View Poll Results: Which military was more effective and efficient in its prime?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Sparta

    14 41.18%
  • Rome

    20 58.82%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68

Thread: DEBATE: Sparta or Rome?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jurnis View Post
    Please note that this debate is over the efficiency and effectiveness of the Spartan and Roman militaries...

    Was Rome more effective and efficient, or was Sparta when it came to troops?

    It doesn't matter over vast numbers (very much), but rather the quality of the troops that they trained...

    THAT is what this debate is over, and I think that Conrad is hitting at the true topic of this debate closer than most of you are...


    In other words, would you rather lead a legion of Spartans against a legion of Romans, OR
    Would you rather lead a legion of Romans against a legion of Spartans,

    Given any circumstances, or the scene of battle.


    The debate is over the quality of said troops, not the quantity...
    what you want and what you ask are different things Jurnis bro
    Rome was more effective
    they even used pigs in military operations to scare elephants of Carthagians or other tribes,they had war dogs,also ballistas and other mechanic stuff and these were pretty effective
    Spartans were more efficient
    yes they trained their soldiers better and tougher then Rome,they used maximum capacity(thats efficiency)
    I know what you want to hear
    in 1-1 fight yes a Spartan would defeat a Rome soldier
    in 10000-10000 fight no Rome would defeat Spartans
    Last edited by Tsubasa; 03-26-2010 at 04:16 AM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Out of town at the moment, and without internet access
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Hows that math work? To beat an army os Spartans, you wold have to crack the phalanx. And the only way to do that is to flank from multiple directions; which requires at least double the number of troops the Spartans have.
    "I'm not crazy, OK? I'm totally, completely sane.
    Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go blow up this dead body."
    Agent Washington, Red vs Blue

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    +rep for Tsubasa

    He made a very informative argument...

    And yes, the Romans borrowed from many cultures, which made their military so effective--they had all the tricks...

  4. #64

    Default

    Is this a serious question? The romans would have destroyed the spartans. However, this is really not a fair fight because they romans prime was at a different time period than the spartans prime. Its like asking which one is stronger the United States in its prime or England in the 16th century. They Romans prime(100 AD) was about 500 years after sparta(400 BC).

  5. #65

    Default

    It was the Greek hoplites that first used the phalanx for their military structure which the Roman's later copied for their legions. I would say Sparta "wins" though as far as their single minded devotion to war since military training was the entire focus of their social structure. However Rome was more idealy suited politically to create and support an empire where as Greece were content to remain as independant city-states with the exception of one relatively short-lived spree for global domination by Alexander the Great.

    By the time Rome and Greece did clash though in the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC the Roman Legions proved to be superior and more versatile and won a decisive victory using just 38k troops vs 44k Greeks.
    Killing people never solves anything but it keeps them out of your hair while you think of an alternative.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Some place in England.
    Posts
    5,677

    Default

    The Romans originally used a hoplite-based army, but their experiences against the Samnites (who used a more flexible infantry army) led them to adopt the maniple system and the quinquinx formation, where 4-5 main lines of infantry advance, leaving a gap between each one which is covered by the maniple behind where beaten or exhausted maniples can retreat safely, so the next line can engage the enemy.

    The main weakness of the phalanx is, of course, the sides and rear. Contrary to what most people are saying, you do NOT need twice the number of men. You just need several cavalry units to outflank and hit the phalanx from especially the rear, while your infantry hold the phalanx in combat. Also, the phalanx's spears are not especially easy to control (the Macedonian sarissa was very long and unwieldy) so the enemy can simply knock your spear out of the way. They did compensate for that by having three lines of spears, but all you need to do is keep them in combat, so the cavalry can swing round and crash into the rear.

    Either way, the superior numbers and equipment of the Romans (the pilum spear that every legionary carried two or three of would be thrown into the enemy, causing maximum casualties for minimum losses) woul eventually prevail against the small numbers of highly trained Spartans.

    Man for man, Sparta would win.
    Army against Army, Rome would win. It's mainly attrition, but the Romans would win. Sparta is just a city-state. Rome was a republic, and eventually, an empire.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    765

    Default

    I would have to say Rome.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lost in Space
    Posts
    7,183

    Default

    As an Empire, I would have to sway my vote for Rome in the end as an empire, however Sparta as a military...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •