Rome vs Sparta

[Mike2571]

I know not to many people favor rome or sparta but these two are so far my favorites. Rome was more technology advanced and Sparta was more warlike/ better suited for battle (in my opinion). Who do you all think would win?

[Sandraker]

Well, Rome kinda won.

[CheesyFreak]

if we go by history, rome was pretty much better in anything, that i know atleast, sparta was having a really bad time in the starting period of the game.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

A formation of Spartans against a Roman Manipel, both the same number of Soldiers, Sparta would have won, but like against Pyrrhos or Hannibal the romans would just "Spam" armies no matter how many battles the enemy would have won.

Technolgy doesn't matter because you have to compare 3th century romans against spartans, because later we have no idea how Sparta would have developed. In the 3th century the technological difference was not that huge.

Comparing Legions of Traian with 4th/3th century Spartans is just ridiclious.

[Tim_Ward]

A formation of Spartans against a Roman Manipel, both the same number of Soldiers, Sparta would have won

Why do you say this? The Romans proved able to overcame the phalanx, in both it's classic and sarissa iterations, time and time again.

[MemnonOfRhodes]

Why do you say this? The Romans proved able to overcame the phalanx, in both it's classic and sarissa iterations, time and time again.

True, but we can never be too sure about that since both phalanx types were not properly used against the Romans.

The Sarissa phalanxes were not supported as they should be (cavalry and infantry support), and Sparta was a nothing compared to it former glory when it faced the Romans.

[Steel*Faith]

Why do you say this? The Romans proved able to overcame the phalanx, in both it's classic and sarissa iterations, time and time again.

Only when the Phalanx broke formation - they never defeated a Greek phalanx straight on. Besides that, it wasn't even a Spartan phalanx which was a quality even higher than the rest.

Sparta was allied with Rome for a good deal of time, so it's hard to use historical examples to show what would happen if they both fought. From the examples we do have, Rome never beat Sparta with purely Roman troops, in fact, they outnumbered them greatly with a coalition of many Greek and Macedonian troops - so there's no way anyone can claim Roman Legionary troops alone were enough to overcome Spartans. The Romans defeated Sparta by using many Greek allied forces and mercenaries; this was anything like the Roman invasion of Britain or other barbarian nations. By the time Rome even directly fought Sparta anyhow, they had been reduced in power significantly, mainly due to the fact that it took a coalition of factions to even weaken Sparta - not to mention Rome's cowardly betrayal of Sparta toward the end of the Punic Wars.

seriously this theory you have is complete rubbish , its getting tired to read about it over and over like if you hope in convincing people with it .

Yea? Well I'm getting just as tired hearing people talk as if Rome had the most superior quality soldiery in the entire world - Sparta and other nations had better quality, better skilled warriors than Rome did. Difference is Rome did have an unequaled ability to raise professional armies quickly and tirelessly, and thy weren't just producing cannon fodder either, they were indeed very well trained and well equipped troops - BUT that doesn't mean they were the very top in the world.

If you compare Sparta in the height of it's strength and of it's Agoge, and compare that to Rome in it's earlier days - clearly Spartans were unmatched in their quality. Big difference being though, Rome was a totally different kind of people and had a craving for power and global dominance; whereas Sparta didn't have these kind of desires and weren't trying to forge a world Empire - they didn't even want to participate in Alexander's Conquests.

Using this as a reference:

As a result, the fielding of a respectable hoplite army without mercenaries or freed helots was difficult. Cleomenes increased the number of full citizens again and made the Spartan army operate with an increased reliance on more lightly armored phalangites of the Macedonian style. However, many of these restored citizens were killed in the Battle of Sellasia and Nabis' politics drove the remainder of them into exile. In consequence, the heavy troops were no longer available in sufficient numbers.

In the war of Laconia, the Romans, Achaean League, Macedon, Rhodes, and Pergamum weren't even facing a true Spartan army of heavy Spartan hoplites, it was something totally different. Yet it still took all those combined nations to defeat them there, with superior numbers.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

A formation of Spartans against a Roman Manipel, both the same number of Soldiers, Sparta would have won, but like against Pyrrhos or Hannibal the romans would just "Spam" armies no matter how many battles the enemy would have won.

Technolgy doesn't matter because you have to compare 3th century romans against spartans, because later we have no idea how Sparta would have developed. In the 3th century the technological difference was not that huge.

Comparing Legions of Traian with 4th/3th century Spartans is just ridiclious.

Ah yes the Famous Theory of Romans won only because they spammed armies and were crap soliders, only throught swarms of endless men could the romans win ...

Especially versus the poor and outnumbered few germans of the north that were beaten only because of the Roman massive armies and numbers , even on enemy territories, no mater what Romans were always hundreds of thousands ...

seriously this theory you have is complete rubbish , its getting tired to read about it over and over like if you hope in convincing people with it .

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Ah yes the Famous Theory of Romans won only because they spammed armies and were crap soliders, only throught swarms of endless men could the romans win ...

Especially versus the poor and outnumbered few germans of the north that were beaten only because of the Roman massive armies and numbers , even on enemy territories, no mater what Romans were always hundreds of thousands ...

seriously this theory you have is complete rubbish , its getting tired to read about it over and over like if you hope in convincing people with it .

I will not debate this with you because you are starting to go off-topic with the beginning, but it can't be denied that there were more romans than spartans, more romans than Epirotes and more Romans than Carthagians.

As Pedro Barcelo said one of the better Hannibal Biographs i could hear in a lecture: "Rome could effort to loose ten times more than Carthage." Which is true regarding the constant devastating Carthagian Victories. Pyrrhus himself faced it after his pyrrhic victories and Sparta didn't even tried.

The other point regarding the Sarissa Formations was allready explained.

Last words i wrote to you in this thread.

[PROMETHEUS ts]

I will not debate this with you because you are starting to go off-topic with the beginning, but it can't be denied that there were more romans than spartans, more romans than Epirotes and more Romans than Carthagians.

As Pedro Barcelo said one of the better Hannibal Biographs i could hear in a lecture: "Rome could effort to loose ten times more than Carthage." Which is true regarding the constant devastating Carthagian Victories. Pyrrhus himself faced it after his pyrrhic victories and Sparta didn't even tried.

The other point regarding the Sarissa Formations was allready explained.

Last words i wrote to you in this thread.

Apart the fact that in most of the times romans were outnumbered usually , on few occasions sure the romans had a numeric superiority and even lost , like at Cannae or Carrae , but it was not the rule as you want ot make it pass like .
Also the Roman "manpower" was based on the system of the Levy , from wich the same name Legio comes from , and this is the pure reason why they could rise easier and faster soldiers than Carthaginians ,not counting the fact that they were playin in "home" , compared to Hanibal ... that instead relied mostly on mercenaries and were limited by their wallet . In most other ocasion istead was the opposite , especially when dealing in foreign countries .

As for Sparta it allied with Rome during punic wars , while Pyrrus Landed with 25k men , while the roman army was split into two having to face also to the north the Etruscan war, and consisted of 20 men out of an army of 80 k men , wich is different from fielding alltogether on a battlefield , because if we count the men possible to rise then the Tarentine and greeks vanted to be able to rise 350 k men. making some counts

at Satrian the armies were almoust the same 40 k Romans Publius Decius MurePublius Sulpicious Saverrionis vs 40 k Pyrrus ---- Pyrric victory
at Eraclea the armies were 20 k romans Publius Valerius Levinus vs 25 k Pyrrus ---- Pyrric victory
at Beneventum romans Manius Curius Dentatus 20 k and Pyrrus 40 k ---- Roman victory

Quite different from your claims .

After coming back defeated from the Roman territory , Pyrrus managed war in Greek lands and Sieged Sparta as well , with the remaining forces of 26 k men , but the 2k spartans managed to hold him off and he had to abandon the siege .

[Destraex]

Ah yes the Famous Theory of Romans won only because they spammed armies and were crap soliders, only throught swarms of endless men could the romans win ...

Especially versus the poor and outnumbered few germans of the north that were beaten only because of the Roman massive armies and numbers , even on enemy territories, no mater what Romans were always hundreds of thousands ...

seriously this theory you have is complete rubbish , its getting tired to read about it over and over like if you hope in convincing people with it .

your right. Romans are much more likely to play with your economy, screw your alliances and go political to split you before even attempting to fight. When they fight you they are supported by huge logistics trains. The battle is much less important than the organisation and strategy behind it. The romans were the americans of their time. Their army may be ok, but that is not where their real might is.

As for the theory it is correct that many times the romans did send seemingly endless legions until a campaign was won. that does not mean they were not outnumbered on a given day however!!

[Dan113112]

Ah yes the Famous Theory of Romans won only because they spammed armies and were crap soliders, only throught swarms of endless men could the romans win ...

Especially versus the poor and outnumbered few germans of the north that were beaten only because of the Roman massive armies and numbers , even on enemy territories, no mater what Romans were always hundreds of thousands ...

seriously this theory you have is complete rubbish , its getting tired to read about it over and over like if you hope in convincing people with it .

It's not complete rubbish. It's a fact that Romans had overwhelming numbers in terms of manpower on their side. It's a fact that they could mobilize a larger proportion of their population for war. It's a fact that Romans often embellished when estimating the enemies strength. They'd often say that the enemy numbered hundreds of thousands when in reality the enemy's number was usually similar to their own.

Early ancient steel is not the steel we know today.

That was exactly my point.

He would if the Legionary he was facing was a professional soldier ala a 1-3rd Century Imperial Legionary who besides from being much better equipped for a one v one situation was also just as trained and ready for combat as any Spartan.

So no, not just much, but A LOT of trouble is what the Spartan would have against one of these guys:

Lorica Segmentata was obviously better than mail but I'd say about equal to a bronze cuirasss. In terms of shields I'd say that they offer almost the same amount of protection. Especially if you include greaves which most Romans did not wear. They're actually armored about the same.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

It's not complete rubbish. It's a fact that Romans had overwhelming numbers in terms of manpower on their side. It's a fact that they could mobilize a larger proportion of their population for war. It's a fact that Romans often embellished when estimating the enemies strength. They'd often say that the enemy numbered hundreds of thousands when in reality the enemy's number was usually similar to their own.
That was exactly my point.

Thank you for making clear again that it is not a rubbish opinion of mine.

[Sir. Cunningham]

It's not complete rubbish. It's a fact that Romans had overwhelming numbers in terms of manpower on their side.

In the realm ? Yes. In the actual individual battles ? No.

It's a fact that Romans often embellished when estimating the enemies strength. They'd often say that the enemy numbered hundreds of thousands when in reality the enemy's number was usually similar to their own.

That's pure speculation. On the contrary it is a fact that the Romans were outnumbered in many of their battles and still prevailed thanks to superior tactics and equipment, the examples are countless.

I.O.W.: Man for man, the world didn't see finer soldiers than the Imperial Legionnaires of 0-300 AD for atleast another millenia.

[Dan113112]

I.O.W.: Man for man, the world didn't see finer soldiers than the Imperial Legionnaires of 0-300 AD for atleast another millenia.

That's because they defeated all of the factions that could have mustered an army of similar quality. I was speaking purely about the armor the legionary's armor. It's about equal to that of a Spartan in coverage. From what I've seen, Segmentata has more weakpoints than a bronze cuirass.

[SirFork]

A formation of Spartans against a Roman Manipel, both the same number of Soldiers, Sparta would have won, but like against Pyrrhos or Hannibal the romans would just "Spam" armies no matter how many battles the enemy would have won.

Technolgy doesn't matter because you have to compare 3th century romans against spartans, because later we have no idea how Sparta would have developed. In the 3th century the technological difference was not that huge.

Comparing Legions of Traian with 4th/3th century Spartans is just ridiclious.

Sorry for the upcoming OP but let's get straight to the point then:

It's a question for you Marcus Aemilius Lepidus

-Do you think the the Roman legions had many victories and conquered the whole europe just for the high numbers of effectives?

I really can't understand what you think about this point.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

Sorry for the upcoming OP but let's get straight to the point then:

It's a question for you Marcus Aemilius Lepidus

-Do you think the the Roman legions had many victories and conquered the whole europe just for the high numbers of effectives?

I really can't understand what you think about this point.

No. Just hugh numbers alone are not enough. You have to supply and deploy them propably, something the romans were very good.
But can also not compare the Republican Legions with the later imperial ones. If you compare a 3th BC century spartan with a 2th century AD Roman than it is just ridiclious because the roman soldier has clearly the technological advantage of several hundret years and we don't know how the Spartan would have evolved hypothetically. That is why i said in my first post that it make only sense to compare both soldiers from the same period.

Superior Numbers was one of the hugest advantages of the romans in this period. Italy as a single region had far the largest population and Rome with it's Conscription System also the largest Manpool, while the other Factions relied on Citizen Soldiers, Warrior Elites, Nobles or Mercs. There are exceptions like Mithradates had huge armies of volunteer levies, but usually the Romans had more man as we can see against Pyrrhos, Carthage and several Cities, Tribes.

The secret of the Republican Rom was their capability to loose more often than the enemy because of their manpool, the will to never give up and the decision to attack usually enemies which are smaller and diplomatical isolated. They didn't Conquered Provinces like Spain or Gaul in one single War against a single faction. Even if it is called "Bello Gallico" Caesar describes how he defeats one Tribe after the other. The same was done in Spain and other Campaigns.

I never said the Roman soldiers of that time were bad, but it doesn't comes from nowhere that Pyrrhus and Hannibal were allways surprised that they could sent one army after another.

I know the word "Spam" Armies was a bit provoking, but in Gameterms, and we talk about a game here, it is what describes it best.

[Lieutenant Sharpe]

No. Just hugh numbers alone are not enough. You have to supply and deploy them propably, something the romans were very good.
But can also not compare the Republican Legions with the later imperial ones. If you compare a 3th BC century spartan with a 2th century AD Roman than it is just ridiclious because the roman soldier has clearly the technological advantage of several hundret years and we don't know how the Spartan would have evolved hypothetically. That is why i said in my first post that it make only sense to compare both soldiers from the same period.

Superior Numbers was one of the hugest advantages of the romans in this period. Italy as a single region had far the largest population and Rome with it's Conscription System also the largest Manpool, while the other Factions relied on Citizen Soldiers, Warrior Elites, Nobles or Mercs. There are exceptions like Mithradates had huge armies of volunteer levies, but usually the Romans had more man as we can see against Pyrrhos, Carthage and several Cities, Tribes.

The secret of the Republican Rom was their capability to loose more often than the enemy because of their manpool, the will to never give up and the decision to attack usually enemies which are smaller and diplomatical isolated. They didn't Conquered Provinces like Spain or Gaul in one single War against a single faction. Even if it is called "Bello Gallico" Caesar describes how he defeats one Tribe after the other. The same was done in Spain and other Campaigns.

I never said the Roman soldiers of that time were bad, but it doesn't comes from nowhere that Pyrrhus and Hannibal were allways surprised that they could sent one army after another.

I know the word "Spam" Armies was a bit provoking, but in Gameterms, and we talk about a game here, it is what describes it best.

Very well put. +1 rep

[dbX7]

No. Just hugh numbers alone are not enough. You have to supply and deploy them propably, something the romans were very good.

I never said the Roman soldiers of that time were bad, but it doesn't comes from nowhere that Pyrrhus and Hannibal were allways surprised that they could sent one army after

I know the word "Spam" Armies was a bit provoking, but in Gameterms, and we talk about a game here, it is what describes it best.

Nicely put. I would also call that "superb technology": to be able to put a farmer into your army and make him effective in field against an enemy that has been training for all his life. That's what swiss pike did to the KNIGHT, and aquebus did to the BOWMAN and SAMURAI.

[SirFork]

Double-damn