Well if history tells us anything, it would be the Romans. After years of political rise in Rome and decline in Sparta. Sparta is a good example of what a pussy subculture, like what we have in America, can do to a strong nation.
>>721075038 Pussy subculture? Sparta went into decline because of failed military campaigns and the fact that they had to put down a bunch of helot revolts because their system of governance was fucked and bound to fail.
I am not pretending anything, they did get raped right in the pooper, tongue punched right in the old fart box, got their salad tossed harder than a Colombian trying to get cocaine out of a dead hooker. But at one time sparta was pretty cool.
>>721074480 I mean you're not exactly specifying numbers or conditions. If we're just assuming an equal number of men on both sides at their peak, i'd give it to Spartans. Roman soldiers were great at formations and tactics, but most of that was attributed to generals.
The success and brutality of the Roman soldier has been well noted many times over by historians throughout the empire at the time of their peak. Spartans are only know because of one story (probably a myth) that was from a single area of history. Also everyone knows greeks tend to blow things out of proportion in terms of their own history. So I'm calling bullshit on Sparta.
>>721076538 not same tactics, romans didn't use phalanx. Also romans had steel while spartans had bronze, and sparta fell because spartans refuse to adopt new tactics (or any other tactics that isn't phalanx) than means no cavarly, no ballistas, no archers, etc
Roman soldiers from when, 200 BC? 100 AD? 300 AD? Not that it makes a difference. They are using steel weapons that will tear the Greek bronze armor to shreds. And Greek bronze weapons will break against Roman armor.
Rome steamrolled the Spartans at the Battle of Gythium. It was a joke as far as military history is concerned no contest at all. I'm sure the Roman soldiers at that time joked about it a lot while they were knee deep in all that defenseless Spartan/Greek pussy.
This. Has nothing to do with how badass you think Spartans were based on having see a comic book movie about them. Only factor that matters is superior tech. Roman steel vs. Spartan bronze or even iron is like an FN SCAR vs. Springfield Model 1861.
>>721074480 it depends my man, it depends on what erra in history, it depends on how many legions vs how many spartans, it depends on the generals leading the men, etc. etc.
Hannibal Barca almost defeated rome with only 25,000 men passed the alps, about 25,000 recruited italians on home soil who were cast out by rome and denied citizenship and 20 years, the rest of carthage got cucked hard by rome, while hannibal with barely any men was considered at the time unbeatable by romes consoles and the method they devised to deal with hannibal was to simply avoid and contain him so that they would have to face him outside of fortifications
yep, and this can basically be applied to the vikings vs. whatever meme too. whichever group existed later is the default winner because they have the overwhelming advantage of evolved tactics and evolved technology.
When Rome really got going on its early expansion, it had an extremely dominant military. I don't think extreme martial discipline and ability declined with the decline of Sparta around 400-350 bc, it just evolved, to the point that aroudn the time Rome just defeated Carthage, the majority of greece was united under the achaean league (which included sparta) and thought the romans would be easy pickings. Greece was arrogant from years of being dominant on the battlefield for centuries, and used the hoplites in phalanx formation. At that time, Rome used a modified version, and whipped Greece badly.
So there is an example of Rome actually defeating Sparta while teamed up with all its allies in Greece.
Another point, probably more important, is that Rome was made of professional soldiers, at least after the late republic (iirc) whereas greeks were always a levy army, i.e. people were drawn from the citizenry when they needed troops. Rich(er) spartans were the ones who could afford the swords, shields, and maybe horses, and they would leave their farms and houses when required to go on campaign to earn some spoils. Rome, on the otherhand, had professional standing armies which drilled often and had plenty of civil wars to fight each other and gain experience fighting actual trained soldiers rather than conscripts.
Equipment wise, I think Rome (at any point during the late republic or empire) fighting Sparta at its prime would be like a modern US army fighting the revolutionary us army. Metal, tactics, and the diversity of auxiliaries and foreign cavalry made Rome extremely formidable even in the contemporary times, consider for example how easily it conquered Greece and Macedon.
Who are the Commanders? Where are they Fighting? How many troops are on each side? What kind of troops (The Romans while they loved their cohorts had a great deal of variety.) What's the Weather Like? How well fed is everyone? How well rested is everyone? Anybody sick? Anybody local to the region they are fighting in and thus better protected against diseases? Is this a single skirmish or a major campaign?
Anyone Ambushing? If so who? Which era of Romans are we talking about? Which era of Spartans are we talking about? Is artillery involved in any way? Are archers involved in any way? Is cavalry involved in any way?
>>721078058 From the mid-empire onwards, Rome was essentially a military with a citizen base as an afterthought. Before that, Rome shocked every single Meditteranean and near-asian culture, including Sparta, with its martial prowess. At its inception, (according to legend) Rome began as a collation of brigands and rogues who waged wars as a wildly successful warband against their established, organized, and (then considered) civilized neighbors the Etruscan, and established a six hundred year empire, encompassing most of the western world. Whereas Sparta dominated Athens for about 9 years after the Peloponnesian war then lost to Thebes, at the "height" of their power.
>>721080317 What commander, the weather and yes diet makes a massive difference in warfare, war is about logistics more than almost any other factor. If two armies arrive and one of them are starving, the other one will probably win.
>>721076538 Sparta had a reputation sure, but they also were very careful to make sure they were rarely called on to prove their prowess. They always made sure they faced the weakest enemy units (traditionally on the left side of the line); at the battle of Leuctra the Thebans instead placed their best troops on their left side, and massacred the supposedly superior Spartans. The Spartan myth of military prowess never recovered, and for the very good reason that it was exposed as a myth.
>but roman soldiers was most time normal civilians who did military service some
True during the Punic wars, but not after the Marian reforms. Recruits signed a 20 yr service contract, soldiering was a full-time job done by hardened professionals. Sometime around the time of Marius they also stopped using the greek phalanx and switched to a more flexible formation that leveraged their weapons and training better. This is also when the now-iconic Gladius and Pilum were adopted. This was the army that conquered the empire.
>>721074480 Spartans of course. Their spear gives them a huge reach advantage. Remember the pilum is designed for throwing and the gladius is a shortsword. Other story when the romans bring siege weapons or something else they can break the phalanx with.
>>721080636 >pilum is designed for throwing And it's exactly what they will do with it before they charge or the Spartans charge. This will break their formation and there shields and render them unusable, Spartan shields were not as tough as they look like.
look faggy, you're not supposed to question things like commanders or their diet. It's an army. Assume they have their shit together and are led and fed. Assume that it's just regular ass weather and not a hurricane. Assume neither group has any kind of geographical advantage. Assume the fucking troops are rested. I mean shit, do you really expect the meme to clarify whether or not one, both, or neither groups are rested. Here, let me remake it for you and I'll put in at the bottom that the Spartans got an average of 6 hours of sleep the night before and the Romans got an average of 4.6 hours of sleep. Think you can make a decision then?
>>721080327 Not if usual legionaries fight hoplites.... it's more like modern soldiers with ars against ww2 tanks. Still useless. A phalanx is not really what you want to engage with throwing spears and shortswords.
>>721074480 The Spartans are mostly famous for being in the right place at the right time and taking advantage of the terrain. The Romans would just use ballista and skewer the Spartans. The Persians only have the shortbow, which was ineffective against a light, metal shield. Ballista aren't stopped by the shield.
>>721079507 One of the most famous battles of Roman history, and of world history, one known by a common phrase used to this day, is called the Battle of Asculum, fought by a greek general named Phyrrus, and is the basis for the phrase Phyrric Victory. Actually, during the Phyrric war, there were several battles the greeks won, using phalanx formations. Thats just one example, but there are more I believe.
Though I do agree with you on one thing. Romans would beat Spartans handily.
Obviously we're not talking about a million spartans any more than we're talking about a trillion spartans. We're talking about equal and realistic sized forces. God damn people stop trying to throw in these retarded "what if's".
>>721080657 Historically the largest the spartan Army could ever be was 10,000. Meanwhile the Legions of Rome could be close to double of that. >>721079411 I'm up for this http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198092539684/ If anyone wants to do this we can settle this fucking dumb as debate.
>>721080840 Well since army isn't a UNIT of anything I still really can't. Since an army isn't a specific number of any sort.
Also in the conditions you've described the commanders almost certainly would be the deciding factor.
Also assuming they have their shit together and are led and fed is a big assumption. I mean logistics of war is really hard. We still screw it up often and that's with almost two thousand years of technology on these guys. (Or 600 if you're counting the Byzantines as Romans since we haven't established which Rome we're talking about.) Are we talking about the Byzantines? Because they had rudimentary firearms at the end. I think the Byzantines would win, but then the Ottomans would beat them, but then the Russians and Serbs and British will beat them and then we're at WW1... My bet is on the WW1 troops against the Spartans.
>>721081322 If I'm not mistaken, any battle they fought against pre-romanized greeks would have been against phalanx armies. And I know they lost several before greece was annexed, not that it mattered, like you said.
Not so much for your benefit but just for discussion, it is very interesting that early Rome made extensive use of the phalanx, until fights against mountain barbarians had them re-think and adapt. By the time the greeks came knocking with centuries-old tactics, Rome was already on the next level, and it wasn't even their final form.
>>721081440 Because 300 is a comicbook based on a legend and not accurate. Also roman generals are not idiots who throw their men against a phalanx in a chokepoint. You beat a phalanx by outmoving and flanking. Roman formations were much more agile than greek phalanxes also they had superior weapons like the ballista to break the formations.
>>721081440 Actually the Spartans lost at Thermopylae, the Persians weren't African... they were Persian, and the Spartans actually were part of a Greek Coalition that had around twenty thousand men at that battle, the three hundred were just to hold off the retreat.
Maybe don't get your history from Zack Snyder movies.
>>721080636 Mind explaining how this supposed advantage never materialized when Rome fucking conquered Greece including the Spartans?
In practice, the long greek spears turned into a huge hindrance against the romans, they made it too difficult to adapt to lateral threats. The Romans would cut a channel into the phalanx by throwing their pilae en-masse into a narrow section, then they would charge into this beachhead and establish a fighting line inside the phalanx at right angles to it, and start the serious killing, working their way down the phalanx. If the phalanx managed to turn their spears to face the new threat, the rest of the Roman front would charge the phalanx from the original direction.
Either way the Greeks and their "superior" spear were fucked, because they just weren't flexible enough compared to the shield-breaking power of the pilum and sheer killing efficiency of the gladius, and maneuver tactics of the roman army.
>>721082393 No, Romans were not basic in terms of training. They were professional soldiers, and the Spartans were not. If you think the Spartan's warrior culture was impressive, you should read into Rome's warrior culture. As I said earlier, Rome was a military with a country tacked on.
>>721082342 Explain what you mean here. >>721082393 >Romans where pretty basic in terms of training >Basic http://www.roman-empire.net/army/training.html tlder; They used gear to practice that was twice as heavy as what they wore in combat.
>>721078932 Are you actually joking or what, the equipment they used is fine, bolt actions work really really well for killing things. They'd slaughter soldiers from WWI simply because of mass charges being the tactic of the time.
Stupid question. How many? Where? When? Led by who? Put a Spartan against a Roman in a wrestling match, the Spartan wins. Anything past that is hard to discern. The Romans defeated any number of sarissa phalanxes with their flexible tactics, and those same sarissa phalanxes crushed the united Greek forces in the 4th century, including the Spartans, but that doesn't necessarily determine a matchup like this. But anyways, yeah, stupid question.
>>721083598 In that case, the Spartans are going to be one contingent in an otherwise sarissa equipped formation. The Romans will win hands down as they did over and over again throughout history. What would be interesting is if you took some of those battles Greece maybe shouldn't have won during the Persian wars, and you make the aggressors a Late Republican legion instead of Persians.
>>721084073 the Hellenic phalanx was good against loose formations and horde tactics (like germanic barbaians and persians and many middle eastern cultures) and would stall forever against other phalanxes. so the Romans developed the maniple system to be able to exploit the lack of mobility and rigidity of the phalanx. so yes, Romans
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.