Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spartan vs. Roman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spartan vs. Roman

    Greece's finest warriors vs. a Roman...


    How do you think it would go, and why?

  • #2
    Sparta vs rome

    Historicly Sparta was a shadow of her former self when Rome expanded Her hegemony over Greece. If you take the best Spartan army against Rome at her peak I pick Rome she could field more troops and had a greater economic base.

    The legions were far more adaptable to different situations than
    hoplite style warfare. Look at Pyrrus' campaigns in Italy the Romans wore him down. He won several battles but at great cost , hence the term Pyrric victory.

    Comment


    • #3
      No, no, I mean warrior vs warrior.

      I mean, Spartans were a Warrior people, while Rome had a trained military, Spartans were born into it.

      And Pyrrhus was cut off from reinforcements and a sound HQ. So that kinda went against him too.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Spartan vs. Roman

        Originally posted by Storm
        Greece's finest warriors vs. a Roman...


        How do you think it would go, and why?
        I believe the Roman would have outfought the Spartan -- the difference is one of era and technology. Its like comparing a Confederate soldier of 1863 to a modern-day British Tommy. The guy with the automatic rifle will win. In like manner, the Roman -- better equipped than the Spartan -- would prevail.

        JS
        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


        "Never pet a burning dog."

        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
        http://www.mormon.org
        http://www.sca.org
        http://www.scv.org/
        http://www.scouting.org/

        Comment


        • #5
          I think that the comparison is a very hard one to decide. Putting technology aside, Roman tactics were much more advanced than those of Sparta and did seem more adaptable. Soldier on soldier, however, is really hard. I assume the Roman would be a regular army soldier, not just one who was serving during a campaign. In that case, it would be a death struggle. To be fair, I think the Spartan would kill the Roman and then die of mortally inflicted wounds.
          "Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for"
          "The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step, and a lot of bitching"

          Comment


          • #6
            Rome vs Sparta

            I thought you were talking armies.

            On an individual basis I would still go with the Roman.
            The style of combat they were trained for would favor the legonary in individual combat. The whole point of hoplite warfare was the mass and use of the thrusting spear. the legionary was trained to close with his enemy and fight with the sword. All he has to do is get inside the reach of the spear and the advantage is all his.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hmm...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Storm
                Hmm...
                Hmmm? Are you disagreeing, or did we miss your point?

                JS
                Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                "Never pet a burning dog."

                RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                http://www.mormon.org
                http://www.sca.org
                http://www.scv.org/
                http://www.scouting.org/

                Comment


                • #9
                  Spartan would win

                  In warrior versus warrior combat a Spartan warrior would win. Greeks honored individual bravery in combat, the Spartans especially, and many warriors were trained from very young ages. The Romans army was less about individual bravery and valour than about the army fighting together effectively and in a disciplined manor. So if we're talking about army versus army, a Roman army would win.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Spartan would win

                    Originally posted by Sam
                    In warrior versus warrior combat a Spartan warrior would win. Greeks honored individual bravery in combat, the Spartans especially, and many warriors were trained from very young ages. The Romans army was less about individual bravery and valour than about the army fighting together effectively and in a disciplined manor. So if we're talking about army versus army, a Roman army would win.
                    Sam--
                    Thanks for making your first post, and making it in WTTA!

                    You're right in everything you say about the Roman -- as long as you are talking about "classical Romans" -- I suspect a Roman of Marcus Aurelius's time or later would be just as good in open order.

                    Another question -- my understanding of the Greeks is that the "typical soldier" fought in a phalanx. I have fought with a 12 foot "pike" (shorter than the 16 footer used by a Greek), and can tell you that unless you are well-defended, a swordsman one on one will get you just about every time.

                    JS
                    Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                    Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                    "Never pet a burning dog."

                    RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                    http://www.mormon.org
                    http://www.sca.org
                    http://www.scv.org/
                    http://www.scouting.org/

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmm.. by a disagreement, but I think Sam got it. Maybe.

                      What I was saying was that yes, the Romans we think of were some of the best fighters in the world. However, the Romans themselves were taught to fight in their formations, not in individual battles. I even made an equation about the Romans and tribes they fought. The average length of a broadsword was about 3 feet. The man weilding it would need at least 2 feet on either side to swing. This 5-7 foot expanse pitted him against at LEAST 3 very armored and highly trained legionnaires. However, the Spartan was actually born into his role as a warrior and was trained to fight both in phalanxes and the individual fights they would be in. Not only did they fight with their spears (in formation) but individually they were armed with a shortsword not unlike a gladius and they WERE the best warriors in Greece and possibly in the entire world. At least at their peak.

                      But this topic did exactly what I thought it would do...which isn't bad...but it went like this:

                      Spartan vs. Roman

                      And turned (beneficially) into this:
                      Warrior vs. Soldier

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Storm
                        Hmm.. by a disagreement, but I think Sam got it. Maybe.

                        What I was saying was that yes, the Romans we think of were some of the best fighters in the world. However, the Romans themselves were taught to fight in their formations, not in individual battles. I even made an equation about the Romans and tribes they fought. The average length of a broadsword was about 3 feet. The man weilding it would need at least 2 feet on either side to swing. This 5-7 foot expanse pitted him against at LEAST 3 very armored and highly trained legionnaires. However, the Spartan was actually born into his role as a warrior and was trained to fight both in phalanxes and the individual fights they would be in. Not only did they fight with their spears (in formation) but individually they were armed with a shortsword not unlike a gladius and they WERE the best warriors in Greece and possibly in the entire world. At least at their peak.

                        But this topic did exactly what I thought it would do...which isn't bad...but it went like this:

                        Spartan vs. Roman

                        And turned (beneficially) into this:
                        Warrior vs. Soldier
                        Your calculations are faulty. A man with a "broadsword" would not need that much space. As a man who has fought in a shield wall, shoulder to shoulder, it works with a 40" sword, which is longer, IIRC, than a Marcomanni warrior would have used.

                        I was not aware that Spartans were trained to fight individually with a short sword (not a gladius -- they hadn't been invented yet if you mean the "Spanish sword" used by the Romans).

                        Stop by an SCA fighter practice -- they're all over West VA (I can send details if you need them) and take a look at shield wall tactics -- space between men is suicide. Shields should overlap to avoid oblique attacks.

                        JS
                        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                        "Never pet a burning dog."

                        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                        http://www.mormon.org
                        http://www.sca.org
                        http://www.scv.org/
                        http://www.scouting.org/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I didn't mean the gladius or the spanish sword, the spatha, just a short sword. But each tribesman would be presented by three legionnaires in his attempt to attack their shield wall and be in the way of their three short stabbing swords.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Storm
                            I didn't mean the gladius or the spanish sword, the spatha, just a short sword. But each tribesman would be presented by three legionnaires in his attempt to attack their shield wall and be in the way of their three short stabbing swords.
                            Regardless of the sword, they would not be that spread out. It's suicide.

                            JS
                            Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                            Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                            "Never pet a burning dog."

                            RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                            http://www.mormon.org
                            http://www.sca.org
                            http://www.scv.org/
                            http://www.scouting.org/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Wait...I think we're talking about different things...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X