Who would win?

[Draconis]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but I wanted to ask this of both people into Rome and those into Greece. My son and I watched 300 Spartans, the 1960 movie that stuck more or less to the actual story, not the later one with monsters and wizards. Anyway, it got me to wondering. Who would win between Spartan Hoplites of the time of Leonidas and a Roman army of the time of, say, Julius Caesar? No auxillieries, equal numbers, Hoplites vs legionary infantry. Open plain battle, no terrain advantages. In a straight up fight, who would win?

[Ghostmojo]

Interesting question.

The film with Richard Egan was very typical of its time - the Sword and Sandals variety - and although adhering to the basic story; was in some ways just as wildly inaccurate as the fantasy version based upon Frank Miller's comics.

This 1960s film had little in the way of serious military research behind it and was full of ancient Greek tokenism. Take the intro credits which show the acropolis of Athens in the backdrop. Well, OK most people would see that and think "that's Greek" but those Periklean buildings appeared a generation after the events at Thermopylai, and of course Athens did not play a significant role at the Hot Gates (although did so at nearby Artemision). However, that is just nitpicking I admit.

The silly romance (involving the lovely Diane Baker) which flows through the film is as totally unSpartan in its nature as is the way the troops fight. The crazy depiction of a single line of cloak-clad warriors arrayed across a hillside, withholding the impact of infantry, cavalry and chariots is of course nonsense. The phalanx would have been at least 8 men deep and would have alternated between the Spartans and other troops there as the hours and days went by. In the film we only see Spartans and Thespians. What about all the other Greeks who turned up? No Korinthians, Malians, Locrians, Phokians, or other Peloponnesians. No Helots or Perioikoi either. There were nearly 8,000 men present on the confederated Greek side and they should at least have shown the 400 Thebans who turned up in somewhat tokenistic fashion and surrendered in the final moments of the last day.

Add to all of that the fact that Leonidas I is displayed as a short-haircutted man in his 30s when he actually would have been a long-haired individual in his late 50s/early 60s and the Spartans all carry bin-lid shields with a small black lambda Λ on them (too early for this) and you can see this is just a vague representation of history and not what we would expect or demand today.

That film is basically just an enjoyable romp, but perhaps I should credit it with a dignified finale. The last scenes around the (not nearly steep enough) Kolonos hill were quite sensitive and emotive as our heroes meet their fate. Sadly, despite the two wildly different stabs at this great epic story - we are still awaiting the definitive cinematic version. Michael Mann did have plans to do this a few years back, but unfortunately the appearance of 300 may have rendered his plans irrelevant. Both Bruce Willis and George Clooney were apparently in the offing to play the famous Spartan king, and those who have read the screenplay - particularly of the proposed battle scenes in the pass - say it would have made Gladiator look like a picnic. We have definitely lost out there. I do hope this project gets resurrected, although I would prefer it not to revolve around the Steven Pressfield version of the story.

To return to your question - my money (of course) would be on the Spartans. Once the Romans had discharged their pila (which probably would have done some damage) and charged the Greeks, then they would have encountered a stiff wall of dorys. Assuming they would have been able to get near the Spartans resulting in hand-to-hand sword combat, these Lakedaimonian elite warriors were just as handy with their swords as they were with their spears. And of course the Spartiates may have pulled one of their favourite tricks. This was a feint where they would have turned and ran (apparently in fear) and of course there would be the chance the Romans would have broken ranks and scampered after them. Had they done so, and the Spartans turned, reformed and countercharged, I suspect they would have made mincemeat of the disorganised legionaries.

But who can say? The Romans were fine troops. They were tough and disciplined. Had they met average Greeks then the outcome may have been different, but as you stipulate, these 300 Spartans were the absolute elitest of the elite and were prepared to die come what may. Could you say that of Caesar's troops? Perhaps...

[Theodosius the Great]

Who would win between Spartan Hoplites of the time of Leonidas and a Roman army of the time of, say, Julius Caesar? No auxillieries, equal numbers, Hoplites vs legionary infantry. Open plain battle, no terrain advantages. In a straight up fight, who would win?

In those conditions I'd say the Romans would win. The Spartan phalanx would simply become outflanked by the more flexible legionary units.

~Theo

[Joe_71]

I think 300 of Leonidas' Spartans against 300 picked men from Caesar's army in Gaul would be far too close a contest to call. I'd pay to see it though.

If there were any advantage I think it may go to the Romans - a few volley's of javelins might thin the Spartan ranks a bit, plus Caesar's soldiers would be veterans of literally years of hard fighting in Gaul and aginst fellow legionaries during the civil wars. The Spartan's mental toughness and training may counterbalance the Romans' experience, but if their numbers were lessened enough by the missile weapons then the Romans could well have had numbers left over to get around the flanks.

[Theodosius the Great]

If there were any advantage I think it may go to the Romans - a few volley's of javelins might thin the Spartan ranks a bit

The javelins could puncture that organic armor that most Spartans probably wore. The Romans of Caesar's time were much better armored than the Spartans of Leonida's.

The Spartan's mental toughness and training may counterbalance the Romans' experience

Nah, this mental toughness and training would be neutralized by the Roman rotational system of the fighting line. So, even outflanking the Spartans wouldn't be necessary to win, just out lasting them would work, IMO.

~Theo

[Fruitbat]

Wouldn't the Romans just stake the ground infront of them and pummel the Greeks with balistae?

Just a thought.

[Ghostmojo]

Well, if you give the legionaries more weapons and so on, then the fight is hardly fair. I'm guessing, but I assume the original questioner had in mind a reasonably equal array of armour and weaponry.

Let's say each legionary had two pila (would that be fair? How many javelins did they have?), his scutum and a gladius; and the usual helmet and armour. These are presumably just very good, seasoned troops? Not actual crack elite units - just your run-of-the-mill highly trained, experienced soldiers.

No ballistae by the way.

The hoplites in question were elite Spartans of that late archaic period 400 years earlier. They were not regular run-of-the-mill Greek hoplites, they were Spartans; and they were not regular Spartans - they were either the Hippeis of replacements of equal merit, effectiveness and valour. They would have had a single long spear and a short sword, plus their usual shield, helmet and bronze cuirass armour (at this time). There is an argument that even hoplites in late archaic times might still have had throwing spears as well, but I'll let that pass.

300 on each side? Like the Battle of the Champions?

The Spartans would also rotate the front line. They may (?) in this period have utilised ekdromoi (lighter armed runners-out) who performed the missile throwing role. Having said that the Spartans may just have shouted at the Romans to fight like men and stop throwing spindles at them (like at Sphakteria). The Spartans would not allow themselves to be outflanked - you assume they would just stand there statically and ignore what their opponents were doing. I have already mentioned some of their usual feint techniques, and these battle hardened, well-campaigned Romans may have fallen for their own myth of invincibility and not seen the smarter Spartans duplicity. The Spartans were excellent at counter-marching and battlefield manoeuvres. Each file had officers and sub officers and so on. The drills were well-known practiced and executed.

These soldiers were also battle-hardened and would not have been the slightest bit intimidated by Caesar's legionaries. I think you guys perhaps underestimate these particular Spartans and overestimate these particular Romans.

[Macedon]

The 300 Spartans of Leonidas against 300 men of Caesar's 10th? First, this would be no real battle. Too few men for a pitched battle. It seems that the Greeks did do such "events" though. And they were too bloody.

What would be the rules? All arrayed traditionally and no tricks allowed? Everything allowed? What would be the terrain like? Even and extensive? Narrow, so that no outflanks are allowed? Would the two sides be prohibited from retreating or skirmishing?

I guess that when fantasizing over such a battle we have in mind that the two contingents would just form one solid line and then fall on each other. Or better as a small part in a great fight, where they both form but a fragment in a long line (this would be the best way to really compare their line combat capability). No tricks allowed or else the comparison would be lacking.

With all the above things in mind, I would lay my money on the Spartans. NOT because I think they were more effective than the legionaries of the 10th but because in the above example we have made it sweeter for the Lacedaemonians, having the two contingents fight in a battle in which the Lacedaemonians would be more comfortable with.

If the 300 legionaries fought in single line, they would not fight as they did when they excelled on the battlefields of Gaul or Greece. They would normally only deploy half their force, the rest keeping in reserve in two or three lines. They were used to having reserve cohorts behind them. Not having them would be taxing on their resoluteness and a good loss of morale. Having them would make their ranks too scant. Just 150 of them would have to form in all too shallow lines. Admittedly, they would have their pila, while we have deprived the Lacedaemonians of their precious skirmishers, but in my opinion, these would not really have a significant effect against a resolute opponent. Single missile volleys never actually caused real casualties and the Spartan shields would not be as easy to "penetrate" as those of the "barbarians". I doubt they would be penetrated at all, although I might be wrong here (does anyone know of any study regarding pila and reinforced hoplite shields, with all their curves etc?).. The Romans, again in my opinion, exploited the temporary dazzle a volley of missiles would confer on an opponent. When this opponent though was resolute and, more importantly, equipped with spears, I have reason to believe that the pila were kind of ineffective. They did not seem to have any effect in any of the battles against the Macedonians, while Caesar also mainly used them against opponents who were swordsmen or had mixed weaponry, certainly not against a spear bearing phalanx. Here lies another advantage for the Lacedaemonians. The 10th was not experienced in fighting against opponents such as a stout Greek phalanx. They would have a reach disadvantage without having the precious experience to overcome it. On the other hand, the Spartans would just have to do what they were trained to do in order to keep the enemy at bay.

And one last advantage the Spartans would have would be their lower "breaking point". In a 300 vs 300 man battle, we should expect many casualties. The Romans would be more probable to retreat or flee when casualties would be "too" high (maybe a 20-25%), while the Lacedaemonians would stay to the man (as they did...).

In all, I consider the legionaries of the 10th (some of the worst mutha fuckas the Romans ever produced) a more valuable tool for a commander. They were better all around troops, they would be able to be more effective in skirmishes, on uneven and rough ground, in woods, they would not have a psychological problem with retreating to fight another day, they would more easily split in groups, support their own etc. But is such an occasion, where they would be forced to fight the Spartans in exactly the conditions that favored the latter... well... I would put my money on the Spartans.

(Of course I would bet double as much if the legionaries were just regular conscripts with some limited campaigning experience)

[Fruitbat]

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!

[joeandmich]

Spartans also carried 2-3 light javelins as well. At least according to Deadliest Warrior series. Their bronze covered heavy aspis were used defensively and offensively. They could crush a mans head in unlike the Roman shields which were only defensive.

IMO

Joe

[Macedon]

@ Dave

The answer to your question is really easy. The Romans would have very easily won. Why? Because they would have vast resources and manpower set against a small state. The Celts and the Persians would also have easily conqured them, just because of sheer number and resource difference.

Unfortunately, ancient Greek battle tactics are greatly misunderstood and vastly downrated. For some reason, everyone is persuaded that they only fought in compact phalanxes which were unable to perform on rugged terrain. This is a fairy tale, mainly based on Polybius' famed comparison between the Roman and the Greek mode of fighting. I think that a thread on Greek tactics of the hoplitic era would be very interesting and revealing as to the fluidness and adaptability of Greek armies. One has to keep in mind that light infantry tradition was very strong in Greece (less in Sparta herself) and the very nature of the terrain made Greeks develop tactics that would allow their heavy infantry to survive against skirmishes and when fighting in rugged terrain. Admittedly, the great strength of the Greeks lay in the hoplitic phalanx, all arrayed on even ground, but this is how wars were anyways fought by non-nomadic peoples all over the world. The Romans, the Persians, even the Celts and the Illyrians also rested their hopes of victory mainly in battles that were fought on plains and not on mountains. Truth is that many battles were fought by hoplites (and even pikemen sarrisophoroi) on uneven ground as Greece is an extremely mountainous country, the main reason why there ws no real cavalry developed apart fromin the relatively large (very small for most nations) plains of Boeotia, Thessaly and Macedonia. The "manipular" tactics as understood by many, entailing maniples fighting as detached units with gaps the size of a maniple separating them (I happen to disagree with such tactics actually regularly used in battle, especially on even ground) is actually multiple times described in Greek battles as used by the Greeks when entering rough ground. It was called "fighting speiridon" and was performed by detached units of hoplites advancing with gaps in which lay ligt infantry. Such formations could more easily advance on broken ground moving around obstacles and were used centuries before the Polybian legions. Apart from that, we have the youngest (and thus briskest) hoplites used as ekdromoi, exiting the phalanx and attacking the enemy light infantry with the help of psiloi. If Spartans, they would most often be of those who were called "10 aph'hebes", a term meaning that they were within 10 years after reaching military service age. They would employ javeliners, slingers with greater range and thus more efficient to fend off enemy skirmishers and skirmish themselves, archers, these again could be gymnitae (almost naked) or peltasts, again to be used according to necessity. Most people may equate Greek warfare with rigid phalanxes but that is completely wrong, even the phalanxes were not as rigid as many think. They would use different depths, oblique phalnx tactics, they would appoint detachments as flank guards, they would initiate ambushes and outflanks. What Caesar did at Alesia the Greeks did all the time, making circumvalenting walls when they besieged enemy towns, sometimes with double walls to also protect from the outside. What Caesar did at Pharsalus, that is appointing a force to attack the enemy cavalry, they also did. They would array on rough ground more times than they did on even ground. they would also use field artillery, at least in later times, as did Alexander the Great for example or Antiochus III.


What I am saying is that Greek tactics were much more complex and fluid than we give them credit to.

Nevertheless, they truly excelled in open ground, this is were they would be strongest and more effective when compared to others, and this is why I think that in the above example, we have given Romans the disadvantage. Yet, we should not think that in rough ground their efficiency would be poor... It is true that, again in this specific example, the Romans would fare better, but this is mainly because the Roman legionary was supposed to be an all around soldier able to skirmish as well as fight in line. If we gave the Spartans their psiloi, the Romans would again have many problems. What would we say if we compared 300 Romans of the best operating on an Aetolian mountain against 300 Aetolian psiloi? Does anyone really believe there would be any chance the Romans would get the upper hand? Not unless they sacked some cities and brought them to the plains where they could slaughter them. How about 300 knights Templar against 300 Scythian horsearchers? The Templars would have no chance whatsoever... On the other hand, a full army with horse and light infantry contingents would be able to conquer such difficulties.

In conclusion, in my opinion, 300 experienced Spartans in line would most probably beat 300 experienced Caesarian legionaries in line also arrayed against them, no tricks played (which actially means that we take away the capability of the general factor). On the other hand, a Caesarean army of, say, 20,000 men would most probably beat a Spartan army of 20,000 men, all the auxiliary units included in a battle set on a regular 2-3 km wide open ground. And this because the Romans would be able to properly utilize their line/unit relief tactics, they would have more cavalry, better overall training, command system, uniformity etc, while the Spartans would have some 1-3,000 Spartans, Sciritae, Neodamodeis, Helots, Acarnanian, Helian, Corinthian etc allies, each one with their own peculiarites and almost no cavalry apart from mercenaries (300-600) and some Boeotians if at the time they would have them as allies... I guess that against such a Roman army, should it invade Peloponnesus, the Spartans would have resorted to skirmishing and offering battle in narrow places, where they could fully utilize their best troops only and swarm the enemy with their numerous psiloi.

I may be a bit taxing and too analytical on the matter, I nevertheless thank you for the oportunity to engage in a discussion that really interests me.

[comicus]

The Romans had already beat the greek phalanx at the The Battle of Cynoscephalae against the Macedonians in 197BC, this occured before the reforms of Marius in 107BC where the Roman army became a more deadly and professional force. Gius Julius Caesars 10th legion would be better trained than Titus Quinctius Flamininus legions in 197BC and would be able to flank the Spartan phalanx on an open battle field. The phalanx once flanked and attacked from the backside becomes vulnerable and unable to turn and it would quickly become easy pickings for the Romans which are a much more manuverable force.

[Macedon]

The Romans had already beat the greek phalanx at the The Battle of Cynoscephalae against the Macedonians in 197BC, this occured before the reforms of Marius in 107BC where the Roman army became a more deadly and professional force. Gius Julius Caesars 10th legion would be better trained than Titus Quinctius Flamininus legions in 197BC and would be able to flank the Spartan phalanx on an open battle field. The phalanx once flanked and attacked from the backside becomes vulnerable and unable to turn and it would quickly become easy pickings for the Romans which are a much more manuverable force.

The Romans being able to attack te rear of the half-phalanx of Phillipus is no proof that a Greek phalanx was easy to outflank. Nor that an outflank against Greeks was more profitable than outflanking Romans. In order for any army to be able to attack the rear of another army there must be certain conditions fulfilled that the enemy will try to defend against with cavalry, light infantry, reserves, proper terrain selection, stratagems, resting a flank on unpassable ground etc. The Romans, as every other army, were also scared of being outflanked and encircled, this is why they placed the allied legions on the flanks, when the Greeks customarily placed there their most trustworty troops. What Cynoscephalae actually clearly shows (as well as Magnesia and Pydna) is that the Romans could not match the strength of a phalangial frontal attack and that pila did not have any significant effect against men less armored than 5th century hoplites and with much smaller shields. What would happen if Philippus had attacked with his whole phalanx or if the left wing was ready and deployed the moment the Romans came to grasps? Plus, we can also see that such "outflanking action" was not "logical" in the Roman battle plan. The part of the Romans army that attacked the still deploying Macedonian left did not receive orders to do what it did. It did not act according to plan. This unnamed Roman officer took a huge risk in actually disobeying, quitting his post and winning the battle. One could actually expect the general to have given instructions on how the rear line of the Triarii should march to the rear of Philippus but there was no such order. It seems that the keeping of these reserves in place was very important to the Roman system. What would happen if it was instead Philippus who gave the order for his phalanx to form an amphistomos phalanx, that is a double phalanx and while chasing the left Roman wing with one have the other one attack the rear of the Romans? This is what could easily have happened if his own left wing could stay longer. But, being attacked while still in column put them in a position worse than the one Flamininus was in.

Even though we are now talking about spears and not sarissae (although 300 years after Thermopylae, the Lacedaemonians would certainly be armed with the pike as they were since the 3rd century), this can also lead to a very interesting discussion.

In any case, I guess that outflanking is outside the scope of this example. I think it is more possible that the Lacedaemonians would actually outflank the Romans in this specific case, since would the Romans deploy as they normally would in multiple lines, they would have a much narrower frontage than the Greeks...

[Theodosius the Great]

They [Spartans] would have had a single long spear and a short sword, plus their usual shield, helmet and bronze cuirass armour (at this time).

All of them? Bronze cuirasses wouldn't be limited to officers and wealthier hoplites? Sparta, if I'm not mistaken, was an impoverished country like most of Greece at this period. I can envision the first and second ranks having bronze breastplates but all eight? IDK

Let's say each legionary had two pila

One light, one weighted.

Single missile volleys never actually caused real casualties and the Spartan shields would not be as easy to "penetrate" as those of the "barbarians". I doubt they would be penetrated at all, although I might be wrong here (does anyone know of any study regarding pila and reinforced hoplite shields, with all their curves etc?)..

IDK. A thin sheet of bronze and a wooden core may not stand up to a weighted, iron pilum head.

For some reason, everyone is persuaded that they only fought in compact phalanxes which were unable to perform on rugged terrain.

Here's my observation. If the Spartans would form a standard phalanx (i.e. tight, shoulder-to-shoulder formation) then their line would be narrower than the Roman force since legionairies usually fought in much looser formation. The Spartans would then be endangered of becoming outflanked. But if the Spartans didn't fight in a compact formation they would leave themselves open to the Roman javelin discharge. The aspis didn't offer much protection on the Hoplite's right side. And a looser formation means that the Hoplite spears would not deflect most of the oncoming volley.

The Spartans would also rotate the front line.

Could they pull that off if fighting in a tight phalanx formation? We don't even know how the Romans did this in their manipular formations. :-?

I have reason to believe that the pila were kind of ineffective. They did not seem to have any effect in any of the battles against the Macedonians

I think that's a testament to the effectiveness of the sarissa over the much shorter Hoplite spear, not the ineffectiveness of pila in a general sense.

I have already mentioned some of their usual feint techniques, and these battle hardened, well-campaigned Romans may have fallen for their own myth of invincibility and not seen the smarter Spartans duplicity

But you're taking generalship into account, right? If we are then I'd say Caesar would make short work of Leonida's Spartans. And what's this sense of invicibility? I thought this was a Spartan mentality. Romans suffered terrible defeats against the Teutons and Cimbri. Caesar's men at least could justifiably feel invicible, IMO.

~Theo

[Macedon]

All of them? Bronze cuirasses wouldn't be limited to officers and wealthier hoplites? Sparta, if I'm not mistaken, was an impoverished country like most of Greece at this period. I can envision the first and second ranks having bronze breastplates but all eight? IDK

The men going with Leonidas to Thermopylae would be most probably all armored as best as possible. They were Spartans and not young, all having male children and all. I agree that other Lacedaemonians would probably have inferior equipment (Spartans were but a fragment of the Lacedaemonian army), but I do not think that 300 picked men of the Spartans proper would.

One light, one weighted.

I would agree here that the Spartans would not launch volleys of javelins, at least before the charge. This was the job of their psiloi. Yet, we also know that during hoplitic combat, there were many javelins hurled from one line onto the other, possibly from light infantry behind the hoplites or from hoplites of the rear rank, we cannot be sure. I do not know of any account of hoplites massively throw javelins, but in art they are most often depicted as indeed carrying two javelins.

IDK. A thin sheet of bronze and a wooden core may not stand up to a weighted, iron pilum head.

I would not say that it was the bronze that made them harder to penetrate. It was their shape and the way the wood used was stressed. A curved surface always offers better protection against blows, since it tends to deflect them more. The way they also stressed the wood used for its production also seems to have played a role in providing better deflection (I am sure I read about that someplace, although I cannot at this moment pinpoint where. I have little interest in military technology, so this is not something I vouch for, other members could help here).

Here's my observation. If the Spartans would form a standard phalanx (i.e. tight, shoulder-to-shoulder formation) then their line would be narrower than the Roman force since legionairies usually fought in much looser formation. The Spartans would then be endangered of becoming outflanked. But if the Spartans didn't fight in a compact formation they would leave themselves open to the Roman javelin discharge. The aspis didn't offer much protection on the Hoplite's right side. And a looser formation means that the Hoplite spears would not deflect most of the oncoming volley.

The Spartans of the 5th century would fight in close formation, indeed not compact/extra-close (hyperpykne). Caesar's legionaries would probably fight them in close order as well. Else, they would be very vulnerable to flank stabs having to face spears from three possible directions. They could indeed also fight in open order and thus extend their front but open order was used to be able to more effectively engage in swordsplay, which would not be the case here. Yet, density of order alone does not guarantee an extended front. You also have to count in depth and reserves. A typical Caesarian arrangement against other Romans or Gauls, both not spear bearing opponents, would have some 50% of the army (in cases even less) deploy in the first line. Depths could vary from 4 deep (Caesar vs. Pompey at Pharsala) to 10 (Pompey vs. Caesar at Pharsala). Assuming a depth of 6, we would have 150/6= 25 files, each actually being alotted about 1.2 m. in open order(1.8 but 0.6 has to be deducted as the interval is shared by the parastatae, so 0.6+1.2/2) That would make a frontage of 30 m. On the other hand, the Spartans would normally deploy 8 deep occupying about 75 cm each (0.6+0.3/2). Their 300/8= 37(.5) files or 27.75 m. But against an opponent in open order, depth would be useless, so the Spartans would more probably deploy 4 deep and so present a dense formation with a frontage of 55.5 m, much more than what the Romans could cover even if they also deployed 4 deep. The only way for the Romans to equate their frontage would be to both order in a shallow formation and not deploy in more than one line, which automatically sets them at a disadvantage, since they would fight in a mode different from that they were trained for.
As for the right side, this has nothing to do with the line. The hoplon shield covered the hoplite from both sides very well when kept perpendicular to the enemy. The problem with the right side of every shield is that when a warrior, for any reason pushes his shield forward or to the side (in order to push, stab etc), then for these moments, his right is exposed. This was no less problem for the Romans or any other army. or this reason, the Greeks wanted to be near heir right man, so that they enjoyed partial protection from his shield EVEN when and if they opened up.
Even if for some reason the Spartans would be afraid that they would be outflanked, they would have employed countermeasures. These would include less depth, arraying oblique or double oblique (wedge), even in a Π formation. There are tactics to avoid being outflanked, especially when numbers are so close and no light infantry or cavalry is present.

Could they pull that off if fighting in a tight phalanx formation? We don't even know how the Romans did this in their manipular formations. :-?

I do not think that I have ever read about any change of lines or ranks regarding the Spartans or any Greek. If by that Ghostmojo is even suggesting rotating the ranks, I would totally disagree. The role of the protostatae was set and very important both in the Roman and the Greek armies. There would not be any rotation of ranks as was shown in the series "Rome". We are constantly reminded of the role of the protostatae in the literature and this was to bear the brunt of battle. They would only be pulled back if they were badly injured or dead as far as the sources are concerned. Yet, there is one more tactic, that is not widely known, ascribed to the Spartans, the "saw". The front rank staying put while the rest of the line retreats a little and reorganizes if any disorder was detected. Always keep in mind that the rotation of lines is not the same as rotating the ranks.

I think that's a testament to the effectiveness of the sarissa over the much shorter Hoplite spear, not the ineffectiveness of pila in a general sense.

How come? The battles of Cynoscephalae, Pydna and Magnesia cannot be used to compare spears to pikes. I already mentioned in my post above that the sarissae were not spears, since you used Cynoscephalae as an example but still conclusions can be drawn. The thing is that the pilum is supposed to be used in order to soften up and dazzle the opponent right before the final charge. If such an effect could not be produced against any of the more vulnerable to disorder and less protected pike bearing phalanxes, what makes you think that it would be produced on a much more heavily protected Spartan hoplite phalanx, especially one that would be much more exprienced and trained than any of the above mentioned phallanxes?

But you're taking generalship into account, right? If we are then I'd say Caesar would make short work of Leonida's Spartans. And what's this sense of invicibility? I thought this was a Spartan mentality. Romans suffered terrible defeats against the Teutons and Cimbri. Caesar's men at least could justifiably feel invicible, IMO.

I agree, although I cannot say what sort of a general Leonidas was apart from being a dedicated Spartan and Greek. Caesar did have his unfortunate moments too. The Spartans were also often defeated on the battlefield, but these are instances of full scale battles and cannot be used as an analogy here. There were a lot of very capable Spartan generals and a lot that were simply bad. And their code of honor often led them to dire mistakes, even outright questioning of the chain of command that could lead to very dangerous situations...