Spartans vs Romans

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

My 2cents:

Equal army sizes from the peaks of both, hard to say. I would amagine that Rome would win. Their flexibility and lack of "chivalry" (rules of war, etc) would probably give them the edge.

1 on 1, a Spartan would win. Nearly any soldier could bet an equivelant Roman. Romans were deadly in groups. Celts were deadly one on one. Greeks were best in groups, but were trained for both.

[Sir Francis]

You my friend, watched too much ROME Series..........

What is Rome series (and if it's about Helots why is it called 'Rome')?

[Crawe]

What is Rome series (and if it's about Helots why is it called 'Rome')?

I guess he's talking about the HBO-BBC tv series "Rome". It's a great show, though I'm not sure how it relates to Greeks. They did have some Ptolemaics in season 1, though, and some Gauls.

[Sparabara]

Historically Sparta is a loser,a sympathetic(?) agricultural hyperconservative bunch of villages... Rome is an EMPIRE, the classic empire of all times and its spirit lives even today..........

[SpartansDon'tDie]

Rome is an EMPIRE, the classic empire of all times and its spirit lives even today..........

Perhaps my dear Spartan-hater.. But I think kids dream more often about being a Spartan warrior slaying Persians at Thermopylae, fighting to the death while greatly outnumbered, than about being a Roman soldier packed in a square with other Romans who all look like each other fighting some hairy gauls in woods... Hail Sparta!

[ozz]

c'mon people, play nice...

[Lavastein]

it would all depend. The Romans used something the Spartans did not....velites. An army fighting in open formations can easily outflank the phalanx, especially considering the very conservative way the Spartans fought. The Romans could bring out their light troops to pepper mr. Spartan with no counter attacking. Peltastai are the best. I love them

The Romans had all different types of troops, while the Spartans only had one. I would still go with the Romans. I dont think Leonadas would have even been able to face off against a crack army of Romes

[Sir Francis]

Only one troop type? No.
It partly depends on what period we're talking about, but during the Classical period the Spartans always fought with their allies. These could include psiloi (javelin-, sling- and bow-armed), peltastai, hippeis [cavalry] (light and heavy, i.e. javelin-armed or kontos-armed) etc.

Additionally, the Spartans raised their own cavarly and archers during the Peloponnesian war and by the 4th C the former were recognised as being exceptional. They also used mercenaries of varying sorts, including Rhodian slingers and Cretan archers as well as troops throughout the length of mainland Hellas.
The Helots served as troops, sometimes as hypaspistai, sometimes psiloi. The Skiritai were likely medium infantry.

Lastly they would often raise troops from the area they were fighting in - so when fighting in Thrace, Brasidas and Agesipolis had Macedonian heavy cavalry and local peltasts and psioloi at their command; Agesilaos, when he invaded Persia, used Mysian light troops and Persian cavalry (Spithridates), as well as Paphlagonian light cavalry and infantry.

That's off the top of my head, I'm sure others will come up with more details.

Generally speaking, a Spartan army, aside form being incredibly disciplined and well organised, was often fairly balanced (even if hoplites were the main troop type).

Sparabara, keep in mind Rome was largely Hellenic-based, serving as a vehicle for the extension and promulgation of Hellenic ideas and culture.

Also, Sparta too had a (hegemonic) empire (if not on the scale of Rome) of sorts, ranging accross Hellas, Thrace, Anatolia and the Aegean.

[Maccabee]

Sparta was not an empire with the meaning we usually give in this term.It oppressed minor city states in Peloponessus,Boetia and some islands as well as its helots but not in a large imperial scale.And don't forget the major states like Athens,Corinth and Thebes,the kingdom of Macedon,Thessaly and others ,all were opposed to Lacedaemon during the period of its questionable local ''hegemonia''.I agree with Sparabara for roman total supremacy and imperial power.

[Sir Francis]

Do you agree with my first premise?

Actually, historians do refer to this period as a Spartan empire. And I did say hegemonic empire of sorts. I said this in the context of the statement that Sparta was a 'bunch of villages.' Rome was too - it depends on when you look.

Also Spartan power was wider than you state. I am not speaking of pre-Peloponnesian War dominance of the Peloponnese. I am speaking of what is known to historians as the period of Spartan hegemony, after the PW. Aside from her vast power throughout the mainland, she was in control of many poleis in Anatolia, her navies rules the seas and she invaded Thrace and the Persian empire. Sparta maintained this position until 371, when Epiminondas won the battle of Leuctra.

[Maccabee]

I agree that Lacedaemon with persian money and material aid was the indisputably most powerful city state in southern Hellas- between 404 and 395bc- at least up to the death of Lysander in Haliartos.But there is confusion when we make references in notions "empire" and "hegemony". Firstly Empire means an organised vast or at least very large territory that is absolutely controlled by a nation directly or indirectly.The imperial form of political system includes various institutions with the most important among them the economical exploitation of the subjugated peoples-taxation and collection of funds,resources,raw materials etc.The dominant state in order to achieve this aim uses many moral or immoral ways and different means and methods,"gentle" or not that's indifferent for the ruler.So we have an extented area of dominance-usually huge-a net of imperial obvious or less obvious governors,tax collectors,administrative employees,representatives,a well developed bureucracy and-finally-as a result a complete lack of independence for a number of so called "allies"(a wise ruler off course gives them -a very often phenomenon in history-an illusion of typical or essential "freedom"or a true limited autonomy).Hegemonia is the first step for the creation of a real imperial state .In Classical Hellas it had the form of political influence.A hegemon controls the foreign policy of the members of his league or tries to do it with relevant success.He uses political parties sympathetic to him or in rare cases (minor cities) enforces his will with military engagement.Sparta in Peloponesse was interested basically for her safety,internal and external,not for expansion(especially after the annexation of Messenia and Thirea)or overseas conquests.The Peloponnesian League was in fact a spartan defensive alliance.For example it was indifferent for the Ephors the corinthian foreign policy. If this nation didn't something dangerous for the stability of spartan state with its international connections everything was allright.That's why the lacedaemonians supported the oligarchic parties.They felt secure with friendly politicians as governors in allied cities.But the road to empire is much longer and complicated.For example an ambitious and openminded nation is aknowledged initially as a naval power,a master of the seas,a neighbour that the other nations afraid of him and in wartime trust him for their protection.They like to be partners with the powerful city, appreciate its "gentle" motives and find reasonable all its demands for economical and material contribution .In this way the strong becomes stronger and expands cheaply his territories with foreign money.After successive victories his arrogance and appetite for more privileges grows and when the common danger little by little is removed, he prevails easily and absorbs them,the weak former-"allies", and transforms them at best in protectorates or client states .The voluntary contribution now is named tax collection and the leader of the league becomes emperor who punishes cruelly every rebellion.This was the cynical but quite successful imperial practice of Athens in its heyday (478-431bc).Sparta tried to succeed Athens as empire and imitated its methods but failed very soon to maintain and lost athenian territories, important allies like Thebes and Corinth in greek mainland and many Aegean islands.Lacedaemonians never managed to govern as imperialists.They lacked the necessary experience,a general plan,sufficient military numbers, persian money,perhaps even enough time(the corinthian war started in the 9th year after fall of Athens) and their unsolved domestic problems remained their main concern during the short period of their hegemony.After all the Helot condition is at the heart of understanding Spartan society.If we take into consideration the unchanged for centuries lycurgian constitution we see that In fact the decline of Sparta begins in 431bc when she decided to leave her isolation in order to protect her reputation as leader of peloponesse and started to play a role not well-matched in her .Agesilaus had many successes in Asia Minor against the persian satraps.Unfortunately for Sparta the beginning of the Corinthian war saved the Great King.But Agesilaus never annexed the liberated by him greek cities of Asia Minor as provinces of Lacedaemon.He couldn't even if he wanted it and cultivated simply good relations and founded mainly moral support for the war against the Athenian coalition.Conon restored with persian support the prestige of athenian navy.He took revenge many times for the humiliating defeat at Aigos Potamoi.The athenian navy was during the corinthian war as powerful as it was the lacedaemonian.But it's well known that the spartans were not as good sailors as they were the athenians.After the war the athenian fleet became again master of the seas and the athenian dimos in 378BC restored the athenian league (in a smaller extent).Personaly i don't believe that there is any comparison between Sparta and Rome.Rome started as a village as Sparta did.This is the only similarity between the two nations.The small latin town grew century after century and became a "red supergiant"and after its "supernova explosion"in 5th century AD the "ashes" of imperial capital fertilised the new european nations with the greco-etrusco-roman culture and civilization.On the contrary Sparta opened her path in history as a village,became a small to medium size "planet" and finished her historical adventure as a "white dwarf" without leaving behind a significant culture of philosophy and science as openminded Athens gloriously achieved.Sparta inevitably became a small province of Rome and touristic sightseeing for rich romans..But we remember today Sparta less for her totalitarian resime and more for her powerful army and the glorius presence of her brave soldiers at Thermopylae.Lacedaemon first taught the professional art of war and the traditional values of obedience in law and love for country.Off course it's a pity the fact that Sparta despite her promising qualifications finally failed to be transformed in empire,to be a greek "Rome".But it was lacedaemon's choice and decision her final destiny and the place she has in history and our hearts..

[Sir Francis]

We can argue all day about our personal definitions of empire.

For me, sending governors and collecting taxes directly from foreign states, and enforcing this with military power (or the threat of) means empire.

But that's just me.

Historians generally use the term Spartan Empire.

For example, see: "The Development of the Second Spartan Empire" by H. W. Parke for the differences historians accept between Hegemonia and Arche - first page can be seen at (if ur a student at uni you can read the whole thing (an amazing resource):

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=007...2-V&size=LARGE

Cartledge himself names a chapter, "The Spartan Empire, 404-371 BC" in his book The Spartans, and Forrest has one named "Sparta's Empire" in his A History of Sparta (still a seminal work).

These are eminent secondary sources, but read Xenophon's Hellenica for a beter understanding of the Spartan empire.

[spirit_of_rob]

@ Maccabee, it would make your point of view easier to understand if you broke it down into small sections that solid block of text is hard to read.

[Maccabee]

"For me, sending governors and collecting taxes directly from foreign states, and enforcing this with military power (or the threat of) means empire".
I totally agree with this definition.I think we say the same things but with different words or perhaps my view for the term "empire" is rather very strict.Probably in anglosaxon historical literature exists the term "spartan empire".Personally i found the term "spartan hegemony".Anyway Sparta has a second chance to be empire under my leadership when this marvellous mod is ready!
Thanks sincerely for the recommended works and sources!

[Lord Condormanius]

Perhaps my dear Spartan-hater.. But I think kids dream more often about being a Spartan warrior slaying Persians at Thermopylae, fighting to the death while greatly outnumbered, than about being a Roman soldier packed in a square with other Romans who all look like each other fighting some hairy gauls in woods... Hail Sparta!

I would like to see those stats on kids' dreams. Chances are, that whatever kids are dreaming about, they don't have their facts straight. Unless, of course, they are prodigal children historians. When I was a kid, I never fantacized about fighting to the death while greatly outnumbered...

LC

[Sir Francis]

Mac. it may be partly a language issue, true.

Still, if you agree with my definition, then you would agree that a Spartan empire existed (i.e. harmosts ('armoster)), and it was larger than the Athenian 'empire'.

[Dominus Latronis of Troy]

not sure how accurate wikipedia is on this but look here

Roman-Spartan War (195 BC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman-Spartan_War

[Dannath]

I don't get why the Spartan soldiers couldn't beat Legions in combat. But yeah ive seen a lot of kids pretending their Spartans, and not Legions.

[Lord Condormanius]

I don't get why the Spartan soldiers couldn't beat Legions in combat. .

Numbers, equipment, resources, numbers (I know I said numbers twice...it's significant not only in battle, but because Sparta began to run out of people!). Rome's Mainipular Legion, later Cohortal Legion, were more flexible formations in battle than the Hoplite formation.

LC

PS The Spartan were likely not much tougher than any other Greek army of the time. They nutured an "invinciblity myth" that helped with their reputation, when in reality they (as well as the Romans) probably lost almost as many battles as they won.

But yeah ive seen a lot of kids pretending their Spartans, and not Legions.

This strikes me as funny because, I have never seen any kids pretending they are Spartans or Legions (which is frankly impossible). And if I did, I would likely have a hard time telling the difference unless they told me what they were doing.

[SpartansDon'tDie]

This strikes me as funny because, I have never seen any kids pretending they are Spartans or Legions (which is frankly impossible). And if I did, I would likely have a hard time telling the difference unless they told me what they were doing.

Up in here I've seen lots of kids playing Spartans.
Kids playing Spartans is just because the word 'Spartan' allways refers to 'brave' or 'heroic', especially with that 300 movie coming up..
I thought that it especially would live in the USA, as 300 is pretty much a message that Iranian and Eastern people are bad and that you can't trust 'em.

I don't agree either with your opinion that Spartan soldiers weren't much tougher than other City States.. Sure they had their 'invincible myth' with them but I don't believe they got trained from age 7 for nothing.