Legionaries V.S Spartans

[Ghostmojo]

... As Markus mentioned above, what the Romans did have, and the Spartans perhaps did not, was an unbeatable supply and logistics network that allowed them to replace losses and reinforce armies in the field. They could also learn from their mistakes, and were very tenacious. So while Roman armies often lost battles, they seldom lost wars...

This is very true Nathan, but the two cultures had very different modus operandi. It is unwise to compare them. Rome was a growing confederacy. It acquired and incorporated territories into a larger grander plan. It also by definition acquired new citizenry. Sparta had no such plan. Its 'vision' if such a term is appropriate was always consolidation and preservation. Unlike Makedon, it had no desire to control the whole of Greece and have to garrison it. It is true that during its brief fling with empire it had harmosts (governors) dotted here, there and everywhere, but the system was unstable and unreliable (as often where the harmosts).

Sparta's military might was in many ways accidental. It sought to control Lakedaimon - the territory of the Spartans. This generally consisted of Lakonia and Messenia. Apart from keeping them from building power bases to attack her, she had no great interest in what the other Greeks did. Her influence such as it was, was to build separate alliances with different Greek cities. The Peloponnesian League (a modern term) consisted of dozens of separate treaties she had with the likes of Korinth, Tegea, Sikyon, Elis etc. Where she led - they would follow.

She did, however, manage to preserve her mistique (the mirage again) right until the very end. Even many eminent Romans wanted to believe that Sparta was somehow related to, or alternately to Troy, possibly the originator of the Roman race.

[sub]500[/sub]