Who was better at fighting Roman Legionnaires or the Spartans?

Answer 1

It is very hard to compare these two. For tactics, they were evenly matched in innovations that led to victory. The Greek Hoplites use of the turtle phalanx was legendary, and the Spartans, who were equivalent to today's special forces, were amazing warriors.

The Legionaries, in General were not 'special' put they were very disciplined. They also had the advantage of superior technology. This alone would prove the Greeks undoing. The Hoplites and the Spartans were bronze technology before the mass production of iron weaponry. The Roman legion is securely Iron age.

So, if I had to choose, I would choose the Legion. Only because of better tech, not tactics.

Answer 2

You can't really say whos *better* because they fought in completely different time periods. The Legionnaires were around AD 1, and the Spartans were hundreds of years before that. They had very different equipment because of their time periods. But the Spartans were bred, born, raised, and died to fight. They lived for Sparta, and lived without fear. The Legionnaires are really only known as deadly because they came at a time where Rome was conquering all. I'm sure you can do much research on the internet.

Answer 3

Uhh... the ol' "who does it better" question. The answer is that it's really hard to compare these groups and that the Spartans were not the "best" as everyone assumes they were - yeah I said that even though I loved "300".

The Spartans lost a lot of battles and no one seems to remember. They lost to the Thebans and the Macedonians to name a few.

The Romans also got their *** handed to them by a few groups but they recovered better on the whole thanks to numbers of troops, logistics (supply), tactics (Spartans hardly had any but "let's form up in a square") and adaptability to new enemies and terrain.

The Romans were way better at warring than the Spartans; hence the 1000 years of their empire

Answer 4

Legionnaires, because they were tactically flexible. The Spartans were inexorable and devastating if they maintained the phalanx, but were exposed and consequentially weak once the formation broke.

In fact, the Romans eventually subjugated the Spartans, having defeated their military force hitherto.

Answer 5

Legionnaires, Van Damme.

Answer 6

Both had different military tactics, and both were excellent military men. I would say that the Romans were better conquerers, because of their massive and sucessful empire. The Spartans, however, were earlier, and the Romans even got their tactics of discipline in society and military for success. It's really just up to you.

Answer 7

the spartans lived 500 years earlier the romans,they have been a state of 10000 human beings,they didnt have a huge fleet and that they didnt win on my own the persians. whilst the romans invaded greece the greek city states have been scuffling with one yet another at the same time as in the persian wars they have been united.they couldnt preserve

Answer 8

I would say the Roman Legionnaires: they had a system, archers shoot, kneel down, next roll fire, and so on, wave after wave after wave. The Spartans were more violent, but they were not so savvy.

Answer 9

The Spartans spent their entire lives training to be warriors, of course they were better.

Answer 10

Well apparently the Romans because they did conquer Greece, Sparta included, didn't they?