For the purpose of this question we will put Alexander the Great and his Macadonians on the Greek side. This would be an interesting war. Both sides had great similarities. Both had a preponderence of heavy infrantry. Both had good or better technology. Both had the same basic equipment-sword, shield and spear. Both had heavy infrantry formations as their main battle units. And both had good and superbly trained soldiers.
However, there were differences. Greece and Macadonia had all together in their native land at their peak a population of 5,000,000. The Romans had at their peak in their native land approximatley 7,000,000 - 8,000,000. In the Alexandrian Empire there were probably 40,000,000 inhabitants. In the Roman Empire at their peak there were(according to Gibbons Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) 120,000,000 inhabitants. Just the sheer size of Rome's population would give it victory.
Furthermore although they were similarly organised(the Romans having learn't from the Greeks) there were differences. Greek and Macadonian organisation consisted for the Greeks of PENTECOSTARKS (25-37 men)
EMMOTEA(100-148 men):LOCRI(200-296 men):MOREA(400-592 men) and for the Macadonians: HEMOLOCHIAN(8 men):LOCIA(16 men):DILOCHIA(32 men):TETRACHY(64 men):TAXARCHY(128 men):SPIERA(SYNTAGMA-later hellanistic adaptaton)-(256 men):CHILLOCHIA(512 men):MEROACHIA(1,024 men):PHALANGE(2,048 men):TELA(4,096 men):PHALANX(8,192 men). Both organisations were not only at best(under Alexander the Great) moderately flexable but also were hampered by their equipment. The 16 foot long SARRISA of the Macadonian Phalanx was so incumberdant that the thing could turn around and once it got going it was committed upon it's course or to destruction. The Phalanx of the Greeks too was not only somewhat inflexable in formation but also in mentality as it was the aim of every Greek Phalanx to just barge their way through.
However in contrast the organisation of the Romans was something to behold. They were organised into , CONTABURNIUMS(8 men): CENTURIES(80 men): MANTIPLES(160 men):COHORTS(480 men)and LEGIONS:
(3 lines of one mantiple from each cohort in each-making a number equivilant to 3 cohorts in each line, one double number one cohort, cavalry at the wings(attatched to the legion), auxilury cohorts(attatched to the legion), artillery, logistics, medical, suppley, provost marshal, fire units, specialists and command. The organisation, method and training was far more flexible, and so important in battle-manouverable. Their three lines: HASTATI: PRINCEPTS:TIARRII(PILUS in imperial times) rotated every 15 minutes. So you were faced with an army that had multiple gnawing and rotating teeth. And there was always that lethal PRIMI COHORT(the number one double reserve cohort of 800 men under the chief centurion of the Legion- THE PRIMUS PILUS INERTIA. Also because each cohort had one mantiple in each of the lines you had nine units of flexabiltiy in the battle front of each legion x 3> Such flexability would and did win battles continuously against not only Greek but also Macadonian armies.
In the battle of Cynocepalae in 197 B.C. the Romans lured the inflexable Macadonian Phalanx onto rough ground and destoyed it. At Magnesia in 171 B.C. the Romans hit the Phalanx in the flanks with cavalry and destoyed it. The phalanx being inflexable that it couldn't cope. At Pynda in 162 B.C. a Tribune(some grades of Tribune commanded legions in those days-although we are not told which grade the Tribune was) on his own initiative ordered 30 mantiples(the equivilant of a legion) to swing around and catch the Macadonian Phalanx in the rear. This destoyed the Macadonian army. And the Romans took care of the Greeks much more easily, even the Spartans when they later defeated king Nabis. The Phalanx-the main weapon of battle of the Hellenistic peoples could not measure up.
Also the only Greek or Macadonians who were trained for years and years were the Spartans and the Macadonians. However the Romans put their legionaries through two years of basic training(THE AMURA) and three years of advanced training(THE ARMABILICA) and trained them thereafter. An example is the Roman formation known as the TURTLE(TORQUEDO) which consisted of men completely surrounded with shiels. This formation was tested with a fully armed war chariot with two horses standing on top of the formation. It was only broken ONCE. When the Jews poured down flamming oil on it as it was comming up a ramp at the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The Romans learn't the best training of the day and as Josephus said " They fight and march as one. They constantly practice. Their manouvers are bloodless warfare and their warfare is sugius (bloody) manouvers.". So well trained were the Romans and so deadly, lethal and efficient were their fomations that they would certainly win a war with ancient Hellanism.
Their equipment too. The Romans had shields which were made of heavy wood cased with hardened(boiled) leather and some metal. If you know anything about hardened (boiled) leather you know how tough it is. The Roman shields were far harder than the Greek and Macadonian shields. In fact in the battle of Cahhrea in 53 B.C. when a poorly trained and supplied Roman army met defeat at the hands of the Parthians with their composite bow, the shields held out so much that the arrows were peircing the armour and pinning them to the Roman's bodies-but not through the shields. The shields strength held. Those arrows(even the ordinary arrows that they generally used from the composite bow) would make collanders of the Greek and Macadonian shields. The Romans also had a much better spear. THE PILUM. They had discovered in their wars with the Gauls that a formation of heavy spearmen could be broken by a rush of swordsmen upon it. The pilum was weakened at the end so it snapped and bent the enemie's shields. Their shields then were so weighted down that they became useless-they had to throw them away. Then there was the dreaded GLADIUS-the short Roman broadsword. Trained to stab rather than slash but also very effective in slashing this sword was so engineered that it had a balanced broad bit three quarters down the end and was so deadly and lethel that when it was introduced to the armies of the Hellanistic world it was feared as something new, novel, deadly and terrible. It cut bodies like nothing before it. Also the Romans had a vast variety of equipment such as the Ancient Greeks and Macadonians never dreampt of . Ten BALISTA(huge rock throwing macines-range of up to 360 lbs to up to 400 yards) sixty CATIPULTS( arrow and spear throwing machines) were attatched to each legion. The Romans also had giant spear throwing machines(RASPIOBALISTAS) which threw six foot long bolts-one in the seige of Jerusalem killed at once 12 men. They would lay siege to a city with a vast array of equipment and by building series of wooden ramps up to the wall and ditches and walls to keep the defenders in and any relief for the besiege out(eg: ALESIA-51 B.C.) At the siege of Massada they were faced with a mountain with a ramp of dirt going about a quarter way to the top. They built up the ramp and then sent a siege tower up it. As it went up back gears adjusted the thing as to make it's centre of gravity even to the angle of the ramp. It got to the top-they captured the place. The Romans had such rescources and technology that they are often compared to modern societies. The Greeks and Macadonian would not be able to stand against such.
And of course we must not forget Alexander the Great. Although the Romans lost a whole lot of battles against military geniuses (PYRRHUS and HANNIBLE) they wore them down and eventually won. In all these battles they made the enemy pay so much of a price that the term PYRRHIC VICTORY is a result of this. Alexander might have defeated Roman armies(although they had developed much much more at their peak) but even he, even with the rescourses of the east would have eventually lost. For at the start of the first Punic War-Rome could put into the field a maximum of 70,000 cavalry and 700,000 infrantry. Most of them heavy infrantry and trained much better than the east. Also the Romans has such resolve. When a town was being besieged in the early days in Italy the people told the Roman commander that he would never take the town as they had provisions to last ten years. The Roman commander replied that he would therefore take it in the eleventh. Seeing such resolve the town immidiatley surrendered. When Hannible had destoyed the largest Roman army put into the field up to that time at CANNAE in 216 B.C.- boys and slaves guarded the walls of Rome. Such was the resolve of a people who took 60 years take NUMANTIA a city in Spain that it was a resolve that would definitely win that war.
There is an interesting little story. After the battle of Carrhea the Parthians put the survivors they caught to work guarding their own frontiers. About 200 of them decided after a while to get out of there. They were guarding the northern frontier against the northern Turkoman tribes the Massagatae. They could not go west as it was well guarded. They therefore went east hoping somehow to find their way home. They travelled eastward and fell in with some Huns. There they took service with the Huns. Sometime later the Han Chinese besieged the Hunnish capital. They had almost taken the place except in the main gateway where a group of strange unknown soldiers were holding their entire army off with some strange formation(it was the turtle) Eventually a negotiation was decided upon. In return for their withdrawral they were taken to be in the service of the Han emperor who used them as his personal bodyguard. They eventually intermarried and stayed there. And this was part of the badly trained army of Marcus Licinius Crassus who had lost the battle of Carrhea. Such is an indication of the way such a war as your question asks. Against the Persians, against the Massagatae, against the northern European barbarians, against most empires of history-yes the Hellanistic civilization would win. But against the mightest empire for it's age in history-against Rome>the ultimate empire-NO.
Hope this helps.
2007-03-15 19:30:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Romans. Their battle formations and professional army would have smashed the Greeks even more easily than they finally beat the Carthaginians. Under Alexander the Greeks conquered most of the known world at the time. But the Greeks couldn't hold an empire together. After Alexander's death the conquered territory was fragmented and divided among the Greek generals. Rome lasted hundreds of years under many rulers. It was the might of the Roman army that kept the Roman empire together.
2007-03-15 13:15:32
·
answer #2
·
answered by Tom 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Romans. The Greeks are good fighters and always have been. No doubt about it. So are the Turks for that matter. They both fought admirably as U.S. allies in the Korean War.
However, in the case of the Romans you are dealing with a people who seem to have been downright unbeatable. They occasionally lost battles, but always won their wars. Even Alexander the Great's Macedonia and legendary Sparta eventually succumbed to the Romans.
2007-03-15 19:57:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Brennus 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
If you pit the Romans against the Greeks on flat terrain and the same number of troops and Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar as leaders, you would probably find the Romans the winners, because:
Here are the pros and cons of the Ancient Romans and Greeks:
Romans:
Pros:
Flexible shield walls
harder and larger shields
more advanced armor
Pilums
short and effective Gladius swords
Commanders that studied their enemies and then improvised in their traditional techniques.
A crazy determination.
Catapults
Ballista
a system that puts fresh troops in the front lines every so many minutes
Scouts that knew the land
Give them a day and they can build a huge fort
every soldier is a construction worker
Roman soldiers don't shirk work like other armies.
You can't make a surprise attack at night, because every night they make a miniature fortress.
Romans have better armor then the Greeks.
Cons of the Romans:
If you catch them in the woods they can't form ranks.
If you divide them and fight them one on one they will lose, they are really bad at fighting alone, they are trained to fight as a team.
If you could get oil on their shields when they are in Turtle formation they are toast, (get it).
If you catch them in a fog and play guerrilla tactics on them it could be disastrous for the Romans.
They follow their commanders to the death, if you could get a spy as a commander or kill the commander the Romans would be doomed.
Cut them from their supply trains.
Romans use messengers a lot while on a campaign, if you could infiltrate there messenger detachments it could be bad.
Fight them day and night, always keep your troops down to groups of twelve or twenty men so when they do get you they only get a little. The problem is Romans have a crazy amount of durability and resolve, it could take perhaps years and you would have to keep them on defense, if they are on offense they will just take out all your cities and headquarters.
In other words hitting the Roman's weak spots is pretty hard.
Greeks:
Pros:
While the Greeks fight as a team in phalanxes, they are excellent swordsman on their own, and sense each is taught logic and philosophy and molded to have opinions, each soldier can come up with brilliant solutions, the Roman ordinary recruit don't have that capability.
The Greeks have Calvary wile the Romans have hardly any.
Greek Calvary is much more flexible then Roman infantry or Calvary.
Cons:
Greeks have 16 foot spears, while fighting other nations these are useful fighting Romans with these humongous spears only help the Romans, they have awesome tactics to break up spear formations.
Greeks have longer swords. When the Romans engage in sword to sword they focus on darting in and stabbing wile the Greeks swing their swords and use the edge. Problem is in tight quarters and Romans all squeezed together Greek swords are useless, especially sense the Romans are always advancing.
Breastplates/Back-plates/helmets/swords/greaves/spear tips and shields are all made of bronze, while all the armor and weapons of the Romans are all made of steel.
Heavy inflexible phalanxes are vulnerable to Ballista and Catapult barrages.
Once the Roman's cut the Greek spears to stubs the Romans will keep moving and crowding the Greeks. The Greeks will be so crowded that their swords will only get in each others way, while the Roman Gladius will dart about.
Greeks have circular shields, while very useful in combat with other nationalities they are at a disadvantage when it comes to fighting Romans with huge body size shields.
Now that you know most of the pros and cons of the ancient Romans and Greeks I can give you my ideas:
In my opinion the Greeks will probably have a thirty to twenty percent chance at winning. The only way the Greek forces would win is if they simultaneously attack with both Calvary and Infantry at the same time, they would have to force the Romans into a tight place by splitting the Calvary to hit the flanks of the Romans. The Romans will try to spread out and hit the exposed flanks of the Greeks and get room to maneuver, thus forcing the Greeks to retreat or spread out, therefore letting the Romans hit with their main force at any given point like the center. The Greek Calvary will strike both flanks and rears of the Romans before they have time to spread out.
The Phalanxes would then be in the middle, they would line up until they are one mighty wall of flesh and steel and charge into the bottled Romans, (If they can bottle the Romans, if the phalanxes arrive to late the Romans will hit the inward flanks of the Calvary, thus making the Greeks to strike simultaneously). The Romans Infantry would rush forward and break the phalanxes's pikes by having every other Roman heavy infantryman catch the spears on their shields and press, the second ranks and third would also lean their weight as well, which the spear would either slide of or snap, but if it does not the other half part of the Romans would advance between the spears and slice them in half, thereby stripping the main weapon from the Greek infantry.
The Greeks would have to try and kill the Romans quickly because the Romans by this point would have sent flankers on roundabout routes to avoid Greek Calvary. The Romans are really good at fighting in really really close quarters and would probably have had two or three Greeks dead for every one they lost or was wounded. The Greeks would have to use the stabbing technique which the are not as used to.
You can figure out the outcome, it would probably take the Romans just under an hour or more to get flankers past the enemy Calvary, and about twenty thirty minutes to break all the spears, (The Greeks are not dumb either, the would probably try and keep their spears from touching enemy shields and would inflict a decent amount of damage, especially seeing that their main weapon is the pike/spear). By the time the Greek Calvary are driven mostly out of the way the flankers would come and hit the rear of the Greeks. The Greeks would or could be separated into three different groups and at that point would be surrounded or at least put into a route.
The chances of the Greeks winning is slim in this battle plan, but it really looks like the only way to stall the Romans from using all their artillery and troops and maneuverability. The only way they would win is using their phalanxes and they would have to use them fast and be forced to win or tip the tables within thirty minutes, not a hopeful scenario.
You can see now how the Romans would easily beat the Greeks, but still, the Greeks could win if they beat the Romans in close quarter, only problem is that is where the Romans shine.
Hopefully this has taught you something about the two ancient superpowers.
2015-02-27 16:07:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by WillUlfbert 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
look up the battle of Seracuse, not sure if the spelling is right. It was the Greek system of a loose confederacy of independent city sates that caused thier down fall in a war with the Roman Emipre, which had a more unified Republic.
2007-03-15 13:45:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Coyote81 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Romans studied the Greeks and also came up with several battle strategies that the Greeks never dreamed of.
2007-03-15 13:17:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Roman's were more advanced. Like asking if the armies of WW1 and WW2 would fight against each other, who do YOU think would win? And that was only a 25 year difference in technology.
2007-03-15 13:15:29
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is almost certain it would be the Romans, only from the point of view that the Greeks were great scholars, philosophers, scientists and mathematicians and the Romans had great war leaders and war training with hordes of soldiers and the head of the church!!
2007-03-15 13:13:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by kissaled 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
ROMANS!!! I have no proof as to why, its just an instinct to go with the ancient Romans.
2007-03-15 13:21:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by icedragon_58 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Romans; after all, they did fight and Rome conquered ancient Greece.
2007-03-15 13:11:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by adphllps 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
You can get Men of War for free from this link: http://bit.ly/Y2OeYG
it's a perfectly working link, no scam !
Discover a new way to sharpen your mind and raise your adrenaline with Men of War: Assault Squad.
It's a really nice game.
2014-09-23 12:41:26
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋