Rome vs Sparta

[BAYLOR]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.