How would the Roman army stand up against the Spartans?

Answer 1

Sigh ... let's look at this seriously for a moment.

(1) The Spartan army in the field had the following composition: http://www.sparta.markoulakispublications.org.uk/index.php?id=94&pg=2

"From Thucydides we have a detailed synopsis of the Spartan phalanx’s structure at the fifth century B.C. The Spartan phalanx’s front organized on a hoplites’ row of eight men in width. One fourth of the rows put together an enomotia (ενωμοτία-αι). one fourth of the enomotiai formed a pentekostis (πεντηκοστής), under the leadership of a pentekonter. One fourth of the pentekosteis compelled a lochos (λόχος) under the lochagos – seven composed a full ordered Spartan army. In addition, the phalanx will include the agema an elite group of King’s bodyguards as well as a small team of warrior priests, the pythoioi."

That means under one king (the Spartans had two kings) that 3584 men + King's bodyguards and additional warriors. Add the accompanying Helots (squires) with light armor and missile weapons, and you have perhaps 10,000 men in a single Spartan field army.

(2) Contrast that with the Roman Legion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_legion#History of either Republican vintage (approximately 3000 troops?) vs the Marian Legion (4500-6000), not counting auxillary troops.

(3) The Romans could field multiple legions at a time, from 2-10 easily. Their conscription system was top-rate, an so was their training regimen and logistics. The Spartan system trained excellent warriors, but by design resulted in very, very few numbers of their vaunted hoplite infantry actually taking the field. The Roman Legion would likely overwhelm the Spartans with well-ordered missile fire from the javelins before charging. The Spartans and Romans both have similar strengths - well-trained and disciplined heavy infantry behind a shield wall, able to punch through an enemy center with sheer mass and make the entire line collapse.

The difference is in that the Roman tactical units (maniples, cohorts) are so much more flexible than the Spartan hoplite phalanx. The Romans (under a good commander) were able to detach portions of their line for flanking maneuvers on the fly. All the strength of a Spartan army is in the front. Against a well-placed flanking maneuver, or even a wing substantially stronger in mass than theirs (i.e. the Battle of Leuctra) the Spartan army had no chance.

In short, the Romans would pummel the Spartan ranks with javelin fire, rendering gaps in the shield wall; close with the Spartans, lock them in place, and either roll a flank, or just push a portion of their line off the battlefield and rout the Spartan army. Not for nothing did the Romans have one of the greatest empires in history.

Answer 2

Spartans only a standing army of a few thousand
Romans had a standing army somewhere in the millions at the height of the Empire.
Also as stated above it did happen. Romans 1 Spartans 0

Answer 3

discipline and dedication is only one part of warfare. the other is logistics and equipment. I think romans would win just because roman armz was able to deploy the iron based weapons unlike spartans who were equipped with bronze only.

disregard previous. spartans would field iron swords, too. but their tactical formation Phalanx although sturdy, would not stand against better maneuverable legion. further more the Romans would extensivelly use archers and cavalry, that would break the phalanx, outflank it and kill.

Answer 4

Because of their tactics, the Roman legions easily outflanked and beat the Greek phalanxe....it happened in real life.

Whether the Greeks were Spartan or not, would not have made a difference.

Answer 5

Interesting discussion. I have a note for BILSAV

Horatius at the Bridge

But the Consul's brow was sad,
And the Consul's speech was low,
And darkly looked he at the wall,
And darkly at the foe.
"Their van will be upon us
Before the bridge goes down;
And if they once may win the bridge,
What hope to save the town?"

Then out spake brave Horatius,
The Captain of the Gate:
"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
Than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his gods,

"And for the tender mother
Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses
His baby at her breast,
And for the holy maidens
Who feed the eternal flame,
To save them from false Sextus
That wrought the deed of shame?

"Haul down the bridge, Sir Consul,
With all the speed ye may;
I, with two more to help me,
Will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path a thousand
May well be stopped by three.
Now who will stand on either hand,
And keep the bridge with me?"

Then out spake Spurius Lartius;
A Ramnian proud was he:
"Lo, I will stand at thy right hand,
And keep the bridge with thee."
And out spake strong Herminius;
Of Titian blood was he:
"I will abide on thy left side,
And keep the bridge with thee."

"Horatius," quoth the Consul,
"As thou sayest, so let it be."
And straight against that great array
Forth went the dauntless Three.
For Romans in Rome's quarrel
Spared neither land nor gold,
Nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life,
In the brave days of old.

Macaulay

Times change but soldiers fight and die for their comrads and their homes.

Answer 6

the spartans i think they were fools ,sure the stand up and fight to the last man was probably a very brave thing to do in those days .but strategically crap.i mean to die for your cause is senseless once you are dead you cant do any more for it .know what i mean.when they were all dead so was their reason for fighting in the first place::::INSANE.

Answer 7

They did. They burned Sparta to the ground and poured salt into the soil to prevent anything from growing there.

Answer 8

Um... they won.