Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Legionaries V.S Spartans
#16
Quote:It really depends on many factors such as terrain, leaders, equipment...

Let's not forget the Spartan led under Leonidas at Thermopylae were no less well trained than the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra, in which the Thebans were able to outwit and outsmart the predictable Spartans. The Spartans were so conservative and traditional that they refused to evolve better techniques and essentially taught they Thebans how to fight them.

The Spartans refused to build walls and siege equipment even, that's how traditional they were. Had the warrior state of Sparta kept their excellent agoge training in addition to exploiting new fighting techniques they could have dominated the known world, but unfortunately they didn't.

That said even though I tend to more interested in Roman history, I find the Spartans exceptionally interesting

There is much truth in that Matt. However, I would add that:

The Spartan mirage presents an image of the Spartans as being more conservative militarily than they actually were. They were constantly evolving. But your comment about the Thebans having been taught by them is true. I think it was Agesilaos II (no friend of Thebes) who had said the Spartans should not fight the same enemies too often for precisely the reasons you suggest.

The Spartans only finally built walls when they needed them. Originally their men were their walls. They were far from alone in their attitude to seige equipment. Few Greeks of the time needed or specialised in this. Sparta was not originally an empire-building force. It had conquered the territory it required and controlled the rest into acquiesence as necessary. Only very occasionally did they try and subdue a city and they used other techniques.

Ironically, the Spartans had no desire to dominate the world. That is neither unfortunate or otherwise. They dominated the Peloponnese for a few hundred years and influenced the wider Greek world. That was the limit of their ambition. When they briefly acquired an empire (resulting from the defeat of Athens in 401 BC) they proved their system was totally unsuitable to handling it. And the imperial ambitions that did surface were usually the personal desires of key individuals (Pausanias or Agesilaos) which were not usually supported by the state. Any Spartan adventurer king or regent faced exactly the same problems that Hannibal did with Carthage - division, emnity, opposition, jealousy, outright hostility and machiavelian manoeuvring at home.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#17
Quote:Something you may consider. Spartans usually numbered around 10,000. While Roman soldiers numbered in the tens of thousands. They also have auxiliaries from other nations and tribes...

The Spartans never fielded the full quota. The 10,000 was probably the very maximum they had of Spartiates at the peak of the city. I think the largest ever fielded was 5,000 at Plataia in 479BC. Their armies were always composed of Periokoi and allies as well as citizen troops (usually more of the former two groups). Like the Romans, the Spartans almost always utilised auxiliary and subservent nations and tribes.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#18
Yes i agree, the main reason why spartan warriors were almost unmatched in their fighting abilty is because only the strongest most tough men could survive the rigerous spartan training. What im trying to get at is even if the spartans had ambitions and they succeded and conquering greece and other lands, they wouldent be able to increase their spartan population past 20,000 and they would have to rely on mercinaries and light troops to defend their borders. In short, Sparta was very wise not to expand and become an empire, because i have a feeling it would not last very long.
Reply
#19
Quote:A Roman Imperial Army at the peak of its all-conquering efficiency could still be liable to defeat. Not likely, but still possible.
Very possible! The idea that the Roman army was an invincible military machine doesn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny: there was seldom a period in Roman history when they didn't suffer some military reverse. Even in the late first century, arguably the 'classic' period of legionary development, there were plenty of defeats. The army that Trajan used to conquer Dacia was effectively the same one defeated massively at Tapae two decades before. Suetonius Paulinus beat Boudica, but his legate Cerialis had his force annihilated only a few weeks previously. And so on.

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...
Nathan Ross
Reply
#20
Quote:Yes i agree, the main reason why spartan warriors were almost unmatched in their fighting abilty is because only the strongest most tough men could survive the rigerous spartan training. What im trying to get at is even if the spartans had ambitions and they succeded and conquering greece and other lands, they wouldent be able to increase their spartan population past 20,000 and they would have to rely on mercinaries and light troops to defend their borders. In short, Sparta was very wise not to expand and become an empire, because i have a feeling it would not last very long.

Well, you sort of answer your own point there. If you are further interested Daniel, I suggest you start reading widely. There are two aspects to Spartan history - the well known almost common currency of standard Spartan idioms and fables; and the real story which is far more complicated, textured, and fascinating.

The agogic training was only part of the formula. The Spartan army was almost entirely composed of officers. Their field manoeuvres where more the result of every man knowing his place and following orders, as much as dedication to bravery and instilled discipline.

The Spartans never had serious empire-building intentions outside of the Peloponnese. Their system and way of life came about as a reaction to having to control vast enough swathes of Lakonia and Messenia. It was a very tiered and heirarchical system. However, it did change and change significantly over time. The standard 'classic' view of Sparta applies really to the 6thC & 5thC BC. Things began to change considerably in the 4thC and more so into the 3rdC. By the 2ndC it would have been barely recognisable in terms of governance, appearance and its military structure. The acquisition of empire when it happened, almost accidentally, not only didn't suit their system - but was detrimental to it.

Hellenistic Spartan kings attempted to ape the superpower Successor monarchs, without the real means to do so. From post Leuktra onwards the clarion-call was always an attempt to restore the old constitution with variable success, and to reannexe Messenia. Kleomenes III came closest and very nearly beat the Makedonians out of Greece. He restored the long since abandoned agogic system and enfranchised thousands of non-Spartans as new citizens (a regular and periodic practice) into his newly sarrisa-equipped army and proceeded to beat all comers. Ultimately, he gambled and was unlucky (Sellasia), but was perhaps the last great Spartan warrior King. By the time of the dubious Nabis, Sparta's hired mercenaries were indeed defending its (much reduced) borders.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#21
Quote:... 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]
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#22
Which is probably why the Agoge and its ceremonies such as the diamastigosis had turned into an almost gladiatorial spectacle in the first, second and third centuries AD, when Rome decided to build a massive arena around the original Temenos where the ancient ceremony of Spartan youngsters trying to steal cheeses to bring them to the temple of Artemis Orthia being whipped in the act, sometimes even to death if we may believe Cicero : Tusculanae Disputationes, II, 34.

For the excavation of the Theatre built around the temple of Artemis Orthia see:
The sanctuary of Artemis Orthia at Sparta (1929) by R.M.Dawkins.

For Plutarchus description of the Agoge see :

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Ro...nica*.html

Of course the Spartan Mirage has existed throughout the ages and in some or another form still does. What a Roman Legion could have accomplished against a Spartan army is a difficult and anachronistic question of course. I tend to think they would have easily crushed any Spartan force. Not only because of the different fighting techniques and background of each on the opposing sides, but because Romans in the end fought for nothing other than the glory of the Empire, which is an ideal. Smile

If you want to read up on the Spartan army read "The Spartan Army" by J.F.Lazenby
ISBN-10: 0865161151 | ISBN-13: 978-0865161153 | Publication Date: November 1986

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply
#23
Quote:My own opinion is - Spartan hoplite versus Roman legionary may well see the Spartan winning; but the Spartan army at it's very best would not be a match for Rome's industrial approach to war.

I always seem to come to this conclusion whenever I think upon this issue though I have yet to put it as succintly as you did. Confusedmile:
Reply
#24
Perhaps as a closing thought it is worth remembering that the Spartans never remotely considered having Roman troops in their armies. Most Lakedaimonians had probably never heard of the Latin tribe and its seven hills.

Later - much, much later - some Roman emperor/general wanted to have a Spartan (and Makedonian) regiment in his army. He sort of liked collecting notable historic units I suppose.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply
#25
And? Alexander Severus was a bit obsessed with his namesake. That comparison is kind of moot, really, considering Sparta came before Rome and was thus of historic renown. The Spartans could never have known Rome would become the greatest empire ever.
Reply
#26
Quote:And? Alexander Severus was a bit obsessed with his namesake. That comparison is kind of moot, really, considering Sparta came before Rome and was thus of historic renown. The Spartans could never have known Rome would become the greatest empire ever.

I was making an observation, nothing more. Just trying to put this into some kind of context (which is admittedly difficult). As for the greatest empire ever - well there might be a few who could claim that - but let's not go there!

In many ways the whole discussion becomes a non sequitur - but it is interesting. Perhaps the only way one could resolve it is to consider when it was realistically possible that Romans might have faced Spartans across a battlefield. It is obviously not possible to set the classical Spartan warrior (peak period perhaps 450BC?) against one of the Roman apex periods (perhaps 50BC? - I'm no expert on the Romans but I'm guessing Caesar's soldiers were about as good as they got). Therefore, we have to look to the occasions this might conceivably have occured actually, historically, and I think there are four possibilities:

Firstly, we have the fact that a number of Spartan kings, regents and princes campaigned in Southern Italy, usually in support of Taras against local Calabrians, Apulians, Lucanians etc. Generally they didn't take sizeable Spartan units with them, but they may have had some, on occasion. In this instance Romans may have witnessed such events even if not participating in them. The possibility for some interaction does exist here, however. But it is unlikely they fought. If some incident in this theatre or war had sparked a confrontation, then this is the scenario I think most likely to have seen a first meeting.

Secondly, we have the 1st Punic War. Sparta had by then been producing condotierres for some time and Xanthippos is perhaps one of the most famous. His reorganising and leading Carthaginian forces to victory at the River Bagradas meant a Spartan and a Roman commander had squared off - but did any troops? Again it seems unlikely. He was probably accompanied by some advisors and colleagues, but not substantial Spartan infantry units.

Thirdly, we have the rather sorrowful state that Sparta got into under the tyrant Nabis when they fought off the Romans under Flamininus. His troops included mercenaries, pirates and perhaps a few citizens. These troops would have been very unlikely to have been hoplites by that period. Probably thureophoroi or similar. But they did fight. Not Spartan warriors at their peak though.

Fourthly, and perhaps finally we have the fact that Spartans fought during the Roman Civil Wars at both Pharsalos (48BC) and Philippi (42BC). They managed ultimately to be on the winning side and due to this (and for perhaps other reasons) they became a Free city under the principate. At both of these battles they were obviously allied troops and may well have faced opponent allies rather than Romans - but who can say for sure? How these particular troops were armed is anybody's guess. I assume, like many of the more powerful Successor kingdoms that still survived they may have Romanised their equipment and tactics - but I really don't know.
[size=75:2kpklzm3]Ghostmojo / Howard Johnston[/size]

[Image: A-TTLGAvatar-1-1.jpg]

[size=75:2kpklzm3]Xerxes - "What did the guy in the pass say?" ... Scout - "Μολὼν λαβέ my Lord - and he meant it!!!"[/size]
Reply


Forum Jump: