12-10-2011, 09:29 PM
Ghostmojo and Macedon, really good stuff there, a great read.
It seems that the Romans used weapons and tactics for the kind of terrains they fought on and so did the Spartans, both being very different. But if you take them out of that comfort zone, their effectiveness would suffer. When the Romans (a mainly slower infantry based army at the time) fought the eastern armies (a mainly horse mounted fast-moving missile army) and they fought on the flat, wideopen spaces of the east, they lost badly. If a phalanx fights on rocky, craggy, broken ground or in dense woodland against Roman troops and tactics, then no doubt they would lose.
Phalanxes were very successful on flat open ground when the enemy could not outflank them (Marathon, Thermopylae etc). When the Romans did combat the Greeks, 300 years or so later, the Romans did win overall and conquered Greece, but of course, they were not Spartans and may not have used the same tactics. The REALLY interesting question would be 'what if the Spartans had lasted another 300 years, who would have won, them or the Romans?'
Lastly, you cannot say 'no balistae', because that was part of the Roman arsenal, as were archers, pila, gladii etc, just as you cant simply say 'no hoplons', because that is what they had. The Romans excelled in flexible thinking and won many great victories by doing so (Alesia etc), so the last thing they would do is throw themselves on spears, (not unless the are really dim Romans).
The only way it can be done is to level the playing field, so to speak, and have a Romans v Spartan fistfight!
It seems that the Romans used weapons and tactics for the kind of terrains they fought on and so did the Spartans, both being very different. But if you take them out of that comfort zone, their effectiveness would suffer. When the Romans (a mainly slower infantry based army at the time) fought the eastern armies (a mainly horse mounted fast-moving missile army) and they fought on the flat, wideopen spaces of the east, they lost badly. If a phalanx fights on rocky, craggy, broken ground or in dense woodland against Roman troops and tactics, then no doubt they would lose.
Phalanxes were very successful on flat open ground when the enemy could not outflank them (Marathon, Thermopylae etc). When the Romans did combat the Greeks, 300 years or so later, the Romans did win overall and conquered Greece, but of course, they were not Spartans and may not have used the same tactics. The REALLY interesting question would be 'what if the Spartans had lasted another 300 years, who would have won, them or the Romans?'
Lastly, you cannot say 'no balistae', because that was part of the Roman arsenal, as were archers, pila, gladii etc, just as you cant simply say 'no hoplons', because that is what they had. The Romans excelled in flexible thinking and won many great victories by doing so (Alesia etc), so the last thing they would do is throw themselves on spears, (not unless the are really dim Romans).
The only way it can be done is to level the playing field, so to speak, and have a Romans v Spartan fistfight!
Vale
Fruitbat
A.K.A Dave
Fruitbat
A.K.A Dave
