Rome vs Sparta

[Peter Graham]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

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]

Originally Posted by 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).

Yeah this is pretty much what I was referring to - his tactical structuring and use of the phalanx.

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

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.)

[thaddeus6th]

Was it? Very early Roman history isn't my forte.

Worth recalling that Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles against Rome.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

Was it? Very early Roman history isn't my forte.

Worth recalling that Pyrrhus won 2/3 battles against Rome.

Yeah, though that doesn't mean they won every battle. The Carthaginians also gave the Romans fits for a while.

But same is true of Sparta. They were serious badasses, but had trouble with Athens during the Peleponnesian War and got curb-stomped by Thebes a little later on.

[thaddeus6th]

The Athenians were muppets. They were cruising to victory then decided to fritter away resources in an ultimately failed bid to extend their empire to Sicily.

Thebes is a bit of a special case, as Epaminondas was very clever and invented the oblique order of battle. It also fell as quickly as it rose (militarily) after the Macedonians obliterated it.

[Nerds_feather]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

The Athenians were muppets. They were cruising to victory then decided to fritter away resources in an ultimately failed bid to extend their empire to Sicily.

Thebes is a bit of a special case, as Epaminondas was very clever and invented the oblique order of battle. It also fell as quickly as it rose (militarily) after the Macedonians obliterated it.

All true. Athens also spent a lot of the time pissing on its own colonies and allies, several of whom simply switched sides out of fear.

...and yes, you're right about Thebes, but it still demonstrates that the Spartans could lose, even to someone who didn't possess the organizational advantage the Roman legions would (which, of course, is a chronological advantage).

[jastius]

Personally I've got to side with Rome over Sparta even though I can't easily countenance the way the Romans exterminated wide swaths of the Celtic culture. At least they had reasonable positions for women in their society, whereas Spartan woman could be cast aside or even put to death with no recourse.
The queen and king of Sparta had to be physically perfect; both of them winning all competitions and physical challenges from a lot of fresher younger kids.... and the results if they lost? Death. If I was Helen, I would have taken off with Paris in a heartbeat rather then put up with that kind of thing.