Who would win, and why, if a force of Roman Legionaries met a comperable number of Spartans in battle? Do not include siege weapons or any force of that nature, this is strictly men against men.
2007-03-11 12:51:54 · 13 answers · asked by Stephen N 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
In keeping with the theme of ancient warriors, who would win, and why, if a force of Roman Legionaries met a comperable number of Spartans in battle? Do not include siege weapons or any force of that nature, this is strictly men against men.
2007-03-11 12:53:11 · update #1
My opinion is that the Spartans would win ! These people were trained as warriors even before puberty. They were taken from their parents at a very early age and trained to be warriors. Once they reached the age of maturity, around eighteen years of age, they were put into the Spartan army.
Spartans had a loyalty to their people and to Athens, it was an espirit de corps that no other army could claim ! They were highly trained and highly motivated warriors .
Roman soldiers were from all walks of life, many were captured from earlier battles and given the choice to fight as a Roman or die. Their mundane existence as a Roman soldier, left little chance for a quality life, therefore their incentive was to either live as a soldier or simply die.
2007-03-11 13:22:08 · answer #1 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Xanthippus a Spartan General, commanded Carthaginian armies during the First Punic War. Spartan troops served in some numbers with Xanthippus. These would have probably been armed as traditional hoplites, but again these are only one contingent of the Carthaginian army. However they did fight a number of battles against Rome, so technically Spartans did fight against Rome, but there is no Roman battle with Sparta itself.
Later Sparta was invaded by Roman armies in 192 BC, but the Spartans did not confront them. By this time the Spartans no longer fought as hoplites, and were armed as phalangites like the Macedonians. But this was probably the "what if" chance for Rome and Spartans to fight.
The last large battle between Rome and the Greeks was fought at Corinth in 146 BC. The Achaean League had absorbed Sparta when the Romans left, but Sparta had since become independent again and now was an ally of Rome. Sparta aided Rome in her crushing defeat of the Achaeans. Sparta was absorbed into the Empire along with the rest of Greece, but since they were allies the city was not taxed and could elect her own magistrates.
2007-03-11 13:20:26 · answer #2 · answered by vibrance0404 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This would be an interesting match. The Romans may have a slight edge in unit mechanics. They had a very well put together unit cohesiveness. The Spartans did as well and if the Spartans are armed with their pole arms, then they will be the side to prevail.
Both are excellent short sword fighters, but the edge in Pole arms would go to the Spartans.
2007-03-11 13:08:14 · answer #3 · answered by KERMIT M 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Romans under Scipio Africanus (Republic), Julius Caesar (Imperial) and those legionairres that faced Attila the Hun at Chalons. The legionairres of the later empire were composed of Visigoths and other barbarians....anyway, the point is they were all different Roman Legionaries, afterall the roman empire lasted over 600 years. But given that they would put up the best, i'd say those under Scipio and the Spartans under King Leonides.....the Romans would win, as they proved in their matches against the Greek phalanxes in 200 BC or so. The Greek phalanxes were cumbersome and unwieldy, while the Roman legions were masters at flanking manuevers....true story.
2007-03-11 13:30:25 · answer #4 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Spartans
2007-03-12 01:01:10 · answer #5 · answered by Tropango 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Spartans would kick anyone's *** in hand to hand battle... they once fought 1 million persians n only had a few hundred spartans n killed off 50,000 i beleive? In Ancient Sparta every male was shipped off to a "military school" in their young pre teen age(Im not sure exact age but i konw it was like around 10 give or take a year or two)... they were tough mother fu ckers....
2007-03-11 13:19:08 · answer #6 · answered by Chris 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it's down to men and armor , I would have to go with rome, especally given the fact that thier empire had multiple regions upon which to draw fighting techniqnes from...
in all hand to hand combat the winner effectivly executes a series of correct counter moves to the opponets agression.
having acess to a multitude of fighting disciplines at a time when fighting styles were native and homogonuos in nature means you have a plate full of correct series chioces to your opponets 2 or 3 disciplned responses.
just a thought....
2007-03-11 12:58:24 · answer #7 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the Spartans. They are trained from birth to fight and be warriors.
2007-03-11 12:55:09 · answer #8 · answered by Paul C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sparta wins
reason: better armour (full plate), better shields (two holds on the forearm, not just a single grip on the umbo) better close combat technique (long training)
roman edge- pilum. IMO not enough.
2007-03-11 13:40:03 · answer #9 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easily the Romans would clean house. Better armor, better weapons.
2007-03-11 12:56:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋