Spartans vs Romans

[Sir Francis]

Do you mean one long message is better than 2 short ones (even if the 'subjects' are different)?

[Boeotian Star]

Sir Francis you are referred to Paul Cartledge as a serious source.. Well..I don't want to judge him but If i write here what exactly Mr.Cartledge mentions about the Spartans and their ethical behavior then the administrators will ban me immediately,reasonably and justifiably.That's for sure.Greek friends told me that the greek government funds this person..Anyway.. A Spartan empire ? Why not a theban empire later or an aetolian,achean,rodian,thracian,pergamian and so on?If Sparta is empire -according to what you write- then what is Macedonia? A Galactic Confederation of solar systems? The truth is exactly the opposite of your statement.There was an Athenian empire and a spartan "empire"or pseudoempire or wannabe empire or the correct and exact term "hegemonia",name it as you like.The scholars you mentioned refer to Sparta as "empire"(not technically) because they want to emphasize the influence and supremacy of this city for first time in its history and in a larger degree than before over small boeotian mainly and other minor cities outside Pelloponesse.That's spartan hegemonia.The Athenian Empire -the "bad"guy-was a medium to large size overseas ruler and the first greek city state with pure imperial administrative function (sufficient and well organised tax collection etc).The agricultural Sparta initially was the "good"guy,the "liberator"of Hellas,in fact the "monkey" of Athens who finally became more tyrannical and arrogant (read in Hellenica and laugh at the behavior of Agesilaus towards boeotarch Epaminondas) than Athens was in its heyday (inside Lacedaemon off course Sparta was already a cruel tyranny several centuries before her hegemony).Sparta tried to dominate a large proportion of the former "periclian" empire but failed dramatically.Her mini "empire" lasted less than a decade and then -387bc since 371bc- remained-but not undisputably-the stronger land-and only land-force in southern Greece.It's funny i think every comparison (as far as empires) between the glorius marble metropolis on the Tiber and the little poor but proud town on the Evrotas..

[FXR]

The hypothetical contest matters greatly as to the ground. The spartans of 450 BC on Flat open ground, theywould smear an equal sized force of romans, just like hannibal's phallanx did. NO, They would steam roll 'em. Take any tug of war team ... If a tug of war team trains together, gets in good shape they will alway CRUSH much larger stronger opponents who are thrown together, because of unity of purpose, motion, and rhythm. Now that is just Tug of War. Now take kids who are ten and train the living daylights out of them to PUSH, and Shove, together, like a purposeful machine for 15 years and then ... have a scrimmage against them?!! You might as well have a contest against a John Deer Tractor. But on Broken uneven ground, with slopes and fall-offs, the Romans with the looser Legion, would be more equal, though not totally. Pyrrhus, a Greek in 275 BC continually defeated the Romans using the Phalanx, and he did not have troops the equivalent of the ancient spartans. He fought in a Macedonian phalanx, wide and deep and very mobile. Then he turned and beat the Carthaginians. Hannibal himself rated Pyrrhus as the Second best General in the World next to Alexander. And later he adopted much of Pyrrhus's tactics. The Spartans lost to the Thebans because they DID NOT KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY! They used 8 foot spears and a phalanx 8 men deep against a Theban formation 50 men deep with twelve foot spears. You do the math. So, ... I say that if The Spartans were better armed with Macedonian pikes, they would absolutelyl have slaughtered the Romans. Whereas if they were armed as they were for the period they still would have won, Equal force on equal sized force. In a long war however, no. They did not have the resources.

[Sir Francis]

Boiotion,

Where to start?

It would help if you could find a way to tell us why Cartledge is not a source to be trusted (without using these words that will get you deleted), otherwise I'm sure you understand if I ignore your defamation!

What about the other sources I mention?

You speak of comparisons with Athens and Rome - as if I had said Sparta's empire was the greatest ever, ever! I did not say this. I along with other historians use the term to describe a particular phase of Spartan history. It was not a large empire, true. But then a small man is still a man. And it didn't last long - but a short summer is still a summer.


You claim to know why historians use the term - an incorrect usage in fact. You say that when they use the word empire they don't mean empire? Strange...

I have already pointed you to a source which describes the differences between hegemonia and empire (Sparta was both, also simultaneously). The Spartans sent governors (harmosts) and taxed other poleis directly. This is an empire. (I'm not sure how your ancient Attic is but if you look at the way arche and hegemonia are used in the sources, you'll see the difference I'm speaking of. Try Perseus where you can get many primary sources in both english and greek/latin online).The number of states in the empire was quite large (by classical Greek standards).

So, what, specifically, makes Athens and empire and Sparta not, in your eyes?

FXR, some interesting points.

But the Romans trained too - so I guess it depends on which Romans we mean. Caesar's legions would give 5th C Spartans a run for their money, I think.

By the way, the Thebans did not use 12-foot spears at Leuctra - they used the regular dori. They also used deeper formations previously, as early as the previous century.

[Dannath]

In a battle between the Spartans and Romans if it was historical amount of soldiers the Romans would crush the Spartans, but if it was even the Spartans would win. But numbers was part of Rome's power.

[Alexandros_M]

I'm Afraid that the matter isn't as simple as numbers.
We have to think that the Spartan's fought in the Phalanx formation.
So here comes the common issue :Legion vs Phalanx
My opinion on this issue is that the Legion would be the winner.
That is because of the flexibility of the Legion vs the immobility of the Phalanx.
On second hand if the soldiers engage each other in swordfight then the odds are once more with the Romans. The Spartans (and lets take the Spartans of the 5th century) had great training and much experience in combat. But the Romans had better armor and swords. So if the Spartans faced an inexperienced roman Legion they would beat it in a swordfight. But if they happened to face a veteran unit then the Romans would most propably win.

[MoPeY]

just a personal opinion, but it always doesn't come down to equipment. Yeah if you have a stick and they have a sword your screwed, but the spartans weren't idiots at making their equipment either. The knew how to make it, and had been training with it since they were 7, doing nothing but training for war. You take a group like that, hardened, veterans, and practically fearless, having the adrenaline rush and combat enviroment be second nature to them, and pit them against professional soldiers of rome, yet soldiers who's live's were not solitarily about fighting, and I'd put every dollar i had on the spartans, but if the romans had catapults then i suppose id put some cash on the romans too

And i really dont think the spartans ALWAYS every single moment of the day were in the phalynx formation, they had to bust out of it sometime and go at it

[Dannath]

But for the Legion to be really flexible you would need more numbers because you can't really get around a phalanx of the same size with just heavy infantry, and a 8ft spear outranges the Gladius, I still think the Spartans would win in a battle of equal numbers because even if the Romans came to the back the Spartans would be smart enough to fight back.

[Boeotian Star]

[quote=Sir Francis;1598759]Boiotion,





It was not a large empire, true. But then a small man is still a man. And it didn't last long - but a short summer is still a summer.

As i've mentioned before,the CLASSICAL term "empire" in substance presupposes basically a very large or-better-VAST area of ABSOLUTE and unquestionable national dominance,enormous wealth ,abundance of resources in many forms and means,absolutely supreme naval and land military power and a well organised taxation system with functional and complicated bureucratic mechanisms.But first of all what is needed most is time,a lengthy period of stability a peace enforced by the ruler.So empire is something beyond the small,average or ordinary.In other words we mean a power with the (territorial,socioeconomical,military and political)standards and dimensions of the Roman Empire (just an example).The temporary lacedaemonian supremacy in Hellas (404-394bc) couldn't maintain the spoils of war after the hostilities ended.Sparta was a wannabe "empire",a pro-empire.I can accept this term.She wanted to be empire and tried very hard to fulfill her purpose and earn this title by imitating ways,methods and imperial characteristics of the athenian democracy even though they were so foreign to her.These practices eventually led Sparta to her inevitable fall.Like it or not we can not change this reality today.Simply a matter of small size,limited power-resources,a strong presence of a singleminded constitution,a totalitarian and very often racist resime -even by ancient standards- and many other factors.After 403bc strong factions such as Thebes,Corinth,Argos,Athens(Athens paticularly rebuilt the Long Walls and its naval power),Thessaly,Macedon and others (in fact the largest in extent area in Greece) continue freely (without harmostae and taxation) to have their policies,to built alliances as they please,to have their armed forces,to declare war against Sparta!And despite bad behavior and numerous provocations they remain intact!So where is the "mighty"spartan "empire"(!) in this case?She watches patiently because she's still the "gentle" old great ally?Or very plainly she can't do anything cause the Great King-a real emperor- is angry with her?Just think of the terrible punitive reactions of real empires-like Rome-in equivalent historical cases of defiance and disobedience (Judaea,Macedonia,Corinth,Carthage).Sparta historically was a promissing boy in puberty who never became a man and ,yes,a serious candidate for imperial transformation...

[quote=Sir Francis;1598759]Boiotion,


You speak of comparisons with Athens and Rome - as if I had said Sparta's empire was the greatest ever, ever!


No,i never said by myself that even exists such a ridiculus comparison between two so unequal things-and i mentioned it clearly-but if someone wants to discuss it here he's free to do as he pleases.


"It was not a large empire"

Was it a little empire?If this is true and little empires realy exist -according to your way of thinking- then today Britain remains a "little empire",France (france has governors in territories in South America and islands worldwide
and off course taxation),India,Japan and the other big nations on the planet are "little empires" too and we continue to live unconsciously in an age of empires.So what about "giants" like US,Russia and China?But seriously when we name a creature "human being" we mean a well developed human being,nothing more nothing less and we don't name him "humanoid" or "homunculus" or whatever else.


You say that when they use the word empire they don't mean empire? Strange...


The term "spartan empire" does exist in many anglophone resources and some anglosaxon historians use it.This is only an interpretation made by a group of scholars.It doesn't mean that is correct necessarily.I just tried to understand and justify their position or -at least- to explain their peculiar conclusion.Personaly i never found the term in italian,french,russian and modern greek resources.They speak ,almost all of them, of spartan hegemonia or supremacy or leadership of Hellas(even Athens very often is not accepted as authentic empire) and i think it's widely known and acknowledged that some ancient writers(xenophon,Plato) were heavilly influenced by the spartan myth-or the eugonic-prosocialist utopia as i prefer to name it.Finally i want to say i like Thebes as much as you like Sparta but i never made a claim for a historically accurate theban empire although it pleases me very much such a definition.I try to prevent my feelings from confusing my judgement.

[Sir Francis]

Well, it is possible that it's partly a language thing, because the terms mean slightly different things in different languages. However, we are speaking English, n'est-ce pas? (Btw, in German you will find the term "Reich von Sparta", though it not very common)

So given that you are aware the term is used in English to describe the Spartan 'hegemony' was it right to criticize my use of the term?

I am not enamoured of Sparta, and I feel you are responding in part to 'pro-Spartanism' - it is Athens I love. I merely support what I see as 'truth'.

Also, you've ignored what for me is a key question in this debate: what for you is the difference between the Athenian empire and the Spartan 'temporary superiority'? Why can the term, in your eyes, be use for one and not the other?

You keep comparing the Spartan empire to Rome etc. Comparing to the truly great empires is not useful; I am not saying the Spartan empire was great.

A man is still a man even if he is not as great as Socrates or Laozi.

So, in English, the Spartan hegemony can accurately be called an empire (if a small and short one!)

[spirit_of_rob]

I suppose it largely depends on how you define empire, when i learnt about it at A-Level the tutor refered to it as "empire" when we brushed on it in my degree the tutor did not use the term so i guess its down to interpretation of the individual.

[Hjalmar]

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

The Spartans were, historically, the most militarily backwards Greek State. Military innovations were only implemented in Sparta after it became absolutely necessary to do so. They were also completely unfamiliar with combined arms operations. Some time into the Hellenic Age I'm fairly sure the Spartans, as well as Thebes and Athens and other prominent City States, adopted a form of the Macedonian phalanx. In their prime the Spartans were merely excellent with a single kind of military engagement (Phalanx on Phalanx) and were completely inept when fighting unconventional opponents

By the time of the Roman-Spartan war the Spartans were a silly shadow of their former selves, but nevertheless incredibly arrogant. A good portion of the force arrayed against the Spartans were actually themselves Greek and I do not believe there was a great deal of engagement directly between Roman and Spartan soldiers.

[MoPeY]

thats wikipidiea dude its not considered an accurate source as anybody and their uncle can addd their 2 cents work. Im not a historian but i find it hard to believe that a culture with one such as theirs would be "inept" at any other fighting style other than phalanx. Its not like they turn to retards when they see an enemy not in phalanx and go "oh **** dude we are screwed we cant fight them".

I do believe you are right with their downfall though, their inability to move with the times led to their demise.

[Locky]

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

The Spartans were, historically, the most militarily backwards Greek State. Military innovations were only implemented in Sparta after it became absolutely necessary to do so. They were also completely unfamiliar with combined arms operations. Some time into the Hellenic Age I'm fairly sure the Spartans, as well as Thebes and Athens and other prominent City States, adopted a form of the Macedonian phalanx. In their prime the Spartans were merely excellent with a single kind of military engagement (Phalanx on Phalanx) and were completely inept when fighting unconventional opponents

By the time of the Roman-Spartan war the Spartans were a silly shadow of their former selves, but nevertheless incredibly arrogant. A good portion of the force arrayed against the Spartans were actually themselves Greek and I do not believe there was a great deal of engagement directly between Roman and Spartan soldiers.

Sparta was usaully on the forefront on miltiary innovation, assuming it didn't create the trend, it was usually the quickest to adapt. IT was it's social laws that dragged it down, for a lack of citizens.

Apart formt he fact the Spartans had many dealings with non phalanx oponents as mercanaries. Get your facts straight.

Also the "macedonian phalanx" was created by the Athenien General Iphrikates, whom trained his sodliers to use longer spears and lighter armour. Phillip II picked it off the Thebans. Yes, the Greeks invented both.

[Sir Francis]

Interesting topics.

The Spartans were sometimes militarily conservative (but not backward). Eg, they only created a cavalry force and an archer force in 424 to counter Athenian raids in the Peloponnese (after seeing how effective the Athenian hippeis were in harassing invading Spartans in Attica) - and even then it was poor stuff because no-one wanted to fight in the cavalry.

They were also slow to figure out how to counter peltasts in the 4th C (an entire invasion force being turned back by peltasts in hilly terrain), and slow to adopt them themselves.

But they could also be innovative - they built fortified camps while on the march (which inspired Pyrrhus, who in turn inspired the famous Roman marching camps); their hoplite tactics and manoeuvres were certainly innovative for the time; they marshalled and led allied contingents with xenagoi, and their system of officer hierarchy was detailed and strict (when that of most poleis was amateurish).

Inept at fighting unconventional opponents? Nah - look at the invasion of Thrace by Brasidas, and then later by Agesipolis; look too at the invasion of the Persian empire by Agesilaos.
I would agree, though, they were less competent at fighting non-phalanx opponents (think Sphakteria and Lechaeum).

As to the sarissa-armed phalanx, it is true that Philip was likely inspired by the trend to arm peltasts with longer spears and to have them fight looser (and by the use of wedge formation by Theban cavalry [remember, Philip was held hostage in Thebes as a young man]), but saying the Macedonian phalanx was simply Iphikration peltasts would be like saying the Argives invented the Spartan dori phalanx (i.e. it is arguable that Pheidon of Argos did much to formalise the development of the hoplite phalanx).

And Mopey is quite right to point out the sometimes-poor information on Wik (but still a very useful resource in some ways).

[Snevets]

The Spartans were neither military conservatives nor on the cutting edge. They didn't utilize a tactic until it had proved itself- why take a risk when you can have someone else take it for you. They were reasonably quick with the Iphikration reforms (probably because it fit their sense of valor) and a little slower to abandon their traditional phalanx for the Macedonian one- but not as slow as you would expect. Rarely were they signficantly behind or ahead of other areas of Greece, but they always did it well (sometimes they had a bad day, we all do, but they had them less and managed them better).

[Praetorian Captain]

Though i see ya'lls points in the superiority of the Spartans my bet is one the Roman Legionaire.

1. Romans were full time professional soldiers after the reforms of Gaius Marius.

2. Enlistment age was 16-17 years old and every soldier was required 25 yrs service.

3. They trained every day in javalin work, sword play(early form of fencing if ya will), with 18 mile marches at a 4 to 5 mph pace three times a month. Though if ya think about it they were being conditioned for war when they were watching the Gladiator games. Each part of trainig was done at least twice each day.

4. Roman were also beaten when an order was disobayed or on other occassions and punishment for a Legion showing cowardice in a battle was decimation (in which case the Romans would have more to fear from his commander then his enemy).

5. Not to mention Rome prided itself on it's veteran legions.

These are just a few points to why i belive in that the Romans will come out the Victors. Though this is if it was each army at the height of their power.

And if i offend anyone i appolgize.

[Locky]

Though i see ya'lls points in the superiority of the Spartans my bet is one the Roman Legionaire.

1. Romans were full time professional soldiers after the reforms of Gaius Marius.

2. Enlistment age was 16-17 years old and every soldier was required 25 yrs service.

3. They trained every day in javalin work, sword play(early form of fencing if ya will), with 18 mile marches at a 4 to 5 mph pace three times a month. Though if ya think about it they were being conditioned for war when they were watching the Gladiator games. Each part of trainig was done at least twice each day.

4. Roman were also beaten when an order was disobayed or on other occassions and punishment for a Legion showing cowardice in a battle was decimation (in which case the Romans would have more to fear from his commander then his enemy).

5. Not to mention Rome prided itself on it's veteran legions.

These are just a few points to why i belive in that the Romans will come out the Victors. Though this is if it was each army at the height of their power.

And if i offend anyone i appolgize.

1. Spartans were full time soldiers. But weren't motivated by money like Legionaries. Hence they're already better qaulity.

2. Spartans were trained from the age of 7. They were allowed to retire after they turned 60. That's 53 years service. More like 45, as early years were spent teaching them how to hunt and survive in inhospitable conditions.

3. Spartans did nothing but train every day, for most of the day. To fight in phalanx to utter perfection, use thier spears and swords in a deadly manner.

4. Spartans rarely broke dicipline, it really only occured with the officer corops of the Lachgos, refusing to take orders from the king, due to every Spartan been an able officer. More Standard spartasn had to stand outside in the sun all day holding thier shield.

5. Spartans were already superior soldiers, veterans were nasty.

I think a Full Lachgos would steam roll a cohort with little to no losses. As man on man the Legion would just get mauled by superior man qaulity.

Interesting topics.

The Spartans were sometimes militarily conservative (but not backward). Eg, they only created a cavalry force and an archer force in 424 to counter Athenian raids in the Peloponnese (after seeing how effective the Athenian hippeis were in harassing invading Spartans in Attica) - and even then it was poor stuff because no-one wanted to fight in the cavalry.

They were also slow to figure out how to counter peltasts in the 4th C (an entire invasion force being turned back by peltasts in hilly terrain), and slow to adopt them themselves.

But they could also be innovative - they built fortified camps while on the march (which inspired Pyrrhus, who in turn inspired the famous Roman marching camps); their hoplite tactics and manoeuvres were certainly innovative for the time; they marshalled and led allied contingents with xenagoi, and their system of officer hierarchy was detailed and strict (when that of most poleis was amateurish).

Inept at fighting unconventional opponents? Nah - look at the invasion of Thrace by Brasidas, and then later by Agesipolis; look too at the invasion of the Persian empire by Agesilaos.
I would agree, though, they were less competent at fighting non-phalanx opponents (think Sphakteria and Lechaeum).

As to the sarissa-armed phalanx, it is true that Philip was likely inspired by the trend to arm peltasts with longer spears and to have them fight looser (and by the use of wedge formation by Theban cavalry [remember, Philip was held hostage in Thebes as a young man]), but saying the Macedonian phalanx was simply Iphikration peltasts would be like saying the Argives invented the Spartan dori phalanx (i.e. it is arguable that Pheidon of Argos did much to formalise the development of the hoplite phalanx).



And Mopey is quite right to point out the sometimes-poor information on Wik (but still a very useful resource in some ways).

I think we can all agree that Spartans easily produced the best officers, even for all thier failings in thier latter years. They were excellent. They proved them selves many times in Asia minor, and with the 10000. And everyone wanted them.

Of course at times, even i wonder what the Spartans were doing at times.

[Sir Francis]

Well, you might be confusing Sparta with Greece - there were not many Spartans in the 10,000, and Agesilaos' invasion force was made up of almost no homoioi (Helots, Ionians, Paphlagonians, Athenians, Perioikoi, Persians, Mysians...).

They were undoubtedly the best hoplites in the Classical Greek period - but that's a very different thing to being better than other soldiers of different times.

For example, it is pretty clear that the arms and armour of the 1st C BC were superior to that of the 5th.

By lachgos, I assume you mean lochos? It's difficult to be certain about the size of a lochos, but if you mean that a number of Spartans (say from 430 BC) would defeat an equal number of Romans (50 BC) without taking many losses, then I'm afraid we do not agree by a long shot.

I'm a philhellene but there's no point exaggerating and over-simplifying things. The Romans lacked, imo, the cultural depth and insight into the human condition of the Greeks, but there is no doubting they were great warriors and organisers.

[Praetorian Captain]

Hey don't get me wron i actually like the Spartans and all. They were the best of their time, but i still would be for Rome. Yes they lacked things that the Greeks (even The Spartans did), but they still have their strengt

Cohorts usually were the same size except for the Prime Cohort which was twice the size of the others and made up usually of half-breed soldiers (example half Roman and Half Celt).

I suppose however that we will never know who would win. Sure we can specify advantages and strengths but in the end they never fought the other at their peak. But i do know that it would have been a glorius and Bloody battle between the two.