Rome vs Sparta

If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.
 
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 ;)
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Great points, Blue. :)
 
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.
 
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.
 
You are cheating! Menelaos, king of Sparta wasn't Welsh!;)

And you should be Gamilkar Barka to call Hannibal your son!:D
 
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
 
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. ;)
 
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!:confused:
 
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...
Click to expand...
 
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)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
C Can Modern Italian in Rome understand Ancient Roman Latin? History 2
Robert Zwilling Soyuz capsule at space station hit by micrometeorite in Dec Science & Nature 4
B A reassessment of The Films Prometheus and Covenant Alien & Predator 41
S Info on Jerome Bixby? Classic SF&F 1
R Andromeda box? Andromeda 2

Similar threads


Back
Top