartan morale really was stronger than Roman morale, then in the absence of any other environmental factors, it is difficult to see how we can be confident of Spartan victory in any putative engagement prior to any given date.

After all, on paper,  the following things would also have happened:-

1.  The Scots destroy the scratch English "army" at Solway Moss and are green lighted all the way to London.

2.  The British crush the American rebels.

3.  The US sweep the Viet Cong and the NVA away.

4.  The Spanish Armada lands on the south coast.

5.  The French knights destroy Henry V at Agincourt.

6.  The Luftwaffe win the Battle of Britain.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## paranoid marvin

Peter Graham said:


> Presupposing all other things are equal - which they never are in the real world.
> 
> As I understand it, Rome tended to do well when pitted against enemies who held the individual prowess of the warrior in higher esteem that being a cog in a military machine. Stripping yourself naked, covering yourself in woad and then charging at your enemy with a huge chunk of iron in your hands might work if your enemy is doing the same thing, but is unlikely to work if your enemy stands in a mechanical line, takes the force of the charge and then stabs you at close quarters, by which time you don't have swinging room and your lack or armour is starting to look a bit unwise.
> 
> Although the Romans glorified killing in the name of theft and conquest (just as all empires do), they did at least work out that at the most basic level, the business of killing could be organised. It was about achieving the result, not seeking individual glory as though war was just some big game.
> 
> The little I know about Sparta suggests that there were certain similarities in approach, so unless we can demonstrate that Spartan morale really was stronger than Roman morale, then in the absence of any other environmental factors, it is difficult to see how we can be confident of Spartan victory in any putative engagement prior to any given date.
> 
> After all, on paper, the following things would also have happened:-
> 
> 1. The Scots destroy the scratch English "army" at Solway Moss and are green lighted all the way to London.
> 
> 2. The British crush the American rebels.
> 
> 3. The US sweep the Viet Cong and the NVA away.
> 
> 4. The Spanish Armada lands on the south coast.
> 
> 5. The French knights destroy Henry V at Agincourt.
> 
> 6. The Luftwaffe win the Battle of Britain.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter


 

Don't forget Luke missing the exhaust port and the Empire crushing the Rebel scum


----------



## Peter Graham

Very good point - to which we can also add:-

1.  The Empire's mechanised military machine making mincemeat (ooh! Alliteration!) of stone age teddy bears on Endor.

2.  The Daleks learn how to build a world-destroying device which cannot be overriden by Time Lords rewiring a plug 1000 space miles* away.

3.  Blofelt simply shoots Bond in the head rather than hanging him over a lake full of genetically modified killer halibut.

4.  The Klingons/Borg etc shoot at the USS Enterprise five times rather than three (three is always enough to make the  bridge judder and knock the shields out), thereby destroying a ship-load of smug and patronising no-marks.  And good riddance.

Regards,

Peter

*  This may not be the correct terminology.  Could a fan of hard sci fi please confirm the proper word and then provide a 75 page exposee on how the teleportation system on a Pluto Orbiter _would actually work in real life_.


----------



## Snowdog

Peter Graham said:


> 3.  Blofelt simply shoots Bond in the head rather than hanging him over a lake full of genetically modified killer halibut.



How he's still in a job, I can't fathom, he's been captured that many times. Maybe it's standard training to be captured and and to lull the enemy into a false sense of security. All the best spies seem to do it.


----------



## Peter Graham

Snowdog said:


> How he's still in a job, I can't fathom, he's been captured that many times. Maybe it's standard training to be captured and and to lull the enemy into a false sense of security. All the best spies seem to do it.



Good point.  

"Dear Cdr Bond,

Please attend a disciplinary meeting on the 20th inst. to discuss the following allegations relating to your conduct and performance:-

1.  Constantly drinking on duty.

2.  Wilful and persistent destruction of government property.

3.  Shagging everything that has a pulse whilst on work time.

4.  Telling practically every stranger you meet that you are a secret British agent.

5.  Persistent breaches of the Official Secrets Act.

6.  Constantly getting caught.

7.  Persistently failing to catch Mr Blofeld.

Yours sincerely

H (R)"

Regards,  

Peter


----------



## Gumboot

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has been pointed out, but the very notion of a Spartan/Roman battle being even a close match is laughable.

The Spartans mastered the early hoplite phalanx, that's irrefutable.  But that had been made obsolete by the Theban phalanx, and that in turn was rendered obsolete by the Macedonian phalanx.  The Macedonian phalanx was annihilated by Roman maniple warfare.

Putting a Spartan hoplite phalanx against a Roman army would be like putting a Sopwith Camel up against an F22.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I hadn't heard that, regarding the Theban phalanx. I thought the Theban advantage was derived from the oblique order pioneered by Epaminondas (unless, of course, that's what you're referring to).

I'm not so sure the Macedonian style phalanx should be dismissed so easily.

Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles with the Romans, and he was not a direct Diadochus (Successor) to Alexander. The advantage Rome enjoyed was that Greece was fractured and Rome's power waxing when the two sides met. If Alexander had been at the height of his power I think he would probably have defeated Rome.


----------



## J-WO

Alexander defeating early Republican Rome is feasible, Imperial Rome less so (Though I think he'd have had sense to swap to the legion system himself if it were possible), but Gumboot's on the money about Sparta. To say otherwise displays a profound knowledge Of _Xena, Warrior Princess, _but not Classical Warfare.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I'm not so sure. The Republic was more resilient than the empire because it was still a soldier-citizen society, and the soldiers were loyal to Rome rather than specific generals/emperors.

The Empire under a Trajan or Aurelian would've been a real challenge, but an Otho or Commodus would have been weaker, I feel, than the Republic (at its height, at least). The Empire would've been vulnerable to simply adopting a successful Alexander as Emperor.


----------



## Gumboot

thaddeus6th said:


> I hadn't heard that, regarding the Theban phalanx. I thought the Theban advantage was derived from the oblique order pioneered by Epaminondas (unless, of course, that's what you're referring to).



Yeah this is pretty much what I was referring to - his tactical structuring and use of the phalanx.




thaddeus6th said:


> I'm not so sure the Macedonian style phalanx should be dismissed so easily.
> 
> Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles with the Romans, and he was not a direct Diadochus (Successor) to Alexander. The advantage Rome enjoyed was that Greece was fractured and Rome's power waxing when the two sides met. If Alexander had been at the height of his power I think he would probably have defeated Rome.




You have to bear in mind that I was referring to the classic _manipular_ Roman Legion of the Middle to Late Republic onwards.  The Pyrrhic War came right as the Romans were changing from phalanx-based warfare to manipular-based warfare, and as such I don't think you can really count that campaign as true manipular warfare (the javelin, for example, wasn't introduced until a quarter of a century _after_ the war).  Further, in both defeats, the Macedonian phalanx proved unable to defeat the Romans; on both occasions they were routed by Pyrrhus' elephants; a weapon the Romans hadn't yet learned to deal with.

I think it's perhaps more instructive to consider what happened when a classic manipular Roman army encountered the classic Macedonian phalanx during the Macedonian Wars.  The flexibility of the Roman army proved decisive in the encounters where the heavy infantry engaged each other.

Even at Cynoscephalae, where the Greeks had significant tactical advantage (high ground, and the Romans were withdrawing) they were still resoundingly defeated.

Alexander essentially only had one tactic; he would hold the enemy with the Phalanx and them hit them with the Companions.  This would have been ineffective against a Roman manipular legion, which proved itself capable of withstanding the phalanx even when it was fist being conceptualized, and which horses would not attack front on.


----------



## thaddeus6th

The problem is that when Rome fought Macedon the latter had fallen greatly in terms of power and leadership from the heights it achieved under Philip and Alexander.

It's a shame we don't know more about the disposition of Hannibal's troops. I think they fought in phalangial formation, but they're such a hodge-podge of Celts and Liby-Phoenicians that I don't think they can be used one way or another to argue for the legion or phalanx being better (and that's without the distorting factor of Hannibal's excellent leadership).

Against Pyrrhus the legion had difficulty coping with the long sarissa spears. I'm not sure this would have changed with the manipular evolution, and Alexander had a lot of very good cavalry.


----------



## Emel

So people believe why that a spartan army of say (for a magical number) 10,000 could defeat a Roman army of 10,000? Obviously in an open field battle, the romans would mangle the phalanx by flanking and surrounding it, followed by a pila lob, and then begins the hacking and downfall of the phalanx. In a closed pass? The pila was meant to negate the shield, and shatter, rendering it unusable by the enemy, they could form a testudo, raise the spears up with their shields, and when they are close enough in to avoid the shields, they can just stab block stab destroying the use of the dory and forcing the spartans to use their alternate weapon (which they weren't nearly as proficient with) the xiphos. The romans were meant for close combat and would destroy them close range, and I am sure if it was another Thermopylae , then the roman general (using tactics) would scout an area, and surely find the pass going around the mountain and probably flanking the spartans in the early beginnings of the battle started. That is my honest opinion, but of course 1 on 1 the spartan would win no doubt.


----------



## historyiscool

of course the spartans carry the 'sparta' mythos, but i think the romans would win.  yes , the romans had some struggles, usually against a new enemy, but they were constantly improving.  for example, past the time of marius' mules on, i think the individual roman soldier was even better than the spartan, 1 on 1.  while they didnt go through the brutal school for their childhood, they used much heavier armor and shields plus were the first ancient army (as far as i have read) to really focus on fitness using resistance training, like weight lifting, to become stronger.  so, i think they would have been more physically imposing than the greeks, who used very light armor, besides having some of the best commanders of all time, who often won against great odds.

the spartan phalanx worked as a unit, and in history, when they fought, the romans won the battles by engaging at sword range.  they also used war elephants, had some of the most decisive cavalry in history, and the spartans surrendered to them a number of times without battle.


----------



## Nerds_feather

Sort of unfair as the legion design was a direct response to the phalanx structure that dominated in the Greek and Hellenized states of the early Republic. So to me it's kind of like asking: "who wins in a fight, an army with tanks or one that does trench warfare really well?"

(Of course, that's assuming we're talking about the Republican or early Imperial legions here...those of the late Empire were oft defeated.)


----------



## thaddeus6th

Was it? Very early Roman history isn't my forte.

Worth recalling that Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles against Rome.


----------



## Nerds_feather

thaddeus6th said:


> Was it? Very early Roman history isn't my forte.
> 
> Worth recalling that Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles against Rome.



Yeah, though that doesn't mean they won every battle. The Carthaginians also gave the Romans fits for a while. 

But same is true of Sparta. They were serious badasses, but had trouble with Athens during the Peleponnesian War and got curb-stomped by Thebes a little later on.


----------



## thaddeus6th

The Athenians were muppets. They were cruising to victory then decided to fritter away resources in an ultimately failed bid to extend their empire to Sicily.

Thebes is a bit of a special case, as Epaminondas was very clever and invented the oblique order of battle. It also fell as quickly as it rose (militarily) after the Macedonians obliterated it.


----------



## Nerds_feather

thaddeus6th said:


> The Athenians were muppets. They were cruising to victory then decided to fritter away resources in an ultimately failed bid to extend their empire to Sicily.
> 
> Thebes is a bit of a special case, as Epaminondas was very clever and invented the oblique order of battle. It also fell as quickly as it rose (militarily) after the Macedonians obliterated it.



All true. Athens also spent a lot of the time pissing on its own colonies and allies, several of whom simply switched sides out of fear.

...and yes, you're right about Thebes, but it still demonstrates that the Spartans could lose, even to someone who didn't possess the organizational advantage the Roman legions would (which, of course, is a chronological advantage).


----------



## jastius

Personally I've got to side with Rome over Sparta even though I can't  easily countenance the way the Romans exterminated wide swaths of the Celtic  culture. At least they had reasonable positions for women in their  society, whereas Spartan woman could be cast aside or even put to death  with no recourse. 
The queen and king of Sparta had to be physically  perfect; both of them winning all competitions and physical challenges  from a lot of fresher younger kids.... and the results if they lost? Death.  If I was Helen, I would have taken off with Paris in a heartbeat rather then  put up with that kind of thing.


----------



## Tor__Hershman

Gad, the Spartans, as I understand it, would NOT use bows sooooo the Romans would've picked 'em off just as with The Three-Hundred.

I mean, when the Romans went to view Ovid's play (We know it as The New Testament) the bit that had 'em ROTF LOL was the "The meek shall inherit the Earth" line.


----------



## rshmglsky

From history class in college, it was taught onto me that when it came to the western way of war, the Roman Legion was # 1, the Macedonian phalanx a terrifying but close second.

Even the Greeks themselves debated this until the Romans defeated them for a second time, in pure daylight, on a level field so there could be argument about which formation was better.


----------



## thaddeus6th

That sounds plausible, but the problem with assessing legion vs phalanx in that way is that the best users of the phalanx (Alexander and Philip, or even Craterus, Eumenes, and the other companions of Alexander) never faced the legion. My own view is that Alexander or Philip would've proven too much for Rome, but we'll never really know.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Know your enemy.

As far as military tactics are concerned, it's all a matter of time and experience. If Rome had been the first to encounter the phalanx, it may have had a different outcome. Once you know what your enemy's tactics will be, you can find ways to overcome them. And once a counter has been found, then tactics change and evolve or defeat swiftly ensues. You only have to look at the way the Punic wars or the slave rebellion led by Spartacus to see that the Romans were intelligent to know when tactics needed changing.

There has never been a tactic - however initially successful - that is infallible once opponents have studied it. Look at the Blitzkrieg tactics of the Germans in WWII. Initially the shock of a new style of warfare swept all before them, but then the Russains realised that by falling back further and further to allow the enemy to advance too far without sufficient back up in men, machiones and supplies, then encircling and destroying them. The Wolfpack in the Atlantic in WW1 and WWII terrorised the Atlantic until destroyer escorts and sonar where used to counter-attack. In the Napoleonic era, the infantry square was a formidable unit against cavalry until cannon was used to destroy it. The French columns were apparently invincible until they came up against the British line. These are over-simplifications I know, but just prove that a tactic may be successful, but then be overcome.

If you refuse (or aren't quick enough) to refine and evolve your strategy and tactics you will be defeated. This is the great thing about the Roman army; they were pregmatic enough to realise when they had got it wrong, and would change to counter their opponent. This is why they were so successful, and many other nations weren't.


----------



## Venusian Broon

paranoid marvin said:


> If you refuse (or aren't quick enough) to refine and evolve your strategy and tactics you will be defeated. This is the great thing about the Roman army; they were pregmatic enough to realise when they had got it wrong, and would change to counter their opponent. This is why they were so successful, and many other nations weren't.


 
I agree and disagree. Yes the longevity of the Roman Empire was about eventually beating their opponents - but sometimes it took a very long time. At times their military were headstrong and hot-blooded and it took much longer than you'd expect from our view of the Roman army as a rational killing machine. 

The classic example, after been taught two bloody lessons at Trebia and Trasimene, was to learn nothing and attempt to beat Hannibal by sheer weight of numbers and aggression in, what was essentially, a 60,000 man phalanx push at Cannae. And on a reasonably regular basis, they were resoundingly defeated, whether it was against the German tribes in the Teutoburg forest or the Parthians at Carrhae.

These where victories that could signal the end of lesser empires, but, IMO it was the greatness of the Roman's _state_ to cope with failure and shattering defeats that allowed the military enough time to come up with a solution (Remember they never really conqured the Germans or the peoples in the middle east beyond the levant). 

In that respect, going back to the original thread, Rome wins hand over foot. The Spartan state essentially hamstrung their army because their army had to be close to their land to police their helots, who the Spartan Elite continually feared would rebel, and invariably did when they had a good opportunity. 

Every time there was a defeat of some kind (as also happened to the Spartans on a reasonably regular basis), it made the Spartan state become more inward and isolated, every time the Romans, in their ascendancy and heyday got beaten they reorganised & knuckled down but still believed they could eventually find a way to look outward, aggressive and remain optimistic about expansion.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Venusian, I agree entirely. If the apparatus of the state (ie pathological patriotism and system of raising soldiers) had been the same in Carthage and Rome then Hannibal would've beaten them. He was far and away the best general in that war, but even crushing victories weren't enough to put Rome down.

That's in rather stark contrast to the latter days of the Western Empire.


----------



## Brian G Turner

Venusian Broon said:


> The classic example, after been taught two bloody lessons at Trebia and Trasimene, was to learn nothing and attempt to beat Hannibal by sheer weight of numbers and aggression in, what was essentially, a 60,000 man phalanx push at Cannae. And on a reasonably regular basis, they were resoundingly defeated, whether it was against the German tribes in the Teutoburg forest or the Parthians at Carrhae.



So far as I recall, these battles were primarily ambushes, though - or used extensive feints. In other words, not normal head-to-head battles.

The surprise is how the Romans were continually able to bounce back and raise new legions. That ability I find frankly astonishing. And their main strength - not simply being able to field disciplined armies, but able to do so in an almost (seemingly) limitless fashion.


----------



## thaddeus6th

I think Trebia made use of some hidden troops to perform an unsuspected attack on the enemy during the battle, but Trasimene was 100% an ambush. However, Hannibal did goad his enemy (Flaminius?) into following him and then led him into the perfect spot for such an attack (narrow lakeside road with the Carthaginians attacking from wooded mountains shrouded in fog).

Seems that a combination of moving to personal rather than state loyalty (ie Caesar or an emperor or a general above Rome) and the erosion of hard-nosed patriotism by the luxury of the Golden Age reduced the Romans significantly.


----------



## paranoid marvin

The main reason that Carthage didn't win the Punic Wars is that the Carthaginian leaders wouldn't 100% back their generals. When you are fighting a war a considerable distance from home, you need all the resources you can get and there was never given enough support given to their armed forces to finish Rome off for good.

 It's arguable whether the rulers of Carthage preferred a weakened Rome or a an all-conquering Hannibal with a force large enough to challenge for the throne should he decide to turn on his superiors.

It shows what a threat the Carthaginians were with the way that Rome dealt with their defeated enemy; they attempted to raze both the people and the city from the face of the earth, something they rarely did.


----------



## markdienekes

Carthage were in support of the war, just things didn't go quite according to plan, reinforcements to Hannibal were often diverted in other theaters where generals had lost battles and needed the forces - even Hannibal suggested the senate invade Sicily instead of sending a 25,000 strong force to him in Italy (which they did).

These are just some of the things the Carthaginian senate did in support of the war:

These are just some of the passages in Livy that reveal a number of  naval operations and landings of forces from Africa during the war.

 Hasdrubal, the Carthaginian commander, did not feel himself strong  enough in either arm, and kept himself safe by taking up strong  positions at a distance from the enemy; until, in response to his many  earnest appeals for reinforcements, 4000 infantry and 1000 cavalry were  sent to him from Africa. Then, recovering his confidence, he moved  nearer the enemy, and gave orders for the fleet to be put into readiness  to protect the islands and the coast. (23.26)

In  the meanwhile the news was brought to Carthage that things had gone   badly in Spain and that almost all the communities in that country had   gone over to Rome. Mago, Hannibal's brother, was preparing to transport   to Italy a force of 12,000 infantry, 1500 cavalry, and 20 elephants,   escorted by a fleet of 60 warships. On the receipt of this news,   however, some were in favour of Mago, with such a fleet and army as he   had, going to Spain instead of Italy, but whilst they were deliberating   there was a sudden gleam of hope that Sardinia might be recovered. They   were told that "there was only a small Roman army there, the old   praetor, A. Cornelius, who knew the province well, was leaving and a   fresh one was expected; the Sardinians, too, were tired of their long   subjection, and during the last twelve months the government had been   harsh and rapacious and had crushed them with a heavy tax and an unfair   exaction of corn. Nothing was wanting but a leader to head their  revolt.  "This report was brought by some secret agents from their  leaders, the  prime mover in the matter being Hampsicora, the most  influential and  wealthy man amongst them at that time. Perturbed by the  news from Spain,  and at the same time elated by the Sardinian report,  they sent Mago  with his fleet and army to Spain and selected Hasdrubal  to conduct the  operations in Sardinia, assigning to him a force about  as large as the  one they had furnished to Mago. (23.32)

The army sent to Sardinia  was defeated there (Livy, 23.40) and shortly  afterwards, a naval battle  took place in which Hasdrubal was defeated  by Titus Otacilius Crassus  (23.41) as Hasdrubal was returning to  Africa.

Very few were  influenced by Hanno's speech. His well-known dislike of  the Barcas  deprived his words of weight and they were too much  preoccupied with the  delightful news they had just heard to listen to  anything which would  make them feel less cause for joy. They fancied  that if they were  willing to make a slight effort the war would soon be  over. A resolution  was accordingly passed with great enthusiasm to  reinforce Hannibal with  4000 Numidians, 40 elephants, and 500 talents  of silver. (23.13)

But  they did not remain quiet long, for just after this battle an order  was  received from Carthage for Hasdrubal to lead his army as soon as  he  could into Italy. This became generally known throughout Spain and  the  result was that there was a universal feeling in favour of Rome.   Hasdrubal at once sent a despatch to Carthage pointing out what mischief   the mere rumour of his departure had caused, and also that if he did   really leave Spain it would pass into the hands of the Romans before he   crossed the Ebro. He went on to say that not only had he neither a  force  nor a general to leave in his place, but the Roman generals were  men  whom he found it difficult to oppose even when his strength was  equal to  theirs. If, therefore, they were at all anxious to retain  Spain they  should send a man with a powerful army to succeed him, and  even though  all went well with his successor he would not find it an  easy province  to govern. (23.27) (this passage is relevant to  understand the one  below)

Although this despatch made a great impression on the  senate, they  decided that as Italy demanded their first and closest  attention, the  arrangements about Hannibal and his forces must not be  altered. Himilco  was sent with a large and well-appointed army and an  augmented fleet  to hold and defend Spain by sea and land. As soon as he  had brought his  military and naval forces across he formed an entrenched  camp, hauled  his ships up on the beach and surrounded them with a  rampart. After  providing for the safety of his force he started with a  picked body of  cavalry, and marching as rapidly as possible, and being  equally on the  alert whether passing through doubtful or through hostile  tribes,  succeeded in reaching Hasdrubal. After laying before him the   resolutions and instructions of the senate and being in his turn shown   in what way the war was to be managed in Spain, he returned to his camp.   (23.28)

Himilco, who had been for a considerable time cruising  with his fleet  off the promontory of Pachynus, returned to Carthage as  soon as he  heard that Syracuse had been seized by Hippocrates. Supported  by the  envoys from Hippocrates and by a despatch from Hannibal in which  he  said that the time had arrived for winning back Sicily in the most   glorious way, and by the weight of his own personal presence, he had no   difficulty in persuading the government to send to Sicily as large a   force as they could of both infantry and cavalry. Sailing back to the   island he landed at Heraclea an army of 20,000 infantry, 3000 cavalry,   and twelve elephants, a very much stronger force than he had with him at   Pachynus (24.35)

After Marcellus' departure from Sicily a Carthaginian fleet landed a force of 8000 infantry and 3000 Numidian horse. (26.21)

In regards to strengthening Hannibal's brother Mago's position in northern Italy:

To  Mago they sent not only instructions but also 25 warships, a force  of  6000 infantry, 800 cavalry and 7 elephants. A large amount of money  was  also forwarded to him to enable him to raise a body of mercenaries,  with  which he might be able to move nearer Rome and form a junction  with  Hannibal. Such were the preparations and plans of Carthage. (29.4)


----------



## DragonKhan25

Read "Hannibal" by Sir Gavin De Beer and see how little the Cartheginians truly supported Hannibal. It must be remembered that it was the Barca families own semi autonomous kingdom in Spain from which the assault on Italy was launched. 

On the subject of the Spartans vs Rome - I think Alexander the Great vs Rome is a lot more interesting question


----------



## thaddeus6th

DragonKhan, I haven't read that book but might give it a look (a quick check suggests it's out of print and not available as an e-book, though second hand is an option).

Theodore Dodge, if memory serves, also suggests that Carthage offered little support to Hannibal as the Barcas and Hannos were political rivals.

That is an interesting question. Did you know that there was an Alexander (I think he was a king of Epirus) who invaded Italy? It was pre-Alexander the Great, I think, so probably 350BC (give or take). He didn't do so well, as you might expect given Pyrrhus also ill-fated expedition west has eclipsed it. 

If Alexander had gone west (having lived) after conquering Persia I suspect he would have destroyed Rome, if it came to it. If he had gone west instead of east (having secured Hellenistic hegemony) that might be an altogether more competitive affair.


----------



## DragonKhan25

I got the book myself at a car boot sale and it seems like it was out quite a while ago but it would still be pretty relevant from what I have read. 

Alexander actually had plans to launch a 1000 ship assault on Carthage once he had returned back to Macedonia. Oh and do not get me started on poor old Pyrrhus - what people forgot is that he was a fantastic general and the closest thing to Alexander the great after the Diadochi period


----------



## thaddeus6th

Poor old Pyrrhus indeed. Lost most of his best men just sailing to Italy, and never had the resources to really capitalise on victory. 

Assuming you mean in the short term, I'd probably agree. Over the rest of the BC period I'd rank Hannibal as second to Alexander.


----------



## DragonKhan25

Yeah I meant in the short term. Hannibal himself stated that he ranked Pyrrhus as the greatest commander he knew of, though there are other reports he put Alexander above Pyrrhus. Either way he is often neglected when people speak of the great generals of the past.


----------



## thaddeus6th

The anecdote I heard was that he was asked by Scipio, and Hannibal said Alexander was best, then Pyrrhus, then himself. He then cunningly flattered Scipio by saying that if Scipio beat him (which he did) then he [Scipio] would top the list.

It's unfortunate that, unlike Alexander and Caesar, we don't have too many quotes (or possible quotes) from Hannibal.


----------



## DragonKhan25

Possibly due to the Roman ethnic cleansing of everything Punic after the sack of Carthage! What annoys me more than anything though is that Hannibal could have terrified the Romans again if the Seleucid's had trusted him. Instead they made him a naval general instead :/ 

How different would the world be now if Scipio had fallen in Spain in the initial Carthaginian march towards Italy. 

Back to the subject of the Romans vs the Spartans - Only Athens at the peak of her powers would have perhaps stood a chance due to the combined Naval and Land forces. Also the great sea wall which was used to keep the city supplied was a key factor - Sparta had no walls!!!


----------



## Null_Zone

thaddeus6th said:


> It's unfortunate that, unlike *Alexander* and Caesar, we don't have too many quotes (or possible quotes) from Hannibal.



We don't have any quotes from Alexander, merely his cult of personality sayings from a century or so after his death. Even the depictions of him in art are a Roman invention of their ideal warrior king.


----------



## ralphkern

The Laconian War, an alliance of the early Roman Republic and several allies versus Sparta saw a Roman alliance victory.

By then the Spartans seem pretty a bit of a pariah state, and thus went it alone. This wasn't a war to the death. It resulted in a negotiated surrender by Sparta and the effective end of Sparta as an independent nation. Shortly after they were absorbed with Spartan units being fielded by Rome and Sparta itself becoming a tourist destination for wealthy Romans. This is the point in which the Eugenic practices were outlawed as well.

Whether the same Roman victory would have held true at the height of the Spartan power, with them able to call upon other states is another question, but then the same argument can be held for the Spartans facing the Romans at the height of theirs. 

If discussions are about individuals, I would suggest a Spartan, trained in warfare his whole life might have the edge. This would hold true up to small unit tactics as well. above that level I would say that Romans would begin to have the edge. 

Infantry technology was not too different between the two, albeit Romans were a bit more inventive with siege engines.

Further beyond that, to quote Clauswitz with 'War being diplomacy by other means' would definitely have given them a further edge, as shown in the Laconian war where they banded together several local powers to take them on.  

All this is said with great regret as I am a Leonidas loving Laconophile. 

Additionally, the Spartans seemed to have been fairly soundly thrashed in most of their contacts with the Roman led alliance. Obviously history is written by the victors... make of that what you will.


----------



## markdienekes

DragonKhan25 said:


> Read "Hannibal" by Sir Gavin De Beer and see how little the Cartheginians truly supported Hannibal. It must be remembered that it was the Barca families own semi autonomous kingdom in Spain from which the assault on Italy was launched.
> 
> On the subject of the Spartans vs Rome - I think Alexander the Great vs Rome is a lot more interesting question


 
Read Hoyos' _Hannibal's Dynasty: Power and Politics in the Second Punic War_, to see a different interruption of the evidence. Though I'm not one who supports the idea of Barcid autonomy (and in turn the whole revenge story planned by the Barcids). Personally I feel people who say Carthage didn't truly support him (and the war) are trying to excuse Hannibal's failure... From my own studies on the subject, I believe the senate supported the war, being full of many Barcid supporters, and having the backing of the common people (which had ultimately given Hamilcar and Hannibal their commands in Iberia), which is revealed in the literary sources by the large number of resources raised in Carthage to support the war in all theaters. Hanno's faction was likely in the minority.

Hannibal launching the attack from his own possessions reveals the context of his situation. Rome declared war. The only way he could get to Italy was by marching there.


----------



## JoanDrake

My understanding is that the Spartans actually killed themselves. They made it so difficult to remain a Spartan 'in good standing' (they exiled any who weren't), that they could not replace themselves.


My general reading on this subject is that the Macedonian phalanx is said to match the Legion on open flat ground but the Legion beats them on rough terrain. Then again I've also read that recent studies find Vitruvius' famous 'checkerboard' arrangement is actually not feasible beyond the first few moments of battle; the ranks close up and then the Legion IS a phalanx


The reason the Romans got new soldiers so easily was that they treated them pretty well. They were adequately fed, middling well-paid (relatively) and could keep all their loot. They were also often given a good pension and land after 25 years. In a society which routinely sold people into slavery for debt this was not a bad deal. While Tribunes were openly given their status because of nepotism and connections it was also a fact that a slave could rise through the ranks to become Emperor,(some did).


Caesar once rallied his troops before an important battle where they had expressed fear of the enemy by calling them citizens, to which they loudly objected that they were soldiers, and then he said they must act the part.


----------



## ralphkern

A god point, a nation has to treat its troops right within the context of its environment... yet Sparta is probably an example of treating a nations troops a little too well. 

Martial prowess can only get one so far. There comes a time when swords have to become ploughs...


----------



## BAYLOR

The Spartans were the greatest warriors of their era and in battle would give a good account of themselves against in individual contests against  Romans . But Rome has  better generals, tactics and overwhelming manpower. They would very quickly and very decisively defeat Sparta.


----------



## ralphkern

They did.

This isn't a hypothetical question, a war did occur between Sparta and Rome.


----------



## JoanDrake

AFAIK the Spartans were defeated by Philip of Macedon and incorporated into Alexander's Army. The Romans later defeated the remnants of Alexander's Armies.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Not sure about that. I thought Philip/Alexander and Sparta more or less left one another alone.

Also, by the time the Romans rolled around into Greece I think pretty much everyone who fought for Alexander was dead. They may have fought veterans under Pyrrhus' banner (maybe) when he invaded Italy.


----------



## ralphkern

War against Nabis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Laconian war, also know as the war against Nabis. Rome (early republic)led alliance vs Sparta.


----------



## rwspangler

Very true as shown in the battle of Teutoberg Forrest when the German tribes destroyed three full legions as they traveled through a forrest and pushed into a trap at the end. As for the pass, I believe the formation would have held (similar to the Greek's) for a while. However, given the size of the enemy, the result would have been the same sooner. The Spartans rotated the front person to keep a fresh front where the Romans stuffed more troops in and pushed.


----------



## BAYLOR

rwspangler said:


> Very true as shown in the battle of Teutoberg Forrest when the German tribes destroyed three full legions as they traveled through a forrest and pushed into a trap at the end. As for the pass, I believe the formation would have held (similar to the Greek's) for a while. However, given the size of the enemy, the result would have been the same sooner. The Spartans rotated the front person to keep a fresh front where the Romans stuffed more troops in and pushed.


 
Old Spartan Adage never fight the same enemy twice. The Spartans tended to not vary their tactics very much.


----------



## JoanDrake

thaddeus6th said:


> Not sure about that. I thought Philip/Alexander and Sparta more or less left one another alone.
> 
> Also, by the time the Romans rolled around into Greece I think pretty much everyone who fought for Alexander was dead. They may have fought veterans under Pyrrhus' banner (maybe) when he invaded Italy.


 
Meaning their descendants and successors. Alexander's Empire split into three on his death, yes? The Ptolemies in Egypt, the Seleucids in Syria and the Antigonids etal in Macedonia. Pyrrus may have been one or he may have come from Albania or somewhere, (I'm SOO tired today)

It's possible that Alexander either bought the Spartans off, (All the Greeks were mercernaries) or they had just declined. I saw something on tv which indicated they were a tourist attraction as a ruin by Roman times.


----------



## Brian G Turner

JoanDrake said:


> It's possible that Alexander either bought the Spartans off, (All the Greeks were mercernaries) or they had just declined. I saw something on tv which indicated they were a tourist attraction as a ruin by Roman times.



Alexander called upon the Spartans to join his campaign into Asia, but they refused to accompany on the grounds that it would mean missing an essential religious festival (or similar - a problem the Spartans always had - hence why Leonidas only had 300 men). 

IIRC correctly, Alexander left an inscription after defeating Darius in battle, that singled them out - something on the lines of "...defeated by the Greeks, except for the Spartans".


----------



## Venusian Broon

JoanDrake said:


> Meaning their descendants and successors. Alexander's Empire split into three on his death, yes? The Ptolemies in Egypt, the Seleucids in Syria and the Antigonids etal in Macedonia. Pyrrus may have been one or he may have come from Albania or somewhere, (I'm SOO tired today)
> 
> It's possible that Alexander either bought the Spartans off, (All the Greeks were mercernaries) or they had just declined. I saw something on tv which indicated they were a tourist attraction as a ruin by Roman times.



There was an initial rebellion of the Greeks against Macedonian rule quite early on in Alexander's rule, which led to him destroying Thebes.  

But the Spartans weren't involved and took the opportunity of Alexander fighting far off in the East a few years later to try and capture the whole of the Greek mainland with the help of a bunch of allied city states (I think they might also have been funded by the Persians) - but Antipater, the general Alex had left behind to organise the homelands beat them and that was the end of that. 

As others have stated I'm sure the Romans had a little war with what was left of Sparta + others later on.


----------



## Faisal Shamas

Brian Turner said:


> So, it was suggested that the spartans would have easily defeated the Romans:
> 
> http://www.chronicles-network.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5538&page=3&pp=15
> 
> I contend that the Romans of any period under any decent general would have defeated the Spartans under *any* Spartan general.
> 
> Point 1: Spartans were barely able to overcome the Athenians in the Peloponnesian War, and even then the Athenians helped the Spartans immeasurably by killing off their own generals at a whimsy (not least Socrates) and banishing others (such as Thucydides) through an ugly process of mob rule.
> 
> In fact, it wasn't the Spartan's military powress that won the Peloponessian War, but the Athenian's political denigration and subsequent funding of doomed whimiscal expeditions and subsequent poor military planning.
> 
> Point 2: The Romans, with proper discipline under a proper general (ie, Julius Caesar, Scipio, etc) would have defeated most any contemporary army - additionally, whilst the Romans never won every single battle they fought, they will brilliantly resourceful and many times able to come from military defeat in a single battle, to complete military victory of an entire campaign.
> 
> Discuss...



An important question would be which Rome and which Sparta, Caeser's or Marius's motivated armies with advanced tactics pitted against Spartans who only knew Phalanx would be an overwhelming victory for Romans. Spartans have spirit and strength, but that doesn't match up with the wit and organisation of those Roman Generals.


----------



## BAYLOR

Faisal Shamas said:


> An important question would be which Rome and which Sparta, Caeser's or Marius's motivated armies with advanced tactics pitted against Spartans who only knew Phalanx would be an overwhelming victory for Romans. Spartans have spirit and strength, but that doesn't match up with the wit and organisation of those Roman Generals.




 The Spartans even at the height of their power, would have had no chance whatsoever against the Romans.


----------



## thaddeus6th

It also depends what era of Romans were fighting. They didn't always have Italy or a wider empire, and had a long old tussle with the Samnites.


----------



## BAYLOR

thaddeus6th said:


> It also depends what era of Romans were fighting. They didn't always have Italy or a wider empire, and had a long old tussle with the Samnites.



If they were fighting Rome under Julius or Augustus Caesar or a later ruler like Hadrian.  The Spartans even at their full might would lose and lose badly to the Romans.


----------



## thaddeus6th

Yes, but if they were fighting either an earlier Rome, or a later one (after the Western Empire had eaten its own arms by perpetual civil war and suffering idiotic emperors [like Honorius treacherously killing Stilicho]) Sparta could've won.

However, I agree that for most periods, Rome wins. Sparta just never grew all that powerful.


----------



## Nerds_feather

Of course Sparta also lost some battles and wars...


----------



## BAYLOR

thaddeus6th said:


> Yes, but if they were fighting either an earlier Rome, or a later one (after the Western Empire had eaten its own arms by perpetual civil war and suffering idiotic emperors [like Honorius treacherously killing Stilicho]) Sparta could've won.
> 
> However, I agree that for most periods, Rome wins. Sparta just never grew all that powerful.



Sparta was one city state with relatively limited population and resources  and they were very arrogant and cruel towards anyone they defeated and conquered , The Helots for example were very badly used and abused by them . The other Greek cities respected their fighting prowess by hated their arrogance.


----------



## Rufus Coppertop

Spartan27 said:


> I find it very hard to believe, a roman legion would have defeated an equal number of Spartan's...Roman's were good, but the fact remains the Spartans were the BEST. There will always be a best, and then there is everyone else....those are the facts.
> 
> It would have been some battle a 480BC Spartan Army of say 5,000 against the best roman legion (imperial?)...I would give the Romans about 2 hours before they turned and ran. In other words...ZERO CHANCE


I find it very hard to believe a Spartan phalanx would have defeated an equal number of Romans. Spartans were good but the fact remains the Romans were the BEST. There will always be a best and then there is everyone else....those are the facts.

It would have been some battle, a 480 BC Spartan army of say 5,000 against a competent Roman legion either republican or early imperial. I would give the Spartans about half an hour at the most before they turned and ran. In other words.......ZERO CHANCE.


----------



## Rufus Coppertop

Lacedaemonian said:


> Throughout this discussion you question the Spartan tactics, as if they were poor or didn't have any.  The fact is that the Spartans were the model for the Roman army.


Were they? Which particular Roman consul decided to model the Roman army on the Spartans? Where can we read about this? 

There's no reference to any of this in Suetonius or Tacitus which is not so surprising but surely Livy would have mentioned something about it seeing as he wrote at length on Rome's conquest of Greece. Is it in the works of Cassius Dio, Polybius or Appian?

Scipio Africanus didn't pop over to Sparta to ask for advice on how to run an army capable of taking Spain from the Carthaginians. Gaius Marius certainly wasn't modelling his military reforms and recruitment criteria on anything Spartan. There's nothing about Sulla, Pompey or Caesar using Sparta as the model either.


----------



## Rufus Coppertop

Lacedaemonian said:


> Don't be stupid. The Romans would not have lasted a single day.  The Spartan unique endurance training allowed them to survive for so long.


The Tegeans were no doubt happy about the Spartan unique endurance training early in their little war too. The more endurance in an agricultural slave, the more mileage you get out of them. The fact that they so willingly brought their own chains was quite a bonus and no doubt the Arcadians as well as the Tegeans got a bit of a laugh out of that.


----------

