Spartans Vs Romans

[Hazzardevil]

The other day me and some people were discussing various vs things, and eventually the Spartans showed up, this rose a discussion, who would win? Spartans or Romans?

I am talking the Ancient Greek Spartans and the Romans who conquered what was most of the known world.

3 Simple Scenarios.

A standard standing army of Spartans who would be stationed in Sparta at any one time vs a Legion of Roman Soldiers.
A Veteran Roman Soldier vs a Spartan Soldier in his Prime
300 Spartans vs 300 Romans.

[Calemyr]

The other day me and some people were discussing various vs things, and eventually the Spartans showed up, this rose a discussion, who would win? Spartans or Romans?

I am talking the Ancient Greek Spartans and the Romans who conquered what was most of the known world.

3 Simple Scenarios.

A standard standing army of Spartans who would be stationed in Sparta at any one time vs a Legion of Roman Soldiers.
A Veteran Roman Soldier vs a Spartan Soldier in his Prime
300 Spartans vs 300 Romans.

No contest. The Romans have Rory.

[Eldan]

Well, unless I'm very much mistaken, the Romans did win historically. That's a pretty big point in their favour.

[Dienekes]

It depends a lot on the terrain. The Roman legionnaires actually lost a lot of battles against phalanx forces, but they held some advantages. The legions were more flexible on rougher terrain and Rome could always, always call up more soldiers.

In a straight up fight, army vs army there's no real reason to think the Spartans wouldn't behave like all the other phalanx style armies Rome faced. In flat terrain where the power of a phalanx really shines they could probably beat the legions, otherwise Rome wins that specific battle.

In a full on campaign, Rome calls in their reserves and eventually wins. It's what Rome does.

Soldier verse soldier? Hmm, fanboying here (just look at my name) but I'd give it to the Spartan since they were the ones trained for combat from an earlier age and trained for longer. However, in complete truth? It's a pretty ridiculous question. Spartans had good training, but it was good training from hundreds of years before Roman supremacy. Maybe techniques increased, then again maybe they didn't. No idea personally.

This is also not taking into account auxiliaries. Especially once Rome already had their empire a lot of the time the actual fighting was from mercenaries and auxiliary forces while the actual legions were more focused on the engineering side of combat.

[Beleriphon]

I'm going to say a Roman legion. A full legion, and Rome had thirty of them at its height (so the best they managed was a standing army of 307200 soldiers including auxiliaries). Three hundred legionaires is basically two Replican maniples, or about three late Republican centuries. That's something like a 1/20th of an entire legion.

By the time of Caesar's conquest of Britannia the legions weren't just Roman foot soldiers, they included cavalry, seige engines, and other associated auxiliaries. By the time of Augustus a legion was 5120 men and an equal number of auxiliaries. So something like 11000 soldiers. Some could be boosted to nearly 15000 on a war footing.

So we're talking an army capable of field catapults, light cavalry, archers, light and heavy infantry, and used formations far more flexible than phalanxes could manage. I can tell you right now if you can bring cavalry into a fight with a phalanx the phalanx is giong to lose badly.

[Dr.Epic]

It'd be close, but I say the Spartans win.

[Dienekes]

So we're talking an army capable of field catapults, light cavalry, archers, light and heavy infantry, and used formations far more flexible than phalanxes could manage. I can tell you right now if you can bring cavalry into a fight with a phalanx the phalanx is giong to lose badly.

I'd argue this one. The Spartans have fought against cavalry before and handled themselves rather well. It again depends on terrain. Cavalry charging at a line of spears is, to put it simply, incredibly dumb. It's attacking the flanks where cavalry has advantage. Or charging lines that are likely to break, which the Spartans showed (during their height if not much after), they really didn't break too easily.

Even Alexander, who used cavalry extensively in his campaigns, used his cavalry to drive off the opponent's cavalry and harry the sides instead of attacking directly. Then he liked to attack directly at his enemy general behind the infantry line.

Though I believe this was just legion vs phalanx, not the entire armies of Rome and it's mercenaries verse one city-state that happened to have good infantry. Yes, the entire military might of Rome would win, that's not even a question.

[Spiryt]

Well, unless I'm very much mistaken, the Romans did win historically. That's a pretty big point in their favour.

When Sparta didn't really mean much anymore though. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, even in period of greatest power, I believe there was not much more than 25 thousands of Spartans, so Romans would probably win by sheer numbers, if necessary.

[McStabbington]

The Romans, by a wide margin.

The Spartans were really only considered a formidable military power for about 3-5 generations. Aristotle actually discusses the rise and fall of Sparta's military power at some length in Politics, and he noted that while Sparta in Socrates' day was a feared military power, at the time he was writing it is was increasingly being considered a joke. The explanation he offered was that while the Spartans held out their training from hell as the reason for their military success, the real reasons was their early adoption of formation fighting, particularly in what came to be known as the phalanx, coupled with their absolute refusal to quit the field.

Once everyone else started training their soldiers to fight in formations, their vaunted training actually started to become a disadvantage. The training from hell killed men who would otherwise grow up to be productive citizens and proficient soldiers, and the refusal to quit the field just meant that when they got put in a spot where their formation fighting couldn't work, they would lose everyone and their confidence in fighting. Which is what started happening in Aristotle's time, to the point that Spartan phalanxes had on several occasions surrendered.

By contrast, the Romans not only knew formation fighting, they knew it better than anyone else in the world after the Marian reforms. At their height, they were better-equipped, better trained and more disciplined than any Spartan army ever. Man for man, the Spartans might have been better warriors individually, but man for man is never how the Romans fought, and there were plenty of nations that could say something similar that were also crushed by the Roman war machine.

[Gnoman]

Besides that, the Roman system had a tactical flexibility that the Spartan system lacked. There was no setup to split off a portion of the Spartan phalanx, and any attempt to do so would cause nothing but confusion in the ranks. Thus, the Spartans could only really maneuver in the fixed 8x8 squares that characterized Greek warfare until Alexander (who introduced 16x16 sqares).

A Roman general, in contrast, could easily dispatch a few mandibles to flank from the left (the tradtional flanking direction, as this was the customary shield hand), form a wide line for an envelopment, concentrate into a narrow column to penetrate, or whatever strategem seemed most practicable.

The one real advantage the Spartans would have is that they used shorter spears than had become the norm by Roman times. (Alexander, again, increased the length of the spear, which most armies copied). Roman victories often revolved around penetrating the spear wall with their shields while thrusting with the gladius at enemies that couldn't use their weapons effectively. The shorter Spartan spear would make that much harder.

[Dienekes]

The Romans, by a wide margin.

Probably


The Spartans were really only considered a formidable military power for about 3-5 generations. Aristotle actually discusses the rise and fall of Sparta's military power at some length in Politics, and he noted that while Sparta in Socrates' day was a feared military power, at the time he was writing it is was increasingly being considered a joke. The explanation he offered was that while the Spartans held out their training from hell as the reason for their military success, the real reasons was their early adoption of formation fighting, particularly in what came to be known as the phalanx, coupled with their absolute refusal to quit the field.

This is a common problem when talking about Spartas history. The Spartans prided themselves that every Sparitiate was literate, but they didn't write anything down! Not their history, not their personal stories, not their culture. Hell the most telling case I can think of, the Laws of Lycurgus that defined the Spartan existence were supposedly taught to every Spartan youth repeatedly through strict memorization. We still don't have any document of this at all, except from non-Spartan sources. Of these non-Spartan sources the biggest one is Athens, who hated Sparta with a rather frightening passion. The most obvious example in my mind to how things can be twisted around is the Krypteia, there are accounts from Athens on this Spartan ritual that describe it as: a necessary part of a Sparitiate's training where they go kill any old helot (slave-serf) they see, a secret order of young Sparitiates who only killed helots that were plotting revolt, or the weird one a ritual in which a young Sparitiate would not be allowed to return to the Agoge and mess halls for a week meaning they had to find food for themselves.

With this in mind, reading anything written by an Athenian, or well, anyone, about Sparta means you need to keep the writers biases in mind, which you should do for any piece of history honestly. The notion that the Spartan training was really not that special and didn't lead to a great infantry can be pretty easily discounted just looking at the Spartan wars in their prime. They fought against others in the same formation very often and won. Not a 100% win rate of course, but during their peak they were really very good at their chosen form of combat, being able to stave off cavalry charges, other phalanxes, and skirmishers with some regularity. What ended them as a military power was a loss of soldiers, a weakened economy, a lack of strong central rulers at critical times, several natural disasters, a change in the Agoge system, and a stagnancy in tactical thought.


Once everyone else started training their soldiers to fight in formations, their vaunted training actually started to become a disadvantage. The training from hell killed men who would otherwise grow up to be productive citizens and proficient soldiers, and the refusal to quit the field just meant that when they got put in a spot where their formation fighting couldn't work, they would lose everyone and their confidence in fighting. Which is what started happening in Aristotle's time, to the point that Spartan phalanxes had on several occasions surrendered.

This is a bit of an exaggeration. The whole: Spartans don't retreat is really a bunch of crap that came out of the battle of Thermopylae which was a time when they didn't retreat for strategic reasons. Spartans retreated a lot, what they wouldn't do is surrender, except for one very very obvious counterexample. So no, the whole once they engaged they won or all died is a rather large myth. The Spartans were known for retreating, finding better territory and then re-engaging because their training allowed them to react more efficiently than a normal phalanx.

Also, the modern reason why Spartans lost such a wide degree of their population is more often placed on the economic level rather than the training from Hell Agoge, which was already becoming more and more bastardized as Sparta lowered in prominence. To be a Sparitiate you had to be born into a specific family, and hold a certain amount of land and wealth. In a culture that disdained merchants, and gaining prominence through monetary means. So when a Sparitiate did have a run of bad luck on his little plot of land he would have to sell it to someone with better luck than he, and eventually after hundreds of years almost everyone will have a run of bad luck meaning that the number of true Sparitiates declined dramatically.


By contrast, the Romans not only knew formation fighting, they knew it better than anyone else in the world after the Marian reforms. At their height, they were better-equipped, better trained and more disciplined than any Spartan army ever.

Now that is a very bold statement. And one I don't think can be taken seriously. Romans lost, a lot. It's kinda staggering just how many battles they wound up losing, even after the Marian reforms. Don't get me wrong here, the Romans were an amazing fighting force. But this sentence here sounds like flag waving for a favored culture.

Though I'll admit that is something I myself am guilty of. But I'm trying to curb that.

So yes, I agree the Romans would win in any all out war. But in a specific battle of even numbers I still think it largely comes down to who got to pick the terrain. Flat land heavily favors the Spartans, rockier more abrupt terrain heavily favors the Romans.

[Cikomyr]

There is also the fact that for every Spartan killed, 5 roman soldiers could die and the Romans still come out ahead in term of pure numbers.

Spartans' restrictive requirement to be a soldier is really at odd with Roman using their capita censei as troopers.

[McStabbington]

This is a common problem when talking about Spartas history. The Spartans prided themselves that every Sparitiate was literate, but they didn't write anything down! Not their history, not their personal stories, not their culture. Hell the most telling case I can think of, the Laws of Lycurgus that defined the Spartan existence were supposedly taught to every Spartan youth repeatedly through strict memorization. We still don't have any document of this at all, except from non-Spartan sources. Of these non-Spartan sources the biggest one is Athens, who hated Sparta with a rather frightening passion. The most obvious example in my mind to how things can be twisted around is the Krypteia, there are accounts from Athens on this Spartan ritual that describe it as: a necessary part of a Sparitiate's training where they go kill any old helot (slave-serf) they see, a secret order of young Sparitiates who only killed helots that were plotting revolt, or the weird one a ritual in which a young Sparitiate would not be allowed to return to the Agoge and mess halls for a week meaning they had to find food for themselves.

With this in mind, reading anything written by an Athenian, or well, anyone, about Sparta means you need to keep the writers biases in mind, which you should do for any piece of history honestly. The notion that the Spartan training was really not that special and didn't lead to a great infantry can be pretty easily discounted just looking at the Spartan wars in their prime. They fought against others in the same formation very often and won. Not a 100% win rate of course, but during their peak they were really very good at their chosen form of combat, being able to stave off cavalry charges, other phalanxes, and skirmishers with some regularity. What ended them as a military power was a loss of soldiers, a weakened economy, a lack of strong central rulers at critical times, several natural disasters, a change in the Agoge system, and a stagnancy in tactical thought.


In general, you are of course correct. Everyone has their blinders, and you have to read the text with that in mind. When we discussed this passage in class, we of course made sure to ask what his blinders could be. But the thing is that Athens wasn't particularly hostile to Sparta when this was written, Aristotle had no personal or familial stake in the matter, the historical points that he makes were referenced in multiple other historical accounts of the period, and Politics is in many ways a critique of Athenian government.

The simple fact is that when he wrote the passage I'm citing, he was at least 2, and possibly as many as 4 generations removed from the Peloponessian War. It's the same amount of time as WW2 has had to affect culture and foreign policy. So while he may have had his biases and he certainly wasn't going to give a pro-Spartan position after Socrates was killed, from what we could figure of the historical record he was being about as fair to the Spartans as the Athenians could get. Biased maybe, but not propaganda.



This is a bit of an exaggeration. The whole: Spartans don't retreat is really a bunch of crap that came out of the battle of Thermopylae which was a time when they didn't retreat for strategic reasons. Spartans retreated a lot, what they wouldn't do is surrender, except for one very very obvious counterexample. So no, the whole once they engaged they won or all died is a rather large myth. The Spartans were known for retreating, finding better territory and then re-engaging because their training allowed them to react more efficiently than a normal phalanx.

Also, the modern reason why Spartans lost such a wide degree of their population is more often placed on the economic level rather than the training from Hell Agoge, which was already becoming more and more bastardized as Sparta lowered in prominence. To be a Sparitiate you had to be born into a specific family, and hold a certain amount of land and wealth. In a culture that disdained merchants, and gaining prominence through monetary means. So when a Sparitiate did have a run of bad luck on his little plot of land he would have to sell it to someone with better luck than he, and eventually after hundreds of years almost everyone will have a run of bad luck meaning that the number of true Sparitiates declined dramatically.


You misunderstand me, although from my word choice I can see why you would. Suffice it to say that however much you're familiar with Spartan history, Aristotle was even more so, and he was giving in part a contemporary account of how Athenians viewed the Spartans. The Athenians were well aware of their ability to retreat, but also the fact that they would never surrender . . . until of course, suddenly the Spartans started surrendering. Not just once, but several times. Once as I recall before they even offered battle. Which had a massive impact both on the Athenians and the Spartans: suddenly the Athenians lost their fear of the terrifying Spartan warrior, and suddenly the Spartans lost a lot of faith in their own mystique as invincible inhuman warriors.



Now that is a very bold statement. And one I don't think can be taken seriously. Romans lost, a lot. It's kinda staggering just how many battles they wound up losing, even after the Marian reforms. Don't get me wrong here, the Romans were an amazing fighting force. But this sentence here sounds like flag waving for a favored culture.

Though I'll admit that is something I myself am guilty of. But I'm trying to curb that.

So yes, I agree the Romans would win in any all out war. But in a specific battle of even numbers I still think it largely comes down to who got to pick the terrain. Flat land heavily favors the Spartans, rockier more abrupt terrain heavily favors the Romans.

It's a bold statement because I think you misread what my statement was. I said that the Romans after the Marian reforms were better-equipped and more disciplined in formation fighting than the Spartans ever were. This is not only not bold; it's almost a truism. The Marian reforms instituted a series of sweeping alterations to the training and command structure of the Roman legions in the wake of their disaster at Cannae. They replaced the phalanx formation with the maniple/century/legio system of organization, and began training up an officer corp that could command down to the maniple level.

The net effect was very simple and twofold. As a matter of training, expense and logistics, the Roman legions became very, very expensive to field. But that added expense paid off in a unit that in large formations had all the strength of a phalanx, but could also break apart and reform because they were comprised of professional soldiers commanded by experienced officers who spent all day, every day for years on end training how to do the various splits and reformations.

That's what I mean by "discipline" and "training". The Spartans were the very first to spend time with their troops practicing not just individual-level work with a sword and spear, but formation fighting as well. But by the time of Aristotle, everyone did that. By the time of the Punic wars and Marian reforms, the Romans took the same concept and took it a step further, creating a corp of men and officers whose job was to train for and engage in fighting at the formation level. And as a result, they were uncontestably the best at fighting an various formations: they could do maneuvers no phalanx could, and they could maintain cohesion when any phalanx would break.

[Dienekes]

In general, you are of course correct. Everyone has their blinders, and you have to read the text with that in mind. When we discussed this passage in class, we of course made sure to ask what his blinders could be. But the thing is that Athens wasn't particularly hostile to Sparta when this was written, Aristotle had no personal or familial stake in the matter, the historical points that he makes were referenced in multiple other historical accounts of the period, and Politics is in many ways a critique of Athenian government.

The simple fact is that when he wrote the passage I'm citing, he was at least 2, and possibly as many as 4 generations removed from the Peloponessian War. It's the same amount of time as WW2 has had to affect culture and foreign policy. So while he may have had his biases and he certainly wasn't going to give a pro-Spartan position after Socrates was killed, from what we could figure of the historical record he was being about as fair to the Spartans as the Athenians could get. Biased maybe, but not propaganda.

And there are still those who distrust and blame Germany in France, they did conquer them and all. Even if Aristotle was completely 100% unbiased against Sparta, he was still living in a society where Spartan customs and culture were misrepresented for generations.

Even with Aristotle's views on the events, modern historians do not agree with him, and I'm more of mind to follow them when it comes to why and how Sparta fell.


You misunderstand me, although from my word choice I can see why you would. Suffice it to say that however much you're familiar with Spartan history, Aristotle was even more so, and he was giving in part a contemporary account of how Athenians viewed the Spartans. The Athenians were well aware of their ability to retreat, but also the fact that they would never surrender . . . until of course, suddenly the Spartans started surrendering. Not just once, but several times. Once as I recall before they even offered battle. Which had a massive impact both on the Athenians and the Spartans: suddenly the Athenians lost their fear of the terrifying Spartan warrior, and suddenly the Spartans lost a lot of faith in their own mystique as invincible inhuman warriors.

True, but I think we're discussing Spartans during their height, otherwise we'd be going for Rome near their fall when their army looked more like a rabble. Sparta had definitively passed their height by 371 in Leuctra, before that point there was only one surrender against the arrows of Athens, during the Peloponnesian War. And even then the Agoge had already been severely changed from it's earlier periods, and the natural disasters that weakened it's economic base had struck.


It's a bold statement because I think you misread what my statement was. I said that the Romans after the Marian reforms were better-equipped and more disciplined in formation fighting than the Spartans ever were. This is not only not bold; it's almost a truism. The Marian reforms instituted a series of sweeping alterations to the training and command structure of the Roman legions in the wake of their disaster at Cannae. They replaced the phalanx formation with the maniple/century/legio system of organization, and began training up an officer corp that could command down to the maniple level.

The net effect was very simple and twofold. As a matter of training, expense and logistics, the Roman legions became very, very expensive to field. But that added expense paid off in a unit that in large formations had all the strength of a phalanx, but could also break apart and reform because they were comprised of professional soldiers commanded by experienced officers who spent all day, every day for years on end training how to do the various splits and reformations.

That's what I mean by "discipline" and "training". The Spartans were the very first to spend time with their troops practicing not just individual-level work with a sword and spear, but formation fighting as well. But by the time of Aristotle, everyone did that. By the time of the Punic wars and Marian reforms, the Romans took the same concept and took it a step further, creating a corp of men and officers whose job was to train for and engage in fighting at the formation level. And as a result, they were uncontestably the best at fighting an various formations: they could do maneuvers no phalanx could, and they could maintain cohesion when any phalanx would break.

Yes I understand the Marian reforms. However it's the notion that this made the Roman army disciplined that I disagree with. Take Caesar's accounts of the Gaulic Wars and even the Civil War. He describes in great detail the numerous times that his soldiers completely broke rank for little reason, definitely not from a command. Sometimes this worked to advantage, but it almost cost Caesar his war at least twice, and forced him to pull out and regroup. The consistent breaking of rank got to the point that Caesar actually accounted for it in his battle plans, and lists it as a necessary part of both the army and a commander to understand that the Romans had a habit of ignoring their trained discipline completely.

Also, you're timeline is a bit off, by about 100 years. The Battle of Cannae occurred in the 2nd of the 3 Punic Wars. The Marian Reforms did not come about until, well honestly, until most of Romes conquering was finished and they had already taken control of Italy, Greece, Sicily, Carthage, and most of Spain (most may be a bit too much to say here, as Gaul, Briton, and Turkey were still major chunks to be conquered as well as the holdings doting the Mediterranean but I think it makes my point clear).

But let's go into the formations themselves, and the real crux of the argument. The Roman Legion didn't really have the full strength of the phalanx. In fact in a full on pushing battle the phalanx was probably superior. The overlap of the aspis shields enforce cohesion of the soldiers, so you don't have the breaking of the army problem Caesar faced. The length of the spears struck first over the Romans swords, and even after the spears the xiphos blade was fairly equal to the gladius as far as short swords go. In pure push verse push the phalanx has the advantage to the legion.

But, that's because the legions strength was not in the push. Oh it could do it, and it performed admirably, but it's true strength was in maneuverability. Which I think you have confused with discipline. Yes, the legion did not have to worry about the entire line because it was set in smaller groups and because the equipment is designed to defend one person instead of part of the guy next to you. This fluidity can be incredibly useful, but not really on an open plain. Which is again, the place I say a phalanx would win, because it beat the Romans in that way with some frequency. To the point that Caesar realizing this would not engage when he saw the opponent had such an advantage and would wait for ground where his own soldiers had the advantage.

Because I'm tired, and don't want to type anymore, I'm going to ask a question of the OP. Which army of Rome are we talking about? The height of the Spartans is fairly easy to picture. Before the Agoge became a mess, and were a shadow of themselves, and all that jazz. But for Romans, are we talking about:
Early conquering Romans which saw the use of the maniples?
Marian Reform Romans, or the classical depiction of them?
Early Empire Romans, which were more like combat engineers with barbarians to actually do the fighting[personally my favorite, if I'm being honest]?

Each of these had their strengths and weaknesses, and would perform vastly differently against the Spartans.

[Avilan the Grey]

The Romans, by a wide margin.

The Spartans were really only considered a formidable military power for about 3-5 generations. Aristotle actually discusses the rise and fall of Sparta's military power at some length in Politics, and he noted that while Sparta in Socrates' day was a feared military power, at the time he was writing it is was increasingly being considered a joke. The explanation he offered was that while the Spartans held out their training from hell as the reason for their military success, the real reasons was their early adoption of formation fighting, particularly in what came to be known as the phalanx, coupled with their absolute refusal to quit the field.

Once everyone else started training their soldiers to fight in formations, their vaunted training actually started to become a disadvantage. The training from hell killed men who would otherwise grow up to be productive citizens and proficient soldiers, and the refusal to quit the field just meant that when they got put in a spot where their formation fighting couldn't work, they would lose everyone and their confidence in fighting. Which is what started happening in Aristotle's time, to the point that Spartan phalanxes had on several occasions surrendered.

By contrast, the Romans not only knew formation fighting, they knew it better than anyone else in the world after the Marian reforms. At their height, they were better-equipped, better trained and more disciplined than any Spartan army ever. Man for man, the Spartans might have been better warriors individually, but man for man is never how the Romans fought, and there were plenty of nations that could say something similar that were also crushed by the Roman war machine.

This is also what happened to the Romans, later, btw. Not that they were ever a joke, but when the Goths rebelled and sacked Rome they fought like Romans, in Roman-style formations.

Anyway, yes. The first time the Spartans surrendered to the Athenians instead of fighting to the death, btw, were when the Athenian army went "...Hey! These guys are just humans! Like us!" and stopped being afraid of them. That was the first step to the fall of Sparta.

And not that it matters, but personally I think the most important thing the Spartan Culture had were miniskirts and the acceptance (and expectation) that women partook in sports. But I am a dirty old man. :smallbiggrin:

[Ravens_cry]

And not that it matters, but personally I think the most important thing the Spartan Culture had were miniskirts and the acceptance (and expectation) that women partook in sports. But I am a dirty old man. :smallbiggrin:
So Roy Mustang was a Spartan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6nQV88-Dw)?

[Hazzardevil]

For the Romans I was actually thinking of about the time they were conquering their way through the Celts and Gauls in Britain and France, Yes I know they weren't called Britain and France then but I can't think of the proper name.

[Eldan]

That would be Gallia and Britannia.

[Cikomyr]

The time of the Marian reforms were during the conquest of the large part of Numidia, just before the largest German migration that almost destroyed Rome.

Provinces at the time were Macedonia, Africa, Hispania Prior, Hispania Ulterior, Gaul-across-the-Alps, Italian Gaul, Asia Minor, Sicily and Cilicia.

Gaul, Britannia, Syria, Byzance, Anatolia and Egypt were still to be added. Mostly through Pompey and Caesar's conquests.

(thank god for McCullough)

[Spiryt]

Anyway, yes. The first time the Spartans surrendered to the Athenians instead of fighting to the death, btw, were when the Athenian army went "...Hey! These guys are just humans! Like us!" and stopped being afraid of them. That was the first step to the fall of Sparta.


Eh, Spartan's were partaking in Olympics, like other Hellenic people, and were being regularly beaten and bested in wrestling, boxing, pankration, armored race and other stuff.

At some point they even refused to take part in fighting, because "they would have to admit defeat" but as with any story like that it probably just meant that they were getting owned. Because in training and fighting among them they were anyway admitting defeat from time to time, that's the very point of training.


Connected with the fact that Spartans were being defeated in battles by other Greeks quite often, I really doubt that they held any "inhuman" image.

All other polis quite probably know, that Spartan army in full force, determined to win was fearsome opponent, and that's it.

[Caewil]

I'd give it to the Romans. They fought against spartan style armies many times in Greece and Asia minor and won many, many times. The Spartans have been propagandized to hell as being tough guys, but they were just a small city state that punched slightly above their weight.

[pendell]

I would say the Spartans have an excellent chance of winning a battle if they can fight the Romans in a straight-out battle of attrition. If the Romans are able to alter this equation in any way, the Romans win.

I would recommend to all interested readers The End of Sparta (http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Sparta-A-Novel/dp/1608191648/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343749785&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=Victo+r+Davis+Hansen) by Victor Davis Hanson.

He notes that the greatest weakness of the Spartans was their hidebound conservatism and inflexibility. They came to battle with one, and only one, battle plan -- to put their strongest troops on their right and their weak troops on the left and PUSH, expecting the strong troops to win the battle before the weak was utterly defeated.

They were skunked at the battle of Leuctra because their enemies learned from that trick and put their strong forces on their LEFT (opposing the spartan's strongest right) and their weak forces on the right, instead of the normal setup of strong troops on right and weak on left, just as all Greeks had done for thousands of years.

This simple innovation utterly ruined the Spartans. They were unable to cope with a simple shift of troops from right to left.

The author of Byzantine Grand Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Byzantine-Empire/dp/0674062078/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343750027&sr=1-1&keywords=byzantine+strategy) (Byzantium was the successor state to the Roman Empire) observes that this is the great advantage of having a military academy and military science -- you have a number of tactical tools at your disposal, know how they work and how they don't work. So you can tackle different challenges with different tools in different situations and win. That's what combined arms is all about.

By contrast, traditional cultures don't have this concept. Instead, they learn to fight as they've always fought , in the ways handed down from them by their forefathers. As a result, they tend to be very, very good at the particular environment their tribe lives in and utter rubbish outside of that narrow scope.

Much like the Spartans.

The Romans understood combined arms. So give Caesar choice of battlefield and choice of auxiliaries to make up the balance of his legion and I think he'll wipe the floor with the Spartans. Because to the Romans, war was not a sport. It was a job in which as many of the enemy were killed while as few of yours were killed as possible. "Fair" doesn't enter into the equation. Suggest to Caeser that he should fight "honorably" in the phalanx and get his soldiers killed unnecessarily , and he would probably laugh in your face. He would use every trick of military science to put his boot on the enemy's neck, and since he has a much larger playbook I think he has every chance of succeeding.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Aedilred]

I'm also going to give it to the Romans. Apart from anything else, the Romans are experienced at fighting phalanges, while the Spartans won't be experienced at fighting legion formations. That's going to make a difference.

Moreover, in a war, the Romans have an unassailable advantage due to their depth of manpower. Even after devastating defeats like Cannae or Arausio the Romans could just raise another army and try again. The best Sparta could likely hope for would be something like that achieved by Pyrrhus of Epirus, where a tough, experienced Greek army with a capable commander won a number of tactical victories but ultimately lost the war.

In general, I think military quality tends to improve over time as advances in tactics and technology render older styles of combat obsolete. There are exceptions, but these tend to be where technology has been lost (as with Greek Fire) or outside circumstances make using it - or an associated tactical model - unviable (as with horse archers or the Anglo-Welsh longbow). Even where individual armies decline (like Rome did) other armies adopt their style and equipment and add elements to make it more effective. As mentioned above, by the end of the Empire, Gothic infantry was not all that dissimilar to Roman ones, although it was allied to high-quality heavy cavalry which the Romans never properly developed.

[snoopy13a]

It's a bold statement because I think you misread what my statement was. I said that the Romans after the Marian reforms were better-equipped and more disciplined in formation fighting than the Spartans ever were. This is not only not bold; it's almost a truism. The Marian reforms instituted a series of sweeping alterations to the training and command structure of the Roman legions in the wake of their disaster at Cannae. They replaced the phalanx formation with the maniple/century/legio system of organization, and began training up an officer corp that could command down to the maniple level.

The net effect was very simple and twofold. As a matter of training, expense and logistics, the Roman legions became very, very expensive to field. But that added expense paid off in a unit that in large formations had all the strength of a phalanx, but could also break apart and reform because they were comprised of professional soldiers commanded by experienced officers who spent all day, every day for years on end training how to do the various splits and reformations.



The Marian reforms turned the Roman army from a citizen miltia to a standing professional army. These reforms occurred partly because of a shrinking middle class--the upper classes made up the cavarly (which is why they were called the equities) and the middle class farmers were the infantry.

As wars dragged on in places like Greece and North Africa, more and more middle class families lost their land because the farmers were off fighting wars instead of farming. This led to social unrest and the rise (and later assassination) of populist politicians such as the Gracchi brothers. Before Marius, it was more difficult to field a citizen miltia as land was becoming more and more concentrated in the upper classes.

So, Marius made reforms that turned the army into a group of professionals. Lower classes Romans would join with the expentancy of gaining land after service. The major result of the reforms was an army that gave its loyalty to its general instead of the Republic. Thus, the instability of the late Republic arose with powerful generals/politicans such as Marius, Sulla, Pompey the Great, Mark Antony, and Julius Caesar. Eventually, Augustus consolidated power and turned the Republic into an Empire.

If anything, the greatest effect of the Marian reforms was to destroy the Republic and create the Empire.

Regarding Aristotle, by his time the Spartans had alreadly been humbled by Epaminondas' Thebans and were no longer considered powerful. So, Aristotle's Spartans probably aren't great for a model.

[GloatingSwine]

Soldier verse soldier? Hmm, fanboying here (just look at my name) but I'd give it to the Spartan since they were the ones trained for combat from an earlier age and trained for longer. However, in complete truth? It's a pretty ridiculous question. Spartans had good training, but it was good training from hundreds of years before Roman supremacy. Maybe techniques increased, then again maybe they didn't. No idea personally.

Soldier vs. Soldier isn't really a useful measurement for a Spartan or a Legionary, because both were armed and trained to fight primarily in close ranks, in individual combat the large shields that both are equipped with may be a disadvantage, as they would normally be shielded partly by the man to their right.

In a true melee the Roman may have the advantage of superior equipment. It's not wise to discount the fact that one man has iron armour and the other only has bronze weapons.

[snoopy13a]

Soldier vs. Soldier isn't really a useful measurement for a Spartan or a Legionary, because both were armed and trained to fight primarily in close ranks, in individual combat the large shields that both are equipped with may be a disadvantage, as they would normally be shielded partly by the man to their right.

In a true melee the Roman may have the advantage of superior equipment. It's not wise to discount the fact that one man has iron armour and the other only has bronze weapons.

The Spartans and Romans would have different strategies. As you said, a hoplite's shield protects his fellow soldier on his left. Therefore, Roman strategy would attempt to break up the formation. One practice is throwing javelins on the approach. Hopefully, the javelins would kill or injure hoplite to create holes. Once holes are created, legionarries would enter the gaps where they'd have the advantage. Roman strategy was all about close fighting, which is why Romans tended not have long hair or beards.

Rough terrain also would aid the Romans because it is difficult for a phalanx to keep in formation. So, the Romans would want to avoid a smooth battlefield.

If the Spartans are able to keep formation, then they have a chance of winning--assuming that the armies are numerically equal, of course.

[Dienekes]

I would say the Spartans have an excellent chance of winning a battle if they can fight the Romans in a straight-out battle of attrition. If the Romans are able to alter this equation in any way, the Romans win.

I would recommend to all interested readers The End of Sparta (http://www.amazon.com/The-End-Sparta-A-Novel/dp/1608191648/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343749785&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=Victo+r+Davis+Hansen) by Victor Davis Hanson.

He notes that the greatest weakness of the Spartans was their hidebound conservatism and inflexibility. They came to battle with one, and only one, battle plan -- to put their strongest troops on their right and their weak troops on the left and PUSH, expecting the strong troops to win the battle before the weak was utterly defeated.

They were skunked at the battle of Leuctra because their enemies learned from that trick and put their strong forces on their LEFT (opposing the spartan's strongest right) and their weak forces on the right, instead of the normal setup of strong troops on right and weak on left, just as all Greeks had done for thousands of years.

This simple innovation utterly ruined the Spartans. They were unable to cope with a simple shift of troops from right to left.

The author of Byzantine Grand Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Byzantine-Empire/dp/0674062078/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343750027&sr=1-1&keywords=byzantine+strategy) (Byzantium was the successor state to the Roman Empire) observes that this is the great advantage of having a military academy and military science -- you have a number of tactical tools at your disposal, know how they work and how they don't work. So you can tackle different challenges with different tools in different situations and win. That's what combined arms is all about.

By contrast, traditional cultures don't have this concept. Instead, they learn to fight as they've always fought , in the ways handed down from them by their forefathers. As a result, they tend to be very, very good at the particular environment their tribe lives in and utter rubbish outside of that narrow scope.

Much like the Spartans.

The Romans understood combined arms. So give Caesar choice of battlefield and choice of auxiliaries to make up the balance of his legion and I think he'll wipe the floor with the Spartans. Because to the Romans, war was not a sport. It was a job in which as many of the enemy were killed while as few of yours were killed as possible. "Fair" doesn't enter into the equation. Suggest to Caeser that he should fight "honorably" in the phalanx and get his soldiers killed unnecessarily , and he would probably laugh in your face. He would use every trick of military science to put his boot on the enemy's neck, and since he has a much larger playbook I think he has every chance of succeeding.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

This is a pretty good rundown, but there are a few points of contention.

There was a bit more to Leuctra, Epaminondas also stacked the deck. It wasn't just he put his best on the left, he put his best on the left and also his second best, and maybe even his third. Then he told the rest to try not to engage at all. A 12 man deep phalanx is going to have a hard time against a 50 man deep phalanx no matter what happens.

Also Sparta did considerably well the few times they sent troops (or just had mercenaries engage) in Persia, so they did perform a bit outside their comfort zone. Though that might just be put down that it just so happened the tactic they had been practicing for so long was also useful in those situations as well.

But really the major thing here is the implication that Rome had war as some form of science. As far as my readings show, they didn't, at least not yet. Soldiers and Ghosts has a pretty good description of Roman military, the wealthy got positions of power. If they were lucky they knew what they were doing or understood how to best use the tools they had (Caesar being the dominant example). Or you get some average guys (Caesar describes Pompey as really a fairly average general who won esteem by beating rather weak opponents, though there is some obvious biases here). Or you get guys who didn't really know what they're doing in prolonged campaigns (Crassus pretty much failed at everything when he went up against the Parthians).

That I think is a big difference. While Sparta didn't have any Caesars, the Agoge also made sure that they didn't have any Crassus, and if they did, they were removed (often violently).

Now if we give the Roman legion Caesar (arguably their best general), choice of terrain, and choice of auxiliaries well, yeah, of course Rome will win. I don't think anyone would argue that point.

That's the equivalent of saying: Well if we give the Spartans Leonidas, high ground and a narrow pass to defend with the Romans only having one uphill march to get to them, where their flexibility won't count for much I bet they could win. It's true, but not all that useful.

But anyway, this is all just nitpickery. I think we agree on the key points here. In a position where Sparta's system can work to the best of it's ability they can win. If they have a general who understands when to attack and when not to, they can win. If they're they get drawn into a battle where they do not get advantage they will lose. If this is a full out war between the two Rome will almost guarantee-ably win, eventually.

[GloatingSwine]

The Spartans and Romans would have different strategies. As you said, a hoplite's shield protects his fellow soldier on his left. Therefore, Roman strategy would attempt to break up the formation.

The legionary's shield also protects the man on his left, so breaking the formation would not necessarily be an advantage.


One practice is throwing javelins on the approach. Hopefully, the javelins would kill or injure hoplite to create holes. Once holes are created, legionarries would enter the gaps where they'd have the advantage. Roman strategy was all about close fighting, which is why Romans tended not have long hair or beards.

The pilum is an interesting weapon. Whilst it can injure an opponent, another important feature of its design is that it makes shields useless. A Pilum striking a shield will penetrate and then the weight of the haft will bend the metal tip, causing the weapon to be more difficult to remove from a shield (or man) and causing an unweildy obstruction to any attempt to use the shield.

[Spiryt]

He notes that the greatest weakness of the Spartans was their hidebound conservatism and inflexibility. They came to battle with one, and only one, battle plan -- to put their strongest troops on their right and their weak troops on the left and PUSH, expecting the strong troops to win the battle before the weak was utterly defeated.

They were skunked at the battle of Leuctra because their enemies learned from that trick and put their strong forces on their LEFT (opposing the spartan's strongest right) and their weak forces on the right, instead of the normal setup of strong troops on right and weak on left, just as all Greeks had done for thousands of years.

This simple innovation utterly ruined the Spartans. They were unable to cope with a simple shift of troops from right to left.

The author of Byzantine Grand Strategy (http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Strategy-Byzantine-Empire/dp/0674062078/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343750027&sr=1-1&keywords=byzantine+strategy) (Byzantium was the successor state to the Roman Empire) observes that this is the great advantage of having a military academy and military science -- you have a number of tactical tools at your disposal, know how they work and how they don't work. So you can tackle different challenges with different tools in different situations and win. That's what combined arms is all about.

By contrast, traditional cultures don't have this concept. Instead, they learn to fight as they've always fought , in the ways handed down from them by their forefathers. As a result, they tend to be very, very good at the particular environment their tribe lives in and utter rubbish outside of that narrow scope.

Much like the Spartans.

The Romans understood combined arms. So give Caesar choice of battlefield and choice of auxiliaries to make up the balance of his legion and I think he'll wipe the floor with the Spartans. Because to the Romans, war was not a sport. It was a job in which as many of the enemy were killed while as few of yours were killed as possible. "Fair" doesn't enter into the equation. Suggest to Caeser that he should fight "honorably" in the phalanx and get his soldiers killed unnecessarily , and he would probably laugh in your face. He would use every trick of military science to put his boot on the enemy's neck, and since he has a much larger playbook I think he has every chance of succeeding.




Eh, expecpt that Spartans could utilise different tactics, and war wasn't any sport for them either, and no 'serious' warrior culture bothered with 'fighting honorably' for a purpose.

Spartan youth was taught to steal, cheat, lie and generally 'go for it' - as long as they could get away with it.

Social, organizational, cultural etc. conditions limit was tactics can be usually used and to what effect, certainly have huge effect on any war, but not to the point that one side tries to fight "fair".

Phalanx didn't have anything to do with fighting "fair" either, it evolved as an effective formation in certain situations... And it was very effective. Had shortcomings, obviously but it's always so.



in individual combat the large shields that both are equipped with may be a disadvantage,

Roman shields certainly weren't a disadvantage compared to pretty much any weapon combo they might have faced. Especially that shield + spear or some sword was predominant pretty much all around Europe then.

They were large and clunky to move around, and generally cumbersome, but in actual individual combat they're as fearsome as any large shield + close quarter weapon combo out there.

Most hoplite shields would probably be indeed somehow badly suited with their grip and shape very much optimized for keeping it close to body and supporting it firmly with forearm/shoulder.





In a true melee the Roman may have the advantage of superior equipment. It's not wise to discount the fact that one man has iron armour and the other only has bronze weapons.



Both iron and bronze may mean many things and are anyway only small part of weapon potential... And in fact well cast bronze will actually be better material for most military purposes than most bloomery iron.

On very large scale, people with some iron/steel weapons will probably be 'better equipped' by some %'s, but other side may have some extremely well made bronze items as well.

[Aedilred]

The major advantage of iron weaponry over bronze isn't that it's a superior metal - as mentioned above, by the standards of the day it was usually worse. It's that it was easier to manufacture, making it possible to equip a larger number of troops. Again, this plays into Rome's hands, because they already have a manpower advantage.


Or you get some average guys (Caesar describes Pompey as really a fairly average general who won esteem by beating rather weak opponents, though there is some obvious biases here).
Yeah, I wouldn't take Caesar too seriously on that score: he has a vested interest in making himself look great at Pompey's expense. Caesar might have been a slightly better tactical general, but Pompey won some impressive victories in his youth in the Marian civil war, and, even well past his peak, he would almost certainly have defeated Caesar in the Greek campaign had he not been pushed into offering battle for political reasons.

[pendell]

This is a pretty good rundown, but there are a few points of contention.


Good responses! I'm only going to pick this one because it sums up all the others, but some good stuff from other people as well.



But anyway, this is all just nitpickery. I think we agree on the key points here. In a position where Sparta's system can work to the best of it's ability they can win. If they have a general who understands when to attack and when not to, they can win. If they're they get drawn into a battle where they do not get advantage they will lose. If this is a full out war between the two Rome will almost guarantee-ably win, eventually.


Agreed.



But really the major thing here is the implication that Rome had war as some form of science. As far as my readings show, they didn't, at least not yet.


Then I respectfully suggest Vegetius (http://books.google.com/books/about/Vegetius_epitome_of_military_science.html?id=wJNfA AAAMAAJ).

There are many Roman military manuals, such as Ars Tactica (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/268990?uid=3739936&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21101124678187), surviving from the period to demonstrate that the Romans did indeed have a firm grasp of military science.

They were a professional army run by politicians who pretended to be generals, some with great success (Caeser) and some with none at all (Lepidus). However, here's a key point: Crassus lost because he was fighting the Parthians and one of the better generals of that era. His defeat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae) was a masterpiece of logistics, planning, and tactical innovation which pitted the Parthian strength in mounted archery against Roman shock troops who were unable to close.

But he did just fine when fighting a rebel army of gladiators in the Third Servile War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Servile_War).

Thus I contend : The Roman army post-Marius was a professional organization with logistics, tactics, and tactical doctrine which made it superior not only to most contemporary forces, but to the armies of feudal societies that came later. It was a professional army led by amateurs. In the best case, those amateurs were brilliant. In the worst case, the Roman centurions could usually carry their worthless leader through to victory, so long as they were not facing a peer society such as Parthia with equal, or superior, grasp of military science.

Any army can be ruined by bad leadership. But the Roman army's professionalism allowed it to muddle through in spite of bad leadership in most cases. Which is why the Empire lasted for four hundred years while Spartan hegemony lasted only a few decades.




That I think is a big difference. While Sparta didn't have any Caesars, the Agoge also made sure that they didn't have any Crassus, and if they did, they were removed (often violently).


Perhaps, but I contend the Romans showed a degree of innovation the Spartans never did. In the First Punic War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War) the Romans had no navy and so built one. Likewise, in the second punic war they faced an unconquerable general who never lost a battle in Italy to my knowledge -- Hannibal. So they dogged his steps, reconquered everywhere he wasn't physically present, sent armies into Spain and North Africa to hit Carthage everywhere he wasn't . And eventually, they won.

To the best of my knowledge the Spartans never displayed that level of tactical flexibility.

Victor Davis Hansen's A War Like No Other (http://www.amazon.com/War-Like-Other-Athenians-Peloponnesian/dp/0812969707/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343779943&sr=8-1&keywords=a+war+like+no+other) describes the Peleponnesian war essentially like this:

1) Every year, the Spartans would march to Athens and ravage the fields to provoke the Athenians to a pitched battle. Every year, the Athenians stayed behind stone walls and laughed at them, while sending out their navy to stir up helot revolt , harass, and plunder the Lacedamian territories.

2) Occasionally the Athenians would forget themselves and wage a pitched battle against the Spartans. And lose. Then return to the previous strategy.

3) This continued for decades until the Spartans admitted they had enough. At this point, Athens had won the war.

4) Athens then sent off it's best military and Navy to Syracuse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Expedition), and hardly a soul came back alive.

5) Emboldened by the Athenian failure, King Lysander of Sparta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander) went to war and signed an alliance with the Persian king. Thus armed with nigh-infinite resources, he executed a naval Zerg Rush on Athens -- though there were several battles, the Persian money replaced every ship the Spartans lost, while the Athenian losses were permanent. Eventually he ground them down through sheer attrition, forced their surrender, pulled down the walls of Athens, and installed the Thirty Tyrants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_tyrants).

It was a war won by sheer, dogged persistence and rigid adherence to conventional methods.

And I think that, in a war between a foe with sheer dogged persistence and a foe with sheer dogged persistence AND an adaptable mindset AND military doctrine , the second will win. Usually. Though nothing is certain in war. That's why we fight them.

More importantly, both Sparta and Rome were city states. Both had moments of triumph and moments of disaster. But Rome made the most of its triumphs and muddled through adversity and left us a legacy that still last two thousand years later. The Spartans had one brief moment of glory but could not cope with adversity when it came knocking after Leuctra. So I think the Romans had the better system, long run.

Also, as mentioned above, if I were to pick the ideal Spartan king to fight the Romans I would choose Lysander, not Leonidas. Lysander demonstrated a degree of skill on land and sea Leonidas didn't, and Lysander *won* his war.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gnoman]

To the best of my knowledge the Spartans never displayed that level of tactical flexibility.


The examples you cited are strategic, not tactical.

[VanBuren]

I guess it really depends. Are we talking Spartan-II or III?

[Closet_Skeleton]

The one real advantage the Spartans would have is that they used shorter spears than had become the norm by Roman times. (Alexander, again, increased the length of the spear, which most armies copied).

The Spartan spears at Thermopylae were longer than the Persian ones, so while they may have lost the spear length arms race eventually they weren't exactly short.


I'd argue this one. The Spartans have fought against cavalry before and handled themselves rather well. It again depends on terrain. Cavalry charging at a line of spears is, to put it simply, incredibly dumb. It's attacking the flanks where cavalry has advantage. Or charging lines that are likely to break, which the Spartans showed (during their height if not much after), they really didn't break too easily.

Even Alexander, who used cavalry extensively in his campaigns, used his cavalry to drive off the opponent's cavalry and harry the sides instead of attacking directly. Then he liked to attack directly at his enemy general behind the infantry line.

The frontal cavalry charge was pretty much unique to the Scythians and Samartians with their heavy cavalry until the Byzantines and Franks adopted Scythian techniques (the Romans had Samartian auxiliaries but didn't train their own heavy cavalry, the cataphract, until quite late). Its not really a feature of this period at all unless you were fighting on the (now russian/ukrainian) steppes or had mercenaries from there.

The Poles defeated Pike formations with frontal heavy cavalry charges in the 16th and 17th centuries. Took a lot of maneuvering and was probably 'dumb' but it did work.


The major advantage of iron weaponry over bronze isn't that it's a superior metal - as mentioned above, by the standards of the day it was usually worse. It's that it was easier to manufacture, making it possible to equip a larger number of troops. Again, this plays into Rome's hands, because they already have a manpower advantage.

Source? Bronze weapons were cast, iron ones had to be forged. I sincerely doubt bronze weapons were harder to manufacture. A long sword like the Romans adapted from the Iberians they conqueror could take days to make, copper and bronze spear and axe heads were manufactured on site at the smelting works because they were just as easy to cast as ingots and more valuable. Iron weapons may have had more quality problems but that would just be because it was a less perfected technology.

I always heard that the only real advantage was the iron blades held an edge better while bronze ones blunted easier.

[Avilan the Grey]

Both iron and bronze may mean many things and are anyway only small part of weapon potential... And in fact well cast bronze will actually be better material for most military purposes than most bloomery iron.

By 83BC Romans made quality steel. Steel is a completely different animal than bronze.

[Spiryt]

By 83BC Romans made quality steel. Steel is a completely different animal than bronze.

They're not really all that different, both are tough, quenchable metals. :smallwink:

Depends on what application, I guess, what steel at what...

Anyway, during most of the Imperium, period, swords and similar weapons were steel indeed, or at least with steel edges/parts, combined with low carbon iron with some other elements.

Mail and segmentata armors were being made mostly out of iron though, for example, same for helmets.

[Gnoman]

The Spartan spears at Thermopylae were longer than the Persian ones, so while they may have lost the spear length arms race eventually they weren't exactly short.


Quite true. My point was not that the Spartans spear was particularly short, but that the Romans were used to dealing with armies that used considerably longer, less maneuverable spears, which would be something of an advantage to the Spartans, as Roman tactics heavily exploited the difficulty of using said spears.



Source? Bronze weapons were cast, iron ones had to be forged. I sincerely doubt bronze weapons were harder to manufacture. A long sword like the Romans adapted from the Iberians they conqueror could take days to make, copper and bronze spear and axe heads were manufactured on site at the smelting works because they were just as easy to cast as ingots and more valuable. Iron weapons may have had more quality problems but that would just be because it was a less perfected technology.

I always heard that the only real advantage was the iron blades held an edge better while bronze ones blunted easier.

The manufacture of bronze requires tin. Tin is an extremely resource, especially in ancient times, as most tin deposits are either deeper than mining technology of the time could easily reach, or located in the Americas, which were unknown at the time. Iron, by contrast, is readily availiable anywhere, unless you're on an island. It's not that iron is less labor-intnsive to work (as you correctly stated, it's not), it's that it's extremely easy to get.

[Spiryt]

Quite true. My point was not that the Spartans spear was particularly short, but that the Romans were used to dealing with armies that used considerably longer, less maneuverable spears, which would be something of an advantage to the Spartans, as Roman tactics heavily exploited the difficulty of using said spears.


By the time Romans 'conquered' most of the known word, they were dealing with all kinds of spears... They were still occasionally using some.

As far as bronze goes, casting may be generally 'easy' as far as basics go, but obtaining desirable, more complicated shapes of swords, spears, etc, not to mention large surfaces of armor etc. is not exactly fool proof.

And even with relatively low melting point of copper (~1100 C), actually producing bronze wasn't all that easy either.

Especially that finishing the work would usually require some forging anyway.

[Gnoman]

By that point, they had much better combined arms, especially artillery. It wouldn't be a very interesting thread if we simply assumed that the Romans brought up a couple of scorpions (light ballista built specifically for anti-troop use) and shot the Spartans down like dogs.

Plus, I was really trying to find *some* advantage to the Spartans.

[Closet_Skeleton]

As far as bronze goes, casting may be generally 'easy' as far as basics go, but obtaining desirable, more complicated shapes of swords, spears, etc, not to mention large surfaces of armor etc. is not exactly fool proof.

Yes it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bronze_spearhead_mold.JPG

Swords are harder because they're longer. A spearhead does not have a complicated shape at all and is just as easy as an ingot. Bronze weapon blades were so easy to make they were used as money. A bronze spear is the bronze-age equivalent to a sock full of coins.

Nobody used bronze armour much anyway. Except for helmets maybe. Even at the height of the bronze age elite Greek troops usually just had leather breastplates (or linen ones if you go by some not very trustworthy but prevalent research).


Especially that finishing the work would usually require some forging anyway.

Nope, just sharpening.



The manufacture of bronze requires tin. Tin is an extremely resource, especially in ancient times, as most tin deposits are either deeper than mining technology of the time could easily reach, or located in the Americas, which were unknown at the time.[/I]

The Romans had plenty of tin once Claudius had turned Cornwall into his personal estate.

Finding America wouldn't have helped much, since before Columbus they didn't use bronze there outside of the Andes.

[Gnoman]

By that time, steel was in common use, which was superior to bronze.

England is one of the very few places in Europe where tin is found in large amounts (and both the factions in question were in the later part of the Bronze Age, meaning that many tin deposits were exhausted), so anyone who didn't control it (for example, the Spartans) would have difficulty outfitting a large army (especially when bronze was so useful a metal for other things.)

[Spiryt]

Yes it is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bronze_spearhead_mold.JPG

Swords are harder because they're longer. A spearhead does not have a complicated shape at all and is just as easy as an ingot. Bronze weapon blades were so easy to make they were used as money. A bronze spear is the bronze-age equivalent to a sock full of coins.

Nobody used bronze armour much anyway. Except for helmets maybe. Even at the height of the bronze age elite Greek troops usually just had leather breastplates (or linen ones if you go by some not very trustworthy but prevalent research).

Nope, just sharpening.


Well, I would rather trust someone who actually makes respectable reconstructions, rather than claiming that it was "fool proof" with Wiki picture?

Casting itself may not be to complicated in theory, but so is forging. You take hammer some gravers and you shape that metal while it's hot...

http://www.bronze-age-craft.com/swordcasting.htm

Some trivia about forging of the edges, as well.

And money isn't really defined by being 'easy to make' - from the earliest times actually something quite opposite would be preferable...


Even then, majority of coin blades weren't really full sized, functional blades, only indeed small blades used as currency.

http://p2.la-img.com/513/15104/4901906_1_l.jpg