Which one do you think had the more effective and efficient military--at their best?
Please debate here...
As usual, next poster kicks it off...
Printable View
Which one do you think had the more effective and efficient military--at their best?
Please debate here...
As usual, next poster kicks it off...
Sparta would be the most effective fighting force in the skill of each individual soldier as they trained for years to be perfect in every way but their bravery and duty could often lead them to their deaths before they would retreat and pick a better strategy.
Rome however moved with the times and its armies developed to suit the challenges it faced, although more often that not it was either brilliant strategy by their generals or just luck that won them their battles, however in the end of Romes Eastward drive into Asia they met a superior force in The Parthian armies which they were never able to defeat.
I think that for all of the strength the Spartans had, the Romans in the end were better fighters.
They never really built up a culture of their own--however, they made one by assimilating all the other ones that they met...it is the ultimate Empire, with your armies adapting to others and then hitting them when you know how to get rid of them.
They wore down their neighbors by adopting those customs and tactics which made them stronger, and then exploited their weaknesses afterward.
However, if you assimilate too much, then you are left with a bloating thing that caves in on itself.
The Spartans destroyed other cultures, even though they were similar.
They got stronger in order to destroy and/or subjugate their neighbors.
However, they couldn't sustain themselves forever with their type of lifestyle...
However, in their prime, the Spartans had the most effective and strongest fighting force the world had ever seen, but they spread themselves too thin, and they crumbled...
The armies of Greece were built on the fact that there was a very small population so the armies they had would always be outnumbered, but like Colonising the new world centuries ago all cultures of the Mediterranean colonised this area of land now called Italy and Rome was where the power and numbers were.
Upon copying Greek culture the Romans were free to fight and expand knowing they had the skill of Greece and numbers of Persia.
The Roman army during the Principate Era [27 B.C.E-235 C.E]; during the combined reigns of the Five Benevolent Emperors Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus 'Pius' and Marcus Aurelius; and during the reigns of the belliferous and excellent princes Aurelian, Tacitus, Probus and Carus was more capable than the field contingents of the Lacedaemonians.
A. [Lacedaemonian Defeat to Epaminondas of Thebes]:
The Lacedaemonians or the Spartans maintained an ephemeral military hegemony over other Grecian city-states but were defeated by the Theban commander Epaminondas at Leuctra on 371 B.C.E and at Mantinaea at 362 B.C.E. The Thebans than exerted sole hegemony over the Boeotian League and maintained sovereignty over Thessaly and parts of Central Greece. In addition, the Athenians recovered from their ignominious defeat during the great Peloponnesian War [431-404 B.C.E] through the expeditions of the Athenian general Thrasybulus and with the expulsion of the pro-Lacedaemonian oligarchs from Athens. From 378/377-355 B.C.E, the metropolis of Athens exerted hegemony over the Aegean islands of Cos, Chios, Thasos and Samos.
B. [The First Period of Athenian Hegemony: 478-404 B.C.E]:
Thucydides wrote of the symmachia [An offensive and defensive alliance]or the Delian League that was to act as a defensive perimeter for the Ionian Greeks from any future assault from the Medio-Achaemenids of Persia that resulted in the metropolis of Athens becoming the hegemon or the leading state that exerted sovereignty over lesser Grecian states and in the emergence of Athens as a thalassocracy with allied states, subservient states and cleruchies in the Propontic Sea [To safeguard the Hellespont and Hellespontine Phrygia, and to maintain effective control over the Thracian region and the key Thracian cities of Selymbria, Perinthus and Byzantium], Euxine Sea and Aegean Sea. Therefore, the Delian League had metamorphosized into an autarchy and despotism.
The metropolis of Athens became the imperial hegemon and suzerain in which all of the states subservient to Athens tributed triremes, manpower and material goods to provide nourishment for the voracious hunger of Athenian hubris. At first, the Athenian domain maintained sovereignty over Thessaly, Boeotia, Megaria, however, after the Pentecontaetia ["Fifty Year Period of Peace" from 480 B.C.E-433 B.C.E] Athens relinquished these mainland possessions for coastline states/zones. The Athenian domain consisted of the Archipelago of Naxos or the Cycladic Islands, the Eteokarpathioi of the Dodecanese, Ionia, Caria, Mysia, Lydia, Lycia, Hellespontine Phrygia, Amphipolis, Olynthus, Potidae, Perinthus, Selymbria, Byzantium, Locria, Cephallenia, Zacynthus and Corcyra. It was divided into five districts: (a) the Thema Thrace, (b) the Thema Ionia, (c) the Thema Caria, (d) the Thema Hellespontine and (e) the Thema Cyclades.
C. [On the Methods of Warfare during the Alexandrian Conquests and the Diadochian Wars]:
Alexander III of Macedonia managed to amalgamate and integrate the Paeonians, Odryasians, Olynthians, Phocians, Eubeoans, Boeotians, Taulantinians, Autariatians, Triballians, Getae, Syrmians and other tribal units forming a dense conglomeration of semi-barbaric tribes within the fold of the Macedonian Kingdom. Alexander III of Macedonia subjugated the Thracian and Illyrian tribes at Lyginus: 335 B.C.E and crossed the Hellespont to begin his anabasis [A) A campaign into the interior. B) A katabasis is a campaign or excursion from the interior of a particular domain or region.] to the Outer Ocean through the Persian Empire of the Medio-Achaemenids. Alexander III of Macedonia fought at Granicus: 334 B.C.E, Issus: 333 B.C.E, the siege of New Tyre: 332-331 B.C.E, Gaza: 331 B.C.E, Guagamela or Arbela: 331 B.C.E, at the Jaxartes region against the Scythians and at the Hydaspes River: 326 B.C.E.
At Arbela, Alexander had 28,687 phalangists or pezhetairoi in the tetraphalangiarchy or "grand phalanx". Furthermore, he had 8,192 prodromoi or light cavalry, peltasts and acontists as skirmishers, auxiliary forces composed of the gastraphetes or the "belly-bow" men and the hypaspists. The total sum of Alexander's forces equalled approximately 45,000 soldiers. The Medio-Achaemenids of Persia had 250,000 soldiers consisting of the kardakes as auxiliary units and as the main array of soldiers as well as kataphractoi or heavy cavalry units from the satrapies of Bactria, Sogdiana, Ferghana and Arachosia.
During the Diadochoi/Epigonoi Wars or the Wars of the "Successors" from 322-320 B.C.E, 319-315 B.C.E, 314-311 B.C.E and 308-281 B.C.E [The battles of Paraitacene, Gabiene, Gaza, Salamis, Rhodes, Ipsus and Corupedium], Leonnatus lost his life during the Lamian War, Neoptolemus and Craterus were subjugated and slain by Eumenes of Cardia, and Perdiccas was slain by Peithon and Seleucus I 'Nicator'. In the next phase of the Diadochian Conflicts, Polysperchon and Eumenes of Cardia fought against Antigonus I 'Monopthalmus', Demetrius I 'Poliorcetes', Ptolemy I Lagi and Cassander. In the third phase, Seleucus I 'Nicator' exchanged his satrapies of Paropamisidae, Arachosia, and Gandhara for 500 pachyderms from Sandracottus or Chandragupta Maurya. At the great battle of Ipsus [301 B.C.E], Seleucus I 'Nicator', Lysimachus, Ptolemy I Lagi and Cassander defeated Antigonus I 'Monopthalmus', Demetrius I 'Polirocetes' and Pyrrhus of Epirus. In the fourth phase, Pyrrhus of Epirus, Ptolemy Lagi and Lysimachus defeated Demetrius I 'Poliorcetes' and deprived him of Cyprus, the Kingdom of Macedonia and Central Greece.
In the final phase, Seleucus I 'Nicator' subjugated Lysimachus [The Hegemon of Thrace, Anatolia and the Kingdom of Macedonia] at the battle of Corupedium [281 B.C.E]. In Italy, King Pyrrhus I of Epirus engaged the Romans at Heraclea: 280 B.C.E, Ausculum: 279 B.C.E and Beneventum: 275 B.C.E. King Pyrrhus had 22,500 phalangists, 2,000 slingers, 3,000 heavy cavalry or cataphracts and 20 war elephants. In addition, the autarchies of the Far East such as the Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom: 250-125 B.C.E [A) The Diodotid Dynasty: 250-230 B.C.E, B) the Euthydemid Dynasty: 230-170 B.C.E and C) the Eucratid Dynasty: 170-125 B.C.E] and the Indo-Greek Kingdom: 180 B.C.E-10 C.E utilized war elephants. Overall, the power of the Diadochian and the later Hellenistic sovereigns was absolute. The common denizen was obsequious, suppliant and subject to the will of these hubristic rulers and princes.
I would agree that the Romans were the strongest under Trajan and Hadrian, when the Empire had reached its peak...
And yes, you are right about the capability of Spartan defeat, but I am talking about the PRIME of the Lacedaemonians, not their field contingents in general, and of the Athenians...
In other words, if the best of their armies, both in the peak of their art in power, in equal numbers, were to give battle to each other, who would win?
I would think that the Spartans would win, bedcause of their later training at sea, forced on them during the Peloponnesian War, with the Athenians.
Yes, the Athenians themselves defeated the Spartans from time to time, but the Spartans won by adapting, and learning how to fight at sea.
Conrad dude. just stop. stop man. too much. :p jus jokin
Oh i believe that Sparta had a better fighting force but the romans had better customs.
Please don't spam the thread. This is a debate, and if you don't have anything to contribute, again, please don't spam...
I am so tempted to post a This is Sparta youtube video link...
Anywho i think sparta was far more efficient simply because everyone was a super warrior type person.. When was the last time you heard of a handful of roman soldiers holding off an entire army
In Brittania, a Celtic army attacked a small army of about 280 Roman soldiers.
The Romans won against about 200k warriors from an army led by Boudica...