Legionaries V.S Spartans

[Ghostmojo]

... 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.

It is obviously of great interest to debate this but a bit like saying who would win - an 18thC Prussian musketeer or a 19thC British rifleman? Both fine military traditions, but the time difference and technology would - or should give the advantage to the latter.

A Roman Imperial Army at the peak of its all-conquering efficiency could still be liable to defeat. Not likely, but still possible. This is an army perhaps 500 years after the events at Thermopylai. 500 years was not so great in that age as it has been in recent centuries (the exponential development curve of military technology being somewhat less inclined than say between 1500 and 2000!), but it still mattered.

A Roman army of the earlier hoplite period (using typical tactics of the time) that might have encountered a Spartan army would probably (but not necessarily) have been slaughtered, or broken and run away. The Spartans were beaten at Leuktra because of five factors: (a) the sheer weight of numbers deployed by Epaminondas shattered the line, despite the bravery of the Spartans; (b) the actual Spartiates present were small in comparison to the entire force; © Kleombrotos was brave, but not bright, and still probably partially drunk (from the night before); (d) Epaminondas was an exceptional commander (untypical of Thebes or anywhere else); (e) Thebes had developed some crack troops of its own (Pelopidas' Sacred Band). All of these factors combined to produce this monumental reversal.

Having said that, immediately after the battle the Spartans regrouped and were ready to attack again - but they didn't, wiser heads prevailing.