Who would win?

[M.ilionario]

This is a mere speculative topic, it could be posted in either the Roman or the Greek forums. I decided to post it here because I've never posted anything in the Greek forum.

Who do you think would win?

Spartan Hoplite 5th century BC
vs
Roman Veteran Legionary 2nd century AD

1- 1on1 battle
2- massed head-on battle with even numbers (only those types of soldiers)

Thank you :wink:

Move the site if it's not supposed to be here 8)

[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!

[Zenodoros]

Well, I don't really know as much about the Roman Legionarii as I'd like to, but I do know that they were some tough company, and certainly admired the Spartans a lot.

For a 1 on 1 battle, it could probably go either way, considering that both soldiers were trained to be in disciplined formation. They both had heavy shields. The Romans could probably get an advantage with their pila (did they still use the pilum 2nd century?), although alternatively, it could leave them wide open to a spear in the face. So, I'd say about 50/50 on that one.

In a larger scale battle, it'd be similar, but I'd probably hand the victory to the Romans because of their more flexible tactics. However, like any good battle, it depends on the location. If the Spartans commanded a strong choke point than they would win.

[Tarbicus]

Steel against bronze - is there even a question? More importantly, bronze against steel? Both sides highly trained and veterans.

Romans win every time:

Full battle in a pass - one day.
Full battle on open plain - three hours.
Full battle on uneven and rocky ground - one hour.
One v. one - five minutes.

Except:
Fisticuffs without armour - even money :wink:

Spartans v. Batavian auxiliaries:
Half the time of the above.

[hoplite14gr]

The only case where a "legion type" heavy infantry formation fought against a "classical phalanx type" heavy infantry formation was the first Roman incursions againt Taras (Taranto) and Thourioi.
At the time the these battle were fought the Roman army was bigger that the greek armies and the heavy infantry Roman frontage was wider than the Greek frontage with the option of eneveloping the flanks.
There is still a debate if there was any proper heavy infantry in the Italiotic colonies at the time.

Heraklea and the initial stages of Pydna showed that a legion would have trouble with a Hellenistic phalanx.

The Romans scored victories because the had a better understanding of the combined arms battle. At the time of the Greco-Roams conflicts their society was also allowing men of high caliber to command their armies.

On 5th centry a Spartan general would do all in his power to avoid one to one battle and he would use tight ranks that would decide the issue.

On one one woulf be usually in skirmisher or foragers encounter and then there is no guarnatee of ehat ytp of equipment thes men would carry.

Kind regards

P.S. Jim, no general worth his salt would fight in rocky tarrian with a phalanx.

[M.ilionario]

What about the 10 years of the toughest training ever?
Doesn't that count?
2nd Century Veteran is:
Rectangular scutum, gladius, pilum, lorica segmentata or hamata, helmet, belt, pugio (dagger).

In my oppinion the spartans would win in both.
Remember: I said in a head-on battle, that means no flanking.... :x
And! It's a 5th century BC Spartan, not a 1st century AD 'shadow of the past' Spartan

[Tarbicus]

P.S. Jim, no general worth his salt would fight in rocky tarrian with a phalanx.

Pydna. Forget the terrain though, there are those that say command had nothing to do with it, the sides were pretty even (less Romans if anything), and the battle went from both even to uneven terrain. Those phalangites just didn't know how to deal with attacks on the flanks, or forgot to send in the light infantry to protect them.

Even if it were on even terrain there are no light troops to protect the flanks between the phalanxes anyway according to the original question here (hoplites vs. legionaries), so the Spartans are pretty much stuffed which ever way you look at it.

[hoplite14gr]

A good general and adaptation of tactics some time beat an army toughly train in just one type of fighting.
But judging from Heraklea, in a head on fight with both opponents having flanks secure and equal frontage (this is speculative of cource) my money go to the Spartans but I doubt that the Romans would repeat that mistake.

Kind regards

[M.ilionario]

Even if it were on even terrain there are no light troops to protect the flanks between the phalanxes anyway according to the original question here (hoplites vs. legionaries), so the Spartans are pretty much stuffed which ever way you look at it.

Please read my 2nd post

[Matthew Amt]

Just as a "by the way", the Spartans of the 5th century BC would be using iron weapons, not bronze. That's well into the iron age. Wouldn't matter in any case, since weapons are not clanged against each other to decide the battle, and good bronze is actually harder than low-carbon iron.

I won't get into the tussle beyond that!

Have fun and Khairete,

Matthew

[LUCIUS ALFENUS AVITIANUS]

Steel against bronze - is there even a question? More importantly, bronze against steel? Both sides highly trained and veterans.

Romans win every time:

Full battle in a pass - one day.
Full battle on open plain - three hours.
Full battle on uneven and rocky ground - one hour.
One v. one - five minutes.

Except:
Fisticuffs without armour - even money :wink:

Spartans v. Batavian auxiliaries:
Half the time of the above.

Bravo!

I agree!!!

ROMA VICTRIX

[Anonymous]

One-to-one, I would make it evens. In a pitched battle, the Romans damned-well ought to win, since they've had seven centuries in which to develop arms and tactics that can cope with whatever might be thrown against them. Given the heavy pilum available to 2nd century AD troops, I would envisage the Spartan phalanx being severely broken up with men killed, wounded or disarmed of their shields just before they come to fighting range. This negates the raison d'etre of the phalanx - tight unit cohesion producing momentum from the mass. The Spartans arrive disorganised and outnumbered (as planned - by the Romans!) and get jobbed by Romans working in pairs or even threes.

Apologies to my Greek colleagues. I do feel, however, that the Spartans would have wiped the floor with the Romans of their own day.

Concentrate, you Romans! :wink: Matt has already covered the bronze bloomer, but "Pre- or post-Marius"? He's second century BC , not AD! :roll:

[hoplite14gr]

The only real isssue is the pilum.
It is concidered more effective than a javelin. But is it?
I doubt that its effectve range is more than 50 meters (OK roman renactors can correct me on the details.)
The legion must be slightlty more open order than the phalanx to cast pila.
Would they all find their targets? would they all penetrate?
Linothorax was quite resistant and a hoplite shield with a pilum on it can still do othismos. Plus the "hanging pilum" can still break and stop be the problem on the initial crush.

When the tight formation crushes on the sparse formtation the tighter formation witll gain ground and shove the opposition off the field.

If the pilums were so effective why the romans had problem in Heraklea and why with the exception of the 2nd Battle of Cheronea the wan all their battles vesrus phalanx by turning the flank?

Except in case of Cheronea the only thing that broke the front of the phalanx was another phalanx.
As I said before the only historical case where the legion was pitted against the Italiotic Greek phalanx had the chance to turn the flank.
Kind regards

[Virilis]

I doubt that its effectve range is more than 50 meters

I have always thought that throwing a pilum in a nice arch in the air for 20-30 metres in a combat situation is ridiculous! In my opinion it was thrown point-blank at about 10-15 metres. There would be very little time to take out your gladius before the lines crash and this really explains the right-side positioning of it! Brutal, yes!

[hoplite14gr]

Well if that is the case Jyrki, the full force of the phalanx would have crashed on the more "open" legion with bad results.
Kind regards