Romans VS Spartans

[Superrazien]

If we take both armies at there best. Each side has 10,000 Men, on a huge straight battle field. Which army do you think would emurge victorious.

Also to put alittle fantasy fun, Romans can have all there best Generals, and Spartans have Achilles.

[Taleran]

THIS IS SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


*kicks Roman army into a pit*

[Limit_Tester]

Romans should take this. Better equipped. Better tactics.

[Crimson King]

It really depends on what units each side has. If it's infantry only, Romans will usually go for the double line formation and advance as a whole. They usually charge at around 100 feet, after throwing spears. The spears weill hinder the Spartans long enough for the Romans to smash the front line of the Spartans.

If it's 2 Roman Legions (which would be close to 10000 men), then Spartans die hard. The Romans will have heavy cavalry, scorpions, onagers and ballistas.

[Gray Wolf]

Romans had better weapons so they win.

[Graham Aker]

well, this could be solved in Age of Empires me finks...

anyway, Romans should win, for reasons already stated...

[Timur Lane]

Romans have the upper hand here, but dont underestimate the spartans.
They are tough as nails and will not give up until a single one is dead, just read the comic 300 then you will understand what i mean.

[earthshine]

spartans.



romans got their reps by fighting disorganized barbarians, while the spartans are some of the best soldiers in all history.



one: the spartan's spears and sheilds are a problem for the romans, who's gladius swords are short and used for stabbing, giving them very short range. the spartans ca just keep them at spear's length and pick them off.



two: spartas are better fighters one on one. spartans eat, breath and drink war, they are raised as soldiers and war was their life. romans where paid troops who recived basic bootcamp training. thr romans have good training, but they don't come even close to the spartans level.



three: the spartans are warriors bordering on the fanatical, they devote everything they are to war, and are completly fearless in battle. they have training to match the romans, and a great deal more ability do to the complete devotion to war that has been instilled in them over a lifetime of training.




it would be a good fight, but sparta would come out in a win. the romans are poorly equiped to fight the spartans(bad weapon choice), and individually, as just normal citizens that have been through training, are nothing in individual combat to people who's entire life revolves around war, and have been trained since childhood.

[Khamzul]

one: the spartan's spears and sheilds are a problem for the romans, who's gladius swords are short and used for stabbing, giving them very short range. the spartans ca just keep them at spear's length and pick them off.

Roman used spears aswell, if I am not mistaken it was the standard (together with a square shield and a short sword). In addition they had a more advanced technology, which included better armor, cavalry, and war machines.

two: spartas are better fighters one on one. spartans eat, breath and drink war, they are raised as soldiers and war was their life. romans where paid troops who recived basic bootcamp training. thr romans have good training, but they don't come even close to the spartans level.

Depending. The spartan army was mainly constructed from civilians which recived training (more so then other countries, but civilians none the less). They where raised for war, but does not have the experience soldier would have. The roman army was composed of professionals, many of them going for a roman citicenship, which required 14 years of service. While the spartans are trained longer then that, they are trained in the way of fighting that where used a thousand years earlier then the romans.

The romans superior tactics, weapons, armor and technology still grants them the win, atleast in my opinion.

[Sasori]

Myrmidons ftw.

[Pipboy]

Well given that Achilles is basically invulnerable and thinks nothing of killing a hundred men.....

On a more serious note, it would be better to give the spartans a real general like Leonidas of thermopylae fame.

The spartans would definitely take the skill and motivation, but the roman battle tactics and technology is far supirior and their best generals certainly have more to show than the best spartan generals. While the historians do write the histories it was the athenians who had the greatest generals and tactics.

Overall the roman legionnares are good enough to make a good showing and their weapons won't break as easily and their armor will offer more protection.

I will vote for the romans on these grounds, as weapons make a difference and since there is tactics too the romans have better generals.

[Zhongda]

The Spartans were united... more than we'de like to think.

I'll simply quote my history prof and say "300 fags saved european civilisation" (the fags are of course the Spartans).

[Spy_Smasher]

Spartans have ... Achilles!? A mythological figure? This is a weird battle.

Anyway, the Romans had better Generals, better equipment and a better balance of forces. Normally they'd win, fairly easily. Unfortunately, Achilles tips the balance well into the Greeks camp. Just look at his performance against the Trojans.

[Haruni]

The Spartans were some of greatest fighters ever even though the Romans have better weapons. They won so many past battles was partly because of thier numerous amounts of men. There tactics worked because they could back them up with the nunber of men required and more.

[Id]

I the movie 300 kicks ass.
The Spartans,
If not the Romans (go Gladiator.)

My answer comes from purely bias reasons.

[Ark 16.5]

Argh...romans had flexible tactics adn numbers.....spartans never changed tactics (it was there downfall) and were few....they both had the same level of discipline...argh

[Hype]

Watches the 300 trailer. Hmmm

Sparten's easy if all esle fails they can call on master cheif

[Kisame]

if achilles decides to wear some decent foot wear he can solo this

[Guy Gardner]

If we are talking Troy Achilles...

The Spartans lose, big time. Sorry, fact of life. The Spartans are excellent warriors... but the Romans just have it all over them. Better organization and tactical flexibility, better tactics, and they have the absolute undisputed superweapon of the Ancient world: The Pilum.

Yes, the Pilum is the superweapon of the old world. Everyone loses because the Romans mastered this special Javelin. They throw the Pilum and rush forwards, and the Spartans get overwhelmed as Pilum flies down on top of them and Romans charge the front of them. The Phalanx requires a great deal of concentration and skill to maintain, and that can't be maintained with a near-6-foot shaft of iron falling straight down (Yes, the Pilum was weight to fall STRAIGHT DOWN) on your head.

And Achilles (Troy version) would get his ass handed to him. Yeah, let him try all his fancy moves against a block of Scutum (The Roman Tower Shield). It'd go like this:

Achilles: "Oh, look at me! I'm awesome, I jump when I fight! Watch me defeat the Romans by jumping at them! Ha!"

*Jumps*

*Roman puts a gladius through his chest as he's flying an unable to change his direction*

If it's the mythical Achilles, well, then it's a lot harder. But Achilles has pissed off a lot of Gods, and I'm sure one would curse him to die sooner or later.

[Spy_Smasher]

^I think we're talking about "Iliad" Achilles, not movie Achilles. Also, no gods. It's just Achilles and his powers unless the OP says otherwise.

[Thanatos]

Obviously the spartans will take this. Just look at who they've got on their side.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2516/kwgodpwnalldt2.gif

Those Romans will be lucky to escape with their lives. :amuse

[Giovanni Rild]

Well given that Achilles is basically invulnerable and thinks nothing of killing a hundred men.....

On a more serious note, it would be better to give the spartans a real general like Leonidas of thermopylae fame.

The spartans would definitely take the skill and motivation, but the roman battle tactics and technology is far supirior and their best generals certainly have more to show than the best spartan generals. While the historians do write the histories it was the athenians who had the greatest generals and tactics.

Overall the roman legionnares are good enough to make a good showing and their weapons won't break as easily and their armor will offer more protection.

I will vote for the romans on these grounds, as weapons make a difference and since there is tactics too the romans have better generals.

Wiki
Military life

Spartan boys left home for military boarding school at the age of seven, and were required to serve in the army until age thirty.[11] Then they passed into the active reserve, where they remained until the age of sixty. Spartan education from the ages of seven to thirty emphasised physical toughness, steadfastness in military ranks, and absolute obedience to orders. The ordinary Spartan was a citizen-warrior, or hoplite, trained to obey and endure; he became a politician only if chosen as ephor for a single year. He could be elected a life member of the council after his sixtieth year, in which he would be free from military service. Men could marry at the age of twenty but could not live with their families until they left their active military service at age thirty.[11] The Spartans perfected the craft of hoplite warfare. They called themselves "homoioi" (similars), pointing to their common lifestyle and the discipline of the phalanx, which demanded that no soldier be superior to his comrades.[12]

If male babies born in Sparta were too small, weak or sick (all of which were believed as early signs that they would not be suitable for military life), they were abandoned on the slopes of Mt. Taygetos, also known as Apothetae or Place Of Rejection. The Spartans began military training about the age of 7, where they would enter the agoge system for the education and training--everything from physical training such as hunting and dancing, to emotional and spiritual training. At that age they would have to go through what was known as the gauntlet. They would have to run around a group of older children, who would flog them continually with whips, sometimes to death. As they were lightly clothed, and had no bedding to speak of, children would often put thistles in their pallet because the prickling sensation made them feel warmer. From the age of 13 onward, they would be sorted into groups, and sent into the countryside (with nothing, though some falsely believe they had knives[citation needed]), and forced to survive on their skills and cunning; this was called the Krypteia, believed to be an initiation rite to seek out and kill Helots who were considered to be troublesome to the state, or were found to be wandering the countryside with no good reason.

At the age of twenty, the Spartan began his membership in one of the syssitia (dining messes or clubs), composed of about fifteen members each, of which every citizen was required to be a member. Here each group learned how to bond and rely on one another. The Spartan exercised the full rights and duties of a citizen at the age of thirty. Only native Spartans were considered full citizens, and needed to undergo the training as prescribed by law, and participation in and contribution to one of the dining-clubs. Those who fulfilled these conditions were considered "peers," (homoioi) citizens in the fullest sense of the word, while those who failed were called "lesser citizens," and retained only the civil rights of citizenship.

Spartans were absolutely debarred by law from trade or manufacture, which consequently rested in the hands of the perioeci, and were forbidden (in theory) to possess either gold or silver. Spartan currency consisted of bars of iron, thus making thievery and foreign commerce very difficult and discouraging the accumulation of riches. Wealth was, in theory at least, derived entirely from landed property, and consisted in the annual return made by the Helots, who cultivated the plots of ground allotted to the Spartans. But this attempt to equalize property proved a failure: from the earliest times, there were marked differences of wealth within the state, and these became even more serious after the law of Epitadeus, passed at some time after the Peloponnesian War, removed the legal prohibition of the gift or bequest of land. Helots were ruthlessly controlled, primarily through the secret police or Krypteia.
Spartan hoplite
Spartan hoplite

Full citizens, released from any economic activity, were given a piece of land (kleros), which was cultivated and run by the Helots. As time went on, greater portions of land were concentrated in the hands of large landholders, but the number of full citizens declined. Citizens had numbered 10,000 at the beginning of the 5th century BC, but had decreased by Aristotle's day (384–322BC) to less than 1,000, and had further decreased to 700 at the accession of Agis IV in 244 BC. Attempts were made to remedy this situation by creating new laws. Certain penalties were imposed upon those who remained unmarried or who married too late in life. These laws, however, came too late and were ineffective in reversing the trend.

Perhaps the most widely known event on the efficiency of the Spartan war-machine is related to the Persian Wars. The Spartan stand at the Battle of Thermopylae has been repeatedly cited in a military Grand strategy context as a role model on the advantages of training, strategy and bravery against extremely overwhelming odds.

This isn't a video game

http://www.sikyon.com/sparta/history_eg.html

[Pipboy]

And in real life weapons make a difference. The spartans LOST their war against the relatively "peaceful" and "artisitc" Athenians and needed to gang up on them for round two to pull a victory.

Romans have better technology leadership and tactics. Roman Legoinnares aren't exactly persian conscripts with no motivation, they aren't trained as well and as long as the spartans but they aren't nearly bad enough that the other 3 factors won't make this their battle.

Nice try but you actually have to know what your talking about before you can "get me". Oh and tactics and leadership are different because one is a set of doctrines and formations etc the others is direction in battle.

[Kisame]

Pipboy is right without The megaboost that Achilles is giving them romans would win but him in this battle is pretty unfair for sparta's side

[Ryugaisan]

The Spartans dine in hell and fight in the shade! Romans are doomed.

[Kisame]

movies can change the outlook on anyone. I mean they made ppl think that a 120 Asian guy was the best fighter on earth.

[thegoodjae]

achilles alone. wth he wasnt real was he? idk but im sure spartans will win, romans didnt have much of a challenge bakc in there time and plus achilles is here.

[Guy Gardner]

@ Indignation

I'm not impressed. Wow, the Spartans had an incredibly militaristic society! OMG! "It's not a game!" OMFG!!!

Do you realize that the Spartans were beaten by all the major city-states in Greece, and then by the Macedonians? They were great fighters, but they didn't exactly adapt well. If we are talking the Spartans using the Classical 8-Foot Spear, they are fucked. If they took the 18-foot Macedonian spear that they eventually adapted, they are still fucked. If they start using that little dagger of a sword that The 300 likes to show off, they sure as hell are fucked.

Spartans were great warriors for their time. If you take an actual Roman Legion (Ones from when they were actually out conquering stuff, not when they were just on border duty), the Roman Legions could defeat armies up to probably the Middle Middle Ages through sheer organization.

For those of you interested in actual Spartans and not Frank Miller's interpretation, go read Gates of Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gates_of_Fire). I've heard tell that it might become a movie, which is one that I'd really pay attention to.

[Kisame]

achilles alone. wth he wasnt real was he?Of course not.

And he is in this battle as a fantasy element as well as romans having ALL there generals.

J and r is right as well.

Except for Illiad achilles getting cursed by gods mid battle lol.

[Guy Gardner]

achilles alone. wth he wasnt real was he? idk but im sure spartans will win, romans didnt have much of a challenge bakc in there time and plus achilles is here.

That statement is so blatantly stupid, I don't know where to begin.

First off, we should note that Achilles isn't a Spartan hero. He's a friggin' Mycenaean, if anything. And there were two Spartas; a Mycenaean one that was destroyed by the infamous 'Sea People', and then the classic Sparta of Thermopylae. Even if he was real, he was a fighter and he'd be severely outclassed on equipment alone.

The only really big Greek to beat the Roman Empire was Pyrrhus, who did it with tricksy things like War Elephants, not just the phalanx like a Spartan Army would. Plus, Pyrrhus took horrific losses during his victories, hence the phrase Pyrrhic Victory.

I'm just going to say it: The only way the Spartans could win is if Achilles does all the work, and I'm sure at least ONE guy would cut his tendon, considering the Romans know a great deal about Troy (The Aenid is one of their big works, remember?). Spartans are a great army for their time, but they aren't going to beat a Roman Legion any time soon, especially if we are using their Thermopylae army here.

[Nexas]

Fuck Achilles. Why have that pansy when you have someone like Kratos on your side?

[SSJKrillin]

Achilles takes it. when pissed he clogged a river with trojan bodies, fought apollo 1 on 1, and did some guy up the ass.
no matching his bad-assery

[Crimson King]

And I guess he's going to solo 10,000 Roman legionaries by himself :notrust

[SSJKrillin]

And I guess he's going to solo 10,000 Roman legionaries by himself :notrust

glad we see eye to eye

[Guy Gardner]

Actually, there is matching his badassery; Hector gives him three fatal wounds, which of course are healed up.

Achilles will get fucked by 10,000 Legionnaires that know his well-publicized weakness, just like the Spartans.

[Kisame]

Achilles will get fucked by 10,000 Legionnaires that know his well-publicized weakness, just like the Spartans.

they know achilles weakness but they dont know they are actually fighting achilles unless one of his troops says "Achilles is really mopping the floor with them" or something.

[Iris]

Romans ruled for like 1500 years, they also had the most colonies.

Enough said.

[Chatulio]

spartans.



romans got their reps by fighting disorganized barbarians, while the spartans are some of the best soldiers in all history.

.

This point is off since the Roman conquered all of Greece and Greece had perhaps the most organized force on the continent aside from the romans.

Also Carthage was also an organized force.

[Guy Gardner]

Well, the Romans didn't really rule for 1500 years. I'd say around 800 is a good number, because you really can't count the Byzantines as true Romans. That spans a long time, though. Meanwhile, the whole of Greek domination spans about 300 years, with Athens, Thebes, Sparta, and then Macedonian and Alexander all taking parts of that.

Seriously, Spartans =/= Ultimate Warriors. Confident? Absolutely. Fearsome? Hell yes. But great tacticians? Hell no. They won battles by playing the pushing game with the Phalanx, which they'd inevitably win. Other City-States won because they screwed around with the Phalanx a little bit and managed to get it over on the Spartans and others.

The Romans won on tactics and organization. Oh, and fear of what would happen if they didn't give it their all. For those of you who don't know, decimation is the treatment for units who didn't give a good enough effort in battle.

For those of you who don't know what decimation is, it's a practice that the Etruscans instituted when they ruled the Romans. Basically, every tenth man in a unit is crucified by the other 9 guys. This might be repeated two or three times within a unit for a single loss. The Romans, when they became dominant, took this practice as their own. There's a reason that Romans didn't disobey orders and were a bitch to break; if you didn't try your hardest, you very well might get crucified.

Edit: Oh yeah, Chautillo is right. Carthage was very organized, and their best general (Hannibal) used a mixture of Greek tactics, but never purely phalanx, to beat the Romans. Excellent general, he was.

[Crimson Scorpio]

WTF?? Achilles wasn't Spartan. He was the King of the Myrmidons and was an independent ally to Menelaus (the Spartan King).

Oh and Romans win on the basis of organization, innovative battle tactics and underhanded political dealings.