Rome vs Sparta

[J-WO]

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]

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]

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.