Rome vs Sparta

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.