Spartans vs. Romans?

Question

Who would win in a war?

I mean 300 Spartans and 300 Romans

Answer 1

Spartans. The Romans wore sandals to war, had a more advanced phalanx formation, and heavier armor. But, the Spartans were more loyal to their polis, and didn't hire mercenaries. The Romans were loyal to the side that offered the most money. Spartans were trained to place home before money. The Romans fell apart partly because it was impossible to tell who's side the soldiers belonged to. They weren't bred to stay loyal to one country. The Spartans had one last advantage. They trained for more heavier fighting and were, undoubtly, the greatest warriors in history.

Answer 2

Undoubtedly the Romans. After the end of the Peloponnesian wars, the great Spartan military machine began to break down. The Thebans worked out successful plans on how to break the Spartan lines. Without the leadership of the military king to lead Spartans into battle, the Spartans were useless.

The Roman legions under Flamininius against the Spartan Tyrant Nabis proved this and ended any Spartan hopes of being a major power in Greece.

Answer 3

the romans- it all comes down to tactics
the Spartans fought in the phalanx formation, shields locked, and three rows of spears held out. this stayed the same for the entirety of the Spartans existence. however, the romans were always adapting; changing their fighting style to defeat their enemy s tactics. here is what they did. first they would throw there pilum, this would lock into the Spartans shield, maybe not penetrate, due to the thickness of the Spartan shield, but it would bend and warp on impact, imbedding itself in the Spartans shield. this was the intended design of the pilum to break up the shield wall of the gauls. but since the Spartans shield is the heart of the warrior, the will be fighting with a 5 foot spear in their shield if they cant pull it out. (note, the Spartans would never lay down their shields). if that didn t make things worse, when the phalanx closed in, the romans would chop through the spears until they were close enough to butcher the Spartans.

Answer 4

It depends on how elite the Spartan and Roman soldiers are. Plus, they need not only to rely on their military and deadly soldiers, but they need to rely on tactics and strategy. In reality, the Romans defeated Sparta in 196 BC even though the Spartans killed large number of their men. When Rome invaded Greece in 146 BC, Rome did not conquer Sparta. Rome and Sparta have since then been allies, if my research is correct.

Answer 5

given equal numbers... unfortunatly Romas...
HOWEVER - if they were to both use similar equipment
i.e. Spartan armour/weapons were made of iron instead of bronze... then i think the Spartan's would own the Romans.
Whilst Rome had good discipline they didnt fight to the death - and Spartans did - the Spartans were also able to subdue several cities where they were outnumbered by as much as 5to1... So i think ALL things being equal... Sparta would be the stronger - in a pitched battle

Answer 6

Spartans are bread for killing and are fearless in battle. they are also loyal to their king and serve no other, the down side to this is without their king they wouldn't have fought. Romans are disciplined, heavily armored and well lead legions. they don't want to fight to the death, they want to fight and see the victory, that make them defend better and stay alive rather than charge an impossible formation. a roman army's strength is in its generals and captains, so their tactics are based on leadership and working together. Spartans are warriors and although when in phalanx formation they do work together, roman legionaries will eventually force them to abandon their long spears and fight with their swords. if the fight is only between infantries then its a close call, but if cavalry is involved then Spartans stand no chance. not only roman cavalry are by far better than Greek ones but they can also flank the spartan phalanx and run them down like grass. phalanx are extreamle vonreble to cavalry, especially roman cavlary. its a battle between mind and body. the mind will eventually win because it controls the body.
Spartans ruled one city, Romans ruled an entire continent. "Roma invicta"(Unconquerable Rome).
having said this, if Spartans were lead by roman generals, they would have been gods of war, no army would have even met them in battle.

i disagree with John, Romans where often outnumbered, they relied on tricks and tactics not on sheer numbers.

Answer 7

well the Spartans are arguably the greatest soldiers in History. noone can really come close to their training and dedication and fighting ability. if as you said the numbers were equal. The spartans would have an easy job of the romans even with slightly superior weaponry.. in terms of rome vs sparta however sparta would eventually be defeated by superior number and superior techonology (such as siege weapons)
but man to man i would bet on a spartan against any other soldier in history

Answer 8

The Greek phalanxe was easily outmanuevered by the mobile Roman tactics. It was cumbersome and hard to move to meet flanking attacks. But it would've been a good match, that's for sure. Also it would depend on if the Roman legion was from the Republic, Imperial or latter part of their reign (when Visigoths and other Barbarians formed their ranks...in particular at the Battle of Chalons against Attilla).

Answer 9

Would defend on the place they fight, the general leading soldiers, and so many other things.war isnt a math test.

I guess Spartans were better soldiers...since they are trained to fight from their birth. But Romans had better fighting tactics and weapons. So my answer would be...no one know.

Answer 10

Actually the roman empire ruled the world for 1000 years, and rome conquered greece. the romans were the best warriors in the history. In fact the romans won against greece