Rome vs Sparta

[Winters_Sorrow]

Individually the Spartan warrior was far superior to the common Roman soldier (they did train for war from childhood after all!)
However, the strength of the Roman forces was in discipline & tactics rather than force of arms so the Spartans may have met their match on this one. After all, many of the Gauls were superior fighters to the romans, but they got slaughtered!

But, comparing the Romans and the Spartans are a bit difficult. The Romans had early siege weapons fer christs sake! The Spartans would have been massacred with ballista bolts etc
You can't really compare 'different time' armies as the knights of medieval europe would probably have ridden right over a roman/spartan army & genghis khan's horde would have wheeled around them shooting arrows from all directions.

It's probably fairer to compare similar era armies to each other
Sparta vs Thebian Sacred Band
Rome vs Carthage
etc etc

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Lacedaemonian

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?

The Spartans left a memorial for their king, which simply mentions themselves. Sort of self-serving, and helps create the romantic history that there were just 300 Spartans holding off the entire Persian army.

Originally Posted by Lacedaemonian

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.

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.


EDIT: Winter's Sorrow is quite right, too - but it's a fun discussion.

[Lacedaemonian]

Throughout this discussion you question the Spartan tactics, as if they were poor or didn't have any. The fact is that the Spartans were the model for the Roman army. Obviously warfare and strategy advances with time.

The Spartans were trained to fight for several days non stop without sleep etc. This is what allowed them to survive for so long in the pass. What part of the Roman training endorsed this? None. Don't talk rubbish about them winning the battle against the Persians. There were about 2 million Persian soldiers fighting against the Greeks at that time. Rome never faced an organised army of any worth, and when they did they struggled and succeded by luck.

Stick Alexander the Great in charge of 20,000 Spartans and set him onto the Roman Empire. Now we're talking.

[I, Brian]

The Romans were always happy to learn from whomever had proved their standing, and there's no doubting that Sparta had an influence - Sparta itself apparently became a place on the Roman Tourist Map once they had the place conquered.

The point about drawing in a proper fighting force is one that you can't counter, though - it was a poor move on the Spartans to send what was in effect a token force, rather than the few thousand that Sparta could have actually mobilised - that's not a mistake that Romans would make. Rome was fond of facing larger numbers and proved time again they could go against uneven odds, simply on the grounds that the Roman phalanx was a single steel stabbing machine, and most armies they defeated couldn't match that level of discipline - where present.

As for Alexander leading Spartans - well, Alexander publically hated the Spartans, so I don;t see him ever caring to lead them anywhere.

[Lacedaemonian]

He also publicly hated the Persians but led them and in fact became one.

[polymorphikos]

If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.

[Tsujigiri]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.

I think that may have been the most pertinent comment in this debate...

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by polymorphikos

If Spartans fought Romans in equal numbers on a level playing-field, then the ninjas would probably win.

I concede to Polymorphikos.

[Winters_Sorrow]

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

[Lacedaemonian]

Any Ronan worth his salt would despatch with ninjas....

[Tsujigiri]

I have a peculiar vision of Ronan Keating taking on ninjas.....

[Lacedaemonian]

Mr Bean.

[Stalker]

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!

[Blue Mythril]

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

[Rane Longfox]

Originally Posted by I, Brian

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.

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...