Do you think that 300 Romans could have done the same as the Spartans?

Question

At the Battle of Thermopolyae

You do realize that there would have been very little to no room for siege weapons or forts?

Hey, Kimon, the Romans did not start out with only mercenaries, the ones they used for the most part was cavalry, for centuries the Romans had citezen soldiers, it was not until sometime after Ceasar (a hundred years, or more) that they used almost complete mercenary armies.

Answer 1

The Roman Army relied on their equipment and their mobility. Additionally, they were the first professional military. I believe they could have dealt a severe blow to the Persians at Thermopylae. But they couldn't have brought their full power to bear since the pass was so narrow. There was no room for maneuver. A formation of 300 wouldn't have had the layered effect of a legion with its slingers, pila, and so forth. This would have negated one of their main advantages.

The Spartans were soldiers from childhood. They took in soldiering with their mothers' milk. They had the physique of Greek gods from non-stop conditioning. They were the total bada$$es of their time. The Romans would have done well, but they weren't as ferocious as the Spartans. Even Alexander the Great thought twice about fighting them and negotiated instead. If they had possessed steel rather than bronze they would have been the stuff of nightmares. With Roman equipment they would have been nigh on unstoppable.

Answer 2

The Romans were engineers. The first thing they would do is build the camp with an elevated field of dirt, with a thicket of pikes for a fence around it. Every tree within a 100 mile radius would be cut down to make the siege engines. It was hard to attack the Romans in such a defensive mode of fighting. The Romans always anticipated victory by overwhelming the opposing army with a moving wall of infantry flanking the seige engines, and backed up with cavalry.

Fighting with such an attack plan within a narrow canyon road would not be plan A for a Roman general.

Indeed, Alexander the Great used the same tactic as the Spartans later on in history.

Answer 3

I believe that at the end of the day it was not an issue of hardware.

I have not seen the movie yet, but I know the story all too well.

I would dare to suggest that you even if you have placed 300 marines, they wouldn’t have a better fate.

The issue is that 300 free men from the aristocracy of Sparta went, knowing (them, their families and indeed all Greece) full well that they will not come back. They stood they fought and dropped to the last man. The sign in their tomb claimed that they have fulfilled their obligation to their duty and law.

Now, in this sense would 300 Romans do that? Most of them were mercenaries. Would 300 Marines do that? I doupt it.

Answer 4

Truethfully, I think they could have done better. By the time of the Roman empire, there were major advances in Military Technology what with the coming of the iron age. The ballista was invented and so was the catapult. 300 trained romans with those pieces of hardware could have easilly taken out more. When you look at Roman vs Spartan phalynx strategies, Roman leigons had the upper hand anyway based soley on the fact that they had the greek method to look at, disect, and refine.

Answer 5

i think romans would do better than the spartans did just give them an excellent commander like julius ceaser and give them a few artilleries like 2 cannopults and atleast 10 ballista guns and they would kick persia's *** all the way back to asia! but thats if the romans wouldnt retreat first after they see the size of the persian army and also this is like saying if you put 87000 spartans at cannea do you think they would beat hannibal? i dont think so but as for the 300 romans i think they would be able to win

Answer 6

possibly, only if they were led by right guy