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...
ok let me rephrase that.. a well trained army
True...
I can follow that...
I can say that as a group, Rome was the best.
they knew what teamwork was and how to use tactics to their best advantage. They also were quite diverse in their armies, Calvary, Swordsmen, Archers, etc. etc.
one individual Roman was not a great fighter.
Spartans knew only how to attack and kill.
they wanted the glory of the kill for themselves, breeding competition, therefore lack of unity in the ranks.
one spartan would best the gladiator champions of Rome due to their ability to fight 1v1 anytime, anywhere.
also Spartans were mainly hopilites in the long run, land infantry with no support
Rome was an empire
Sparta was a city state
Spartans have a primitive understanding of the world basically they were racists
only noble Spartans could join the army and other daily routine was handled by slaves
these nobles could rape or kill any slave they wanted without any charges
'theft,robbery,murder' was included in Spartan training system
Rome more humane by the ways they train and had better weapons and organization of crowds
but I dont like any of them
Rome had more than a little brutality of its own in its prime...
http://fs.huntingdon.edu/jLewis/syl/...ps/PelopLo.jpg
http://www.gingerasia.com/HtmlAreaIm...man_empire.jpg
Who conquered more, Sparta, or Rome?
(I'll give you a hint- it's the one that starts with Ro and ends with me.)
They may have conquered more, but Sparta was the strongest.
AAGGHHH!!! I'm so torn!
One one hand, the Romans were much more flexible.
On the other hand EVERY Spartan was a highly trained elite warrior...
I just can't decide...
How about Pirates vs. Ninjas?
Rome=Pirates
Sparta=Ninjas
The romans used to "woo" small boys with gifts so they could have their way with them. In my opinion, that is just as bad as the spartans. But the Spartans never noted themselves to be anything BUT a ruthless nation. The Romans always held themselves to be civilized and the example of all the world.
I would honestly say the Spartans were the best fighting forces. Sure it is cruel that any boy not born perfect was killed, but it did result in having a flawless fighting force. Their tactics based on working together, having to rely on skill not on numbers. If wars could be fought 1 soldier to 1 soldier at a time, I think Sparta would suffer minimal to no losses, while slaughtering the entire enemy's forces.
The Roman army had developed much better armors and weapons than the Spatans. Spartans were well trained but when it comes down to who could kill the one for easily, it would be the Romans. And at considerinng them both at their hights, the romans would have MUCH MUCH more warriros that the Spartans.
The Romans conquered Sparta. 'Nuff said.
Did you forget about the Helots?
[QUOTE=jaxmthemirc;1030482]The romans used to "woo" small boys with gifts so they could have their way with them. QUOTE]
They got that from the Greeks.
For those who say that Sparta never had an empire, remember that they never wanted one. They weren't bent on world conquest like the Romans, they were only concered with thier little corner of it.
Well if you match Spartans vs the Romans, you would see they are clearly in 2 different classes.
Romans had superior numbers and weaponry.
Spartans had superior training and troop loyalty.
If a Roman army got demoralized, they would break scatter and run for the hills.
Spartans would rather die than face the shame of defeat. They would continue fighting to the last man. Elite of the Elite
I vote for the Spartans. They were a militaristic society to an extent that Rome never matched. I realize the Spartans hardly controlled great swathes of the world like other Empires in history, but if that was the sole criteria we'd all be asking why Britain wasn't included in this poll.
The long war with Athens had weakened many of the city-states. Their weakness and disunity left them prey to a greater power that was emerging in the north Macedonia and its King Philip II. He came to the throne in 359 BC, and within a year he was already waging a war of expansion. By 339 he had achieved control of Greece, including Sparta. In the 2nd century BC Sparta was absorbed by Rome's legions.
Rome. I'm to tired to explain any furtherr.
The Romans could crush the spartans. And they did
The problem here is that you can't compare Sparta and Rome. They had completely different views of life. But the Spartans would surely win in an 100 spartans vs 1000 romans battle.
Romans are the successors of Troy too, and Troy got defeat by Spartans and some other Greek tribes.
If the fictional movie "300" did not come out, this would not even be a debate.
Rome.
It was inspired by true events, but most of the movie is fictional.
In RL history, though, the Spartans were pretty :modedit: good at what they did...although they didn't quite look like ninjas...
People's views on Sparta is WAAY to exaggerated. They think Spartans are like Super Saiyans with power levels over 9000! Rome could outright destroy Sparta. Sparta had better individual fighter, but war is not about one person (Or the whole army) being good fighters. With better weapons, armor, technology, tactics, strategy, and flimsy, poorly trained army could own the Spartans.
1) As I mentioned in my prior post, the Lacedaemonians were twice defeated in the battles of Leuctra [371 B.C.E] and Mantinaea [362 B.C.E] by the Thebans led by the Theban hegemon Epaminondas who had better trained hoplites and cavalry units than the Lacedaemonians leading to the period of Theban hegemony in Thessaly, Boeotia and Central Greece from 371-362 B.C.E. Also, the metropolis of Athens partially recovered its former sovereignty over the Aegean Sea leading to the lesser period of Athenian hegemony from 378/377-355 B.C.E with Athens possessing the Aegean islands of Cos, Chios, Thasos and Samos.
In addition, during the Diadochian Wars of Succession after the abjuration or the dissolution of the Alexandrian Empire, the Lacedaemonian bid for Grecian autonomy from the Macedonians failed as the superior Macedonian phalanxes with their pezhetairoi units [phalangists], cataphracts [kataphractoi] and Hetairoi or Companion Cavalry trampled upon the Lacedaemonian and allied Greek contingents. The dense phalangiarchies or the phalanx formations of the Macedonians with the outward protrusions of the sarissae [A) During the reigns of Philip II of Macedonia and Alexander III of Macedonia, the sarissa pike was approximately 16-20 feet long, and B) During the Wars of the Epigonoi or the Hellenistic Successors the sarissa pike was extended to approximately 21-24 feet.] dominated Mediterranean warfare till the Mediterranean conquests of the Romans.
2) The Macedonians refined the phalanx formation and transformed it to the dominant method and tactical formation of military engagements in Mediterranean warfare before the Romans. The Macedonian forces were divided into the units and formations of:
Standard Subdivisions of the Macedonian Grand Phalanx during the Alexandrian Conquests from 335-323 B.C.E
lochos: 16 phalangists
tetrarchia: 65 phalangists
taxiarchia: 128 phalangists
syntagma: 256 phalangists
taxeis: 1,024 phalangists
synapism: 4,096 phalangists
phalangiarchy: 8,192 phalangists
diphalangiarchy: 16,384 phalangists
tetraphalangiarchy: 28,687 phalangists
The Romans operated in a formation categorized as the quincunx. The Roman checker board formations were divided into the three lines that contained the main field contingents and one line that contained the linear contingents of skirmisher and other auxiliary forces:
Standard Roman Consular Army [2 Roman Citizen Legions and 2 Roman Auxiliary Legions]
1st Line: the Velites and other skirmishers [1,200 soldiers]
2nd Line: the Hastati [1,200 soldiers]
3rd Line: the Principes [1,200 soldiers]
4th Line: the Triarii [600 soldiers]
However, even the Macedonians and the Hellenistic Despotates were subsumed into the fold of Roman hegemony: the Seleucid Basileus Antiochus III 'Eupator' was defeated by the Romans and by the Attalids of the Kingdom of Pergamum at the battles of Thermopylae, the Eurymedon River and Magnesia. In addition, the Romans were successful in combating the Macedonian and Epirote phalangiarchies of King Pyrrhus I of Epirus with the battles of Heraclea [280 B.C.E] and Ausculum [279 B.C.E] being minor victories for the Hellenistic despot Pyrrhus I of Epirus, and the battle of Beneventum [275 B.C.E] being a considerable defeat of the Epirote and Macedonian forces of Pyrrhus. At the conclusion of the Pyrrhic Wars [280-275 B.C.E], Rome extended its hegemony and sovereignty over Magna Graecia [A region in Southern Italy that was a dense conglomerate of Grecian cleruchies or colonies.] with its domain stretching from the Po River in Northern Italy to Calabria in Southern Italy.
Also, the Romans defeated the Macedonians under King Philip V at the battle of Cynoscephalae [197 B.C.E] and under King Perseus at the battle of Pydna [168 B.C.E]. The Romans then defeated the Macedonian usurper and claimant Andriscus ["The pseudo-Perseus"] during his rebellion from 149-148 B.C.E. At the conclusion of the Macedonian-Roman conflicts, the Romans divided the Kingdom of Macedonia into a classification composed of the Roman satellite states of Pella, Pelagonia, Thessalonica and Amphilochia. Finally, the Greek city-states that composed the Achaean Confederation in the Peloponnesus, Attica and Boeotia had dilapidated from their former glory under the general Philopoemon with the end result of the utter subjugation of the Achaean Confederation by the Romans in 146 B.C.E. In 130 B.C.E, the rebellion of Aristonicus [133-130 B.C.E] was put down in which the Pergamene Kingdom of the Attalids was subsumed into the fold of Roman hegemony, governance and administration. In 63 B.C.E, Pompey 'the Great' annexed the remaining regions under the Seleucids and defeated or eliminated the last Seleucid dynasts, tetrarchs and claimants of Antiochus XIII Asiaticus, Philip II Philorhomaios, Antiochus I of Commagene and Seleucus Kybiosaktes.
I have no idea what Conrad is trying to say but I think he means that history is incredibly boring and why should we care?
Sigilstone17, I would never say such vile and putrid words!
The history of Classical Antiquity, the Medieval Period and the Byzantine Empire as well as the philosophical concepts and viewpoints of Platonic, Aristotelian, Ciceronian, Medieval Scholastic, Renaissance, Enlightenment and Romantic philosophy are not mere interests or passions that I harbor and pursue but rather my life's purpose and my greatest happiness and ebullience in life!