Rome vs Sparta

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.)