Who would win?

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

Khairete!

Indeed a speculative question!

V Century hoplites were trained to fight in a tightly coupled, classical phalanx. II Century veteran legionnaires, it depends, pre-Marius or post-Marius? (i.e. early on the II or later on the II?).

The legionnaire was used to a more loosely formation, and to throw away the pila and wight with scutum and sword. The spartans, being basically all-life fighters (not just veterans, but fully dedicated!), were as well used to fight with shield and sword as well as with spear. The difference was probably in the drills; spartans would drill to tighter formations.

This said, a one-on-one fight (fully armored, etc) fight would basically go down to personal fighting expertise, seeing that basically both would be able of similar features (assuming the pankration, etc training of the Spartans).

As for a full-charge battle, it depends on many factors. Assuming an even ground, and limited battlefield width (so Roman legions cannot outflank the Spartan phalanx because of the loosier formation) I'd bet for the Spartans, just because the V Century Spartans were the really Tough Guys we think of (Thermopylas, etc); on a less constrained battlefield, assuming only heavy infantry, it would go down to the generals' use of the terrain and other factors: if the Spartans managed to creatively work out their army by morai (or lochoi, were their -arkoi would be the equivalent of the Roman centurio) instead of a solid phalanx, Spartans would probably win (for the reason stated earlier: fighters as a way of life against levied citizens or paid lowly citizens, aka mercenaries), otherwise the Romans would wipe them out...

I'm not taking into account, of course, 3 centuries of technological advancement, for example a lot of bronze weapons for the Spartans against mostly steel weapons for the Romans, it could be an unfair advantage....

anyway, it's very speculative... the II century Spartans more or less lost to the Romans due to many factors, not just the respective fighting abilities of each party; and in the V Century the Romans wouldn't even be important enough to fight against... ;-) )

obviously the echelon tactics have obvious advantages over a classic phalanx in most situations, and that's why the Romans eventually won (taking weapons and tactics from the Samnites, Celts, Iberians, Germans, and basically anything that would work, and do it well enough to smash the opposition, by numbers or skill, whichever came first)

anyway... uale!