Who would win?

[Robert Vermaat]

Please read my 2nd post

Mhh. I think you a believer in the 'alomst-myth' of the superhuman Spartan warrior, aren't you?
But even though these men were great warriors with a very strict and heavy education and training, they were by no means as superior as they are sometimes presented. I mean, Sparta did not military dominate Greece all the time, did it?
And when it came to war between Sparta and Athene, Sparta won but not without years and years of fighting.
Which is why I agree with the Roman victory as presented above, although the times may be a bit exaggerated...

[M.ilionario]

Mhh. I think you a believer in the 'alomst-myth' of the superhuman Spartan warrior, aren't you?

Yup!

But even though these men were great warriors with a very strict and heavy education and training, they were by no means as superior as they are sometimes presented. I mean, Sparta did not military dominate Greece all the time, did it?
And when it came to war between Sparta and Athene, Sparta won but not without years and years of fighting.

Sparta failed to dominate Greece because:
It had less allies;
It had far less men;
It had too confident and stupid leaders;
During the peloponesian war it's navy was still developing while the athenian navy was developed as hell. :evil:

And don't you think that TEN YEARS of THE thoughest training of human history can make a lot of difference? What about their morale? I don't think a 3 MONTHS training and a few years of battle experience can be compared to that..... :evil:

Do you?

[Anonymous]

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.)

Opinion seems to be that the range was about 30 meters, but I'm with Jyrki on this; you use them at close range for maximum damage and so that the enemy hasn't time to re-organise in the distance he has left to cover.

The legion must be slightlty more open order than the phalanx to cast pila.
Would they all find their targets?

In a phalanx? I can't think of any reason why not.

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.

The aspis is an ideal target for a heavy javelin - thinner at the centre than at the edge and fixed close to the bearer's body. What evidence is there that you could stay in phalanx with a pilum hanging out of your aspis? You know I'd like to agree with you, Stefane, but I can't.

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?

I've no idea. Perhaps they weren't as good at that date as they had become nearly four centuries later. (Remember, we're talking about 2nd c AD Legionaries here - bit like pitting Richard III's knights against Raedwald's Saxons, really.)

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.

You could be right, after all, the Romans only managed to win Pydna by one of those astonishing turns of luck that litter their history.

[P. Lilius Frugius Simius]

OK, I thought it was II BCE...

A Marcus Antonius's legion is a different matter altogether... But anyway...

I recall Bruegger's description of the pila data from classical sources, most of the pila would simply sit on the ground and be annoying, and most of them would be set free during battle lulls (if you buy on that theory, which I obviously do).

Therefore I don't think the initial pila volley would be any more devastating than Persian arrows or javelins in a similar situation.

As Stephanos has rightly pointed out, in the real phalanx vs. legions encounters we have (different types of legions, I know, also different type of phalanxes as well, but it's the best we have anyway) phalanxes were basically only defeated through flanking. Let's also remember that Spartans were able to do maneuvers that no other phalanxes were (like splitting and working into smaller groups, etc... it was, essentially, the prototype of the first echelon tactics developed through the IV and III BCE by Makedonians, Samnites, Epirotians, Italiot Greeks, Carthaginians and, eventually, Romans as well (Scipio), specially when Hannibal's Libyan spearmen were hoplites à la "epibatai" (i.e. a bit lighter, smaller shields and spears) but knowing how to fight in smaller units (syntagmae, morai, lochoi, etc...)), the Spartans were not unbeatable, obviously, not even in a pure othismos (Epaminondas?) but let's remember we are talking Spartan hoplites against Roman infantry legionnaires (no auxiliaries, cavalry, etc).

If we don't accept the pila destroying the phalanx front, how would a pure infantry Roman legion break the phalanx front? Let's remember that there's no big difference (at least in body mechanics) between a gladius and a xiphos; and Spartans knew how to use them! I don't think a legion would find a way to break a phalanx on even ground, and no flanking maneuvers

Lastly, let's not forget the power of morale: once the Romans knew they were facing the heroes of Thermopylae and Plataea, they would just rout and run in panic at the salphinxes rythm before a single drop of blood was spilled... :-) )

khairete!

PS- let's also not forget that the IV CE Spartans did resist and wipe the floor at least once against (at least some of) Alaric's troops (which were Roman comitatenses, which I'd say would wipe the floor of any Marcus Antonius legion any day: Marcus Antonius vs. Julian or Stilicho? any day!) before Sparta being basically distroyed forever. The Spartans were "weird" at those times because the clinged to their former ways, there might not be such a big gap between a Spartan V BCE and IV CE phalanxes in terms of composition... and the V BCE Spartans would be really batle hardened, not just drilled!!!

[M.ilionario]

Thanks David :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Please read my 2nd post

I couldn't, because I was still typing my next post when you said

Please read my 2nd post

Anyway. you say yourself that Spartan commanders were stupid. Ergo, Romans win.

in the real phalanx vs. legions encounters we have (different types of legions, I know, also different type of phalanxes as well, but it's the best we have anyway) phalanxes were basically only defeated through flanking.

So, they're dead then.

but let's remember we are talking Spartan hoplites against Roman infantry legionnaires (no auxiliaries, cavalry, etc).

Exactly - they're dead then.

PS- let's also not forget that the IV CE Spartans

No, slapped wrists. Wrong period.

Lastly, let's not forget the power of morale: once the Romans knew they were facing the heroes of Thermopylae and Plataea, they would just rout and run in panic at the salphinxes rythm before a single drop of blood was spilled... Smile

No, wrong. They'd think "Nice bangle! I want that!". Their ancestors beat Alexander's cousin for crying out loud - Pyrrhus!. Once reminded of that they'd simply see those Greeks as more fodder. They may have admired the Spartans, but I'd bet money they'd have thought "Not as good as us though."

[M.ilionario]

Anyway. you say yourself that Spartan commanders were stupid. Ergo, Romans win.

I meant politicians, not generals....

Quote:
in the real phalanx vs. legions encounters we have (different types of legions, I know, also different type of phalanxes as well, but it's the best we have anyway) phalanxes were basically only defeated through flanking.

So, they're dead then.

Man, I said NO FLANKING!!!

Can anyone pay attention to this please?
10 Years of your life!
Since You're 7 til you're 17!
Without conting the mental training before that!
10 Years doing nothing but what you need to become a perfect soldier, and I really mean perfect! Not Invincible, but perfect because there can be no better!
You can have better equipment and your commanders may use better tactics, but when it comes to the soldier he's perfect!

[Robert Vermaat]

10 Years doing nothing but what you need to become a perfect soldier, and I really mean perfect! Not Invincible, but perfect because there can be no better!
You can have better equipment and your commanders may use better tactics, but when it comes to the soldier he's perfect!

10 years of being brainwashed until you're some arrogant sob who thinks his only true purpose is bleeding out on the battlefield? Or worse, that he can't be beaten?

Purfect, yeah right.. Briandead-that's what! :twisted:

But seriously, I think that 30 to 70 % of all that was just pure propaganda.

[M.ilionario]

You may be a madman with no personal thoughts but that doesn't make you a worse warrior....
You're a soldier not an officer, you don't need to look at it straight..... 8)

[Zenodoros]

Spartan agoge was all in all 23 years, assuming the average age of these Spartans is 30, and of course constant drills and training is still required.., and a few years of this was spent in the wilderness, with one piece of clothing, relying entirely on oneself to survive. Sounds tough... and it gets tougher when you realize they were only adolescents. Sorry Romans, but on the toughness factor, the Spartans win there. Not to say the Roman soldiers were weak, of course.

Now, which V century Spartan is it that we are concentrating on? Persian Wars I presume... then they would have bronze helmets and armour and not linothorax, steel lakonian xiphos swords (25-30cm), steel-tipped spears with bronze butt-spikes (lizard stickers), greaves and of course the aspis. Bronze cuirasses provided fine armour against sword blows. Xiphos or kopis was capable of chopping limbs off with ease (Gladius could do this too, but the kopis was even more effective).

7 centuries of learning from mistakes frankly doesn't sound fair, since the Spartans only had say two and a half during the 5th century.

Best 300 versus best 300... the Spartans would win head-to-head in a pitched battle with no flanking... alternatively the Romans would win with flanking. Since flanking apparently isn't allowed by either side, and no support troops are up, I'd have to say that the Spartans would cross the line... and this is without bias, friends, for I honestly think the Romans could defeat just about anything else.

[Jeroen Pelgrom]

on the other hand, how deep was a classical phalanx? I've read about 3-5 men deep. Were there second lines in a phalanx or one big line.

[Robert Vermaat]

Best 300 versus best 300... the Spartans would win head-to-head in a pitched battle with no flanking... alternatively the Romans would win with flanking. Since flanking apparently isn't allowed by either side, and no support troops are up, I'd have to say that the Spartans would cross the line... and this is without bias, friends, for I honestly think the Romans could defeat just about anything else.

I think that's the rub - no flanking. That's a bit like asking who would win - a lion vs. a bear - and then say the bear can't use his claws.
So OK, the Spartans would win under those conditions, maybe. But what is the use of asking a question like this? I mean, the historical possibility was already zero, but limit the possibilities of an equal battle like this, too?

[Zenodoros]

Not necessarily, since both bears and lions have claws. That would be like if both the Spartans and Legionaries used phalanx formation, which isn't the case. It's not saying that the Romans can't attack front on. It'd be closer to say that the bear can't attack the lion on the back, and vice-versa. It's a case of raw strength, not flexibility.

[Tarbicus]

Can anyone pay attention to this please?
10 Years of your life!
Since You're 7 til you're 17!
Without conting the mental training before that!
10 Years doing nothing but what you need to become a perfect soldier, and I really mean perfect! Not Invincible, but perfect because there can be no better!
You can have better equipment and your commanders may use better tactics, but when it comes to the soldier he's perfect!

Okay, pay attention to this: 15+ years of military life, with constant training and exercises throughout. You did say veteran legionaries. So, take my original estimates for how long the combat would last and halve them.

As for no flanking allowed - pointless. It's battle 101. It'll be the legionaries can't use their gladii next. :wink:

[spyros]

I think that the answer is obvious. The Spartan would win hands down! A 2nd century roman army would be too busy rubbing their eyes with amazement seeing an army of supposedly dead 5th century BC Greeks marching against them. :lol:

Joke aside I do not like this kind of theoretical questions, knights vs samurai and all that. The phalanx and the mandible were produced for specific reasons according to means, society and environment.
Phalanx was created to fight against phalanx (Persian wars aside), the mandible was created to counter almost everything. Romans were master of adaptation. Also, as pointed out a Phalanx unable to use the shield wall would lose and would be only fair, seven centuries of evolution can do that. It is the same as asking who would win in a battle between an English Napoleonic army against a Swiss 15th century army.