Legionaries vs Spartans?

**Papay** · November 25, 2010, 01:15 AM

Who are better?

**king spartacus** · November 25, 2010, 01:31 AM

1 v 1 Spartans because their moral is very high.

**HanatielHawk** · November 25, 2010, 01:38 AM

Legionaries me believes when used tactical. Such as throwing pila into the back of the spartans and charging them from the back.
But indeed 1vs1 just crashing into each other the Spartans would win because they are in phalanx and lose almost no stamina and they have a very high morale. Their phalanx would utterly defeat one legionary cohort.

**MrManFreak** · November 25, 2010, 01:48 AM

1vs1 no flanking or what so ever the spartans would win most probably.

**Alast0r** · November 25, 2010, 02:08 AM

1. What's the point of this ?
2. You want to know who's better from this two ? Open export_descr_unit and look at the stats .
3. Play 3 custom battles with one unit of legionaries and one of superman-spartans . Whoever takes 2 battles , wins .

**shikaka** · November 25, 2010, 03:58 AM

Originally Posted by Alast0r

3. Play 3 custom battles with one unit of legionaries and one of superman-spartans . Whoever takes 2 battles , wins .

This is only true if you use them only against each other. But since you will use them as part of your combined force, this doesn't tell their usefulness.

For example the better roman legions can beat up quite some hoplites. However hoplites are more useful against cavalry.

It all depends on your battle plan not their stats in their individual head-on fight.

**Blatta Optima Maxima** · November 25, 2010, 02:54 AM

STOP MAKING THESE

ING POINTLESS THREADS!!!

**Papay** · November 25, 2010, 03:35 AM

Pointless?I am curious to know because both seem awesome

**dacder** · November 25, 2010, 03:46 AM

in MP spartans are over priced and not near worth it

**Alast0r** · November 25, 2010, 04:04 AM

I know shikaka , but the topic was started with this 2 units only in mind , not combined with a full army , be it in MP or SP . Anyway , I keep my opinion that such topics are missing the lack of usefulness - they always derail into a MP discussion or a real-life one .

**shikaka** · November 25, 2010, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by Alast0r

I know shikaka , but the topic was started with this 2 units only in mind , not combined with a full army , be it in MP or SP . Anyway , I keep my opinion that such topics are missing the lack of usefulness - they always derail into a MP discussion or a real-life one .

I agree with the bolded part.
Really the question is not really useful this way. What I choose depends on the enemy and the battle plan (what task I need troops for). There is no über-unit which is the best for every task in Rome.

**StealthEvo** · November 25, 2010, 05:26 AM

Far be it for me to dare to tell my fellow members of the community what to do. I do think that perhaps a method to alleviate all this

"X is useless stop posting it" comments that seem to follow threads like these around. A, it doesn't look good for the community if they ask a general question and a hoard of people come down saying it's useless and X and Y. B, it's not very becoming of the (ideally) reasonably mature individuals that we (with the exception of myself) pretend to be. As i'm sure that in your various walks of life you've had to ask various people about fairly rudimentary things. If you got the response that it's a not useful you'd probably be thinking. Well if I was asking it. It might have been useful. Hence why I asked.

In short.

Whilst you happily maintain the right to drop your opinion that threads like these are useless, a waste of time and that we should all stop posting them. So? You adding your opinion to the dog pile really isn't looking the best for the community. I don't profess to practise what I preach very well. Infact I can be quite caustic. But at the same time. I don't go aorund pointing out how useless threads are. If it was useless it wouldn't be here. Would it?

**Alast0r** · November 25, 2010, 06:10 AM

Yes, if it's something that you couldn't find out by yourself , I see the point of asking , but this is NOT the case :
Nobody here has the right to say that he/she possesses the ultimate truth regarding history , real-life , etc . In this case you ask a bunch of people who's better then Y , you'll get some bogus answers - if you get them - and then you'll make your own opinion . I maintain my position that for some question you can find answers by digging a little , without the need to spam the main "general discussion" area . I'm not here for telling people what's best for them or for this community , so I'll stop here .

With respect to all ,

Alast0r

**StealthEvo** · November 25, 2010, 06:25 AM

Yes. I agree that if it's been asked several times prior. Then a simple search should suffice. Thats good interwebz protocol. But on the off chances that good interwebz protocol isn't followed. Theres no real reason besides USI to dog pile people

**Entropy Judge** · November 25, 2010, 07:02 AM

Why are you asking about an Elite against a mid-tier unit? It's not quite as bad as asking "Who's better - Legionary Cohorts or Town Watch?" but it's close.

**Plant** · November 25, 2010, 08:17 AM

I think the thread title combined with the OP are really pointless. They are unspecific, with no comparative data as a starting point. It's just a lazy throwaway comment.

So lets start off by saying that Legionaries are the 740 point ones, and the Spartans are 1190 ones.
Then lets say that SP is a poor basis for comparison, because whichever side you are, will win.
So only MP can be used as a basis for comparison, meaning that all SP comparisons are useless and pointless.

Then you got to answer whether money restriction is a factor. Afterall you want to know which one is better ie cost effectiveness correct?
Either that or this thread is really pointless because then you can just do 1 on 1 matches with the AI ad infinitum, because 1 on 1 the AI isn't too bad (though sometimes they will retreat to charge again).

In which case the answer is legionaries.
1 on 1? No idea.
Btw note that Urban cohorts beat Spartans 1 on 1 anyways without upgrades.

And of course I could be a noob talking rubbish and then the good players will have to correct me, and then I'll start challenging them to games, finding my own cheerleeding squad with nonsensical comments, and then run away.

**TitaniumGladius** · November 25, 2010, 08:36 AM

Spartans are a bunch of over-advertised, hyped up, homo greeks. They were regularly beaten by Athens and Thebes. On the other hand no one could take on a roman Legion man to man / face to face without loosing his guts to a gladius stab. Of course RTW is just a game, you guys should not forget that real warfare is very different.

**Plant** · November 25, 2010, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by TitaniumGladius

Spartans are a bunch of over-advertised, hyped up, homo greeks. They were regularly beaten by Athens and Thebes. On the other hand no one could take on a roman Legion man to man / face to face without loosing his guts to a gladius stab.

And in the game!

**Entropy Judge** · November 25, 2010, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by TitaniumGladius

Spartans are a bunch of over-advertised, hyped up, homo greeks. They were regularly beaten by Athens and Thebes. On the other hand no one could take on a roman Legion man to man / face to face without loosing his guts to a gladius stab. Of course RTW is just a game, you guys should not forget that real warfare is very different.

Hannibal would like to say hi. So would the Cimbri. And the Parthians. And the Goths. And the Iberians. I'm probably missing a few.

**HanatielHawk** · November 26, 2010, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by TitaniumGladius

Spartans are a bunch of over-advertised, hyped up, homo greeks. They were regularly beaten by Athens and Thebes. On the other hand no one could take on a roman Legion man to man / face to face without loosing his guts to a gladius stab. Of course RTW is just a game, you guys should not forget that real warfare is very different.

Spartans were defeated because lack of population (every Spartan boy who wasn't perfect was cast away) and not because their believe that they were the best (because they believed they were the best that boosted their morale up to unlimited so that every Spartan would die rather than run, that's why they also were defeated, lack of population AND no tactical retreat.) But lack of tactic and politic as the aristocracy of Sparta was probably the worst government I have ever seen in my entire life?? next to feudalism. and their hunger for war. If they were more like the Romans, not only militaristic but also economically developed, they would have overrun the Romans. Still Rome possessed more population, more money and a totally other strategic system as the Spartans. Rome's shields are one of the most popular shields ever seen and the large amount of troops and the usage of the legionaries was very effective combined with the 'shield wall' more than the wall of spears used by the Spartans as everyone would rather think of another strategy without having to run in those spears.

Back to the point, if the Spartans would fight the Romans equally in numbers in hand-to-hand combat the Spartans would probably win. Using shields and spears the Spartans would also win. Rome using pila the Romans would win. And with a Spartan fighting one-on-one hand-to-hand combat I can't tell because every person has a certain amount of quality and morale etc.

Conclusion: You can't tell for sure who will win a battle, you can only THINK of how it will end, but in the end it's most of the time more different than you'd ever think. Just like the battle of Thermopilaye.

End of this long post