who would win in a war sparta or the roman army?

Update:

also why did you chose them

14 Answers

Relevance
  • Krak
    Lv 5
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Anachronistic...Like comparing modern soldier with medieval knight...Hand to hand, knight would kick our ***, but in a firefight,trench battle..knight has no chance of course.

    Spartans fought a whole different type of war, and were certainly superior in lower numbers and archaic Greek way of fighting...Which is tactic-less face to face, fair fight...relied almost entirely on muscle and discipline...and they had both.They were bred warriors, famous wrestlers etc...But only in a place where arrows were considered cowardly even from Lelantine war - 8th BC.

    Roman ways of fighting on the other hand would probably be considered cowardly by Spartans...A whole specter of tactics,weapons,units etc..numbers...Spartans had only up to 8000 men in their peak,around 500 BC...Romans had much much more...

    Compare it to present special force units, like GIGN,SAJ which have between 120 and 200 members only..but an ultimate elite..Compared to much more poorly trained US Marines for example who number in thousands,who don't hesitate to shoot,destroy,call in bombs from the sky to demolish entire neighbourhood for few enemy etc (all those special forces like French GIGN try not to shoot,not to destroy anything more than enemy and enemy only,not even them if not necessary)...Marines would win,are they better warriors...no.

    Same is with Spartans and Romans...Spartans would never be able to fight Romans by rules of that time...Spartans are far better warriors...

    @PopeJewi...

    False..Spartans only relied on ''slaves'' towards the end of their power, their army was purely citizen elite, only helped by allied free armies of periokoi settlements,and other allied cities...

    You can only compare similar training to say who is better..For example. wrestling,hand to hand combat etc..You can not say Spartans had worse training because they didn't know how to form a testudo or fire a balista??

    Millions and millions of men, is close to the entire population or half of the entire population of Europe and big parts of Asia and Africa at that time..so take a deep breath, and lower those numbers by many times...Roman army is closer to 150 000 + auxiliaries...in total.

    • sir smoke5 years agoReport

      spartan army is more of a warrior culture concept, while roman army is a significant military machine...a single spartan might kill 5 or six roman soldiers...but in a warpath..nothing can outlast conscripted soldiers. and romans did defeated macedonian, which an extended version of spartan culture

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Sparta is much like england . Produces the finest warriors on earth . Rome more like america , has a much bigger manpower force and global projection ,but one to one would be beaten by british soldiers easy.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Sparta......!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Sparta had the best armed, best trained soldiers during their time. That time was long before the height of the Romans.

    The Roman empire had equal or better training (both societies relied on slaves in order to keep a professional fighting force, but Roman tactics were MUCH more advanced)

    The Romans had much more advanced armor and weapons.

    most importantly, the Romans had million and millions more people in their army, and much better technicians/engineers for siege equipment. There wouldn't have been a contest. Sparta would have been crushed, just as it was crushed, with the rest of Greece when Rome took over

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Sparta.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Rome was an empire, Sparta was a city-state.

    In 300, the Spartans got their butts handed to them eventually, so I'll go with Rome.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 8 years ago

    Well the answer is obvious Rome would win

    Sparta had better trained fighters and they were trained for war from a very young age however sparta was only a city-state not a full empire like rome.

    Rome had a much larger army and very well trained while Sparta had a good sized army it was nowhere near the size of Romes army

    Rome Also had more advanced tech

    So in a 1v1 match Sparta would win

    but in all out war Rome would win

    Source(s): Stuff...
    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    the roman army was much bigger and more organized

    yes the spartans may have mastered the phalanx, but romans fought as a machine, and outnumbered spartans by a LOT

    the numbre alone would let the romans win, think of it this way, the 300 may have survived for a while agains the persians, but that was only in stratigic positions (roman's fought in open places)

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    sparta is a city but if u brought the whole roman empire eagle and all sparta would have been erased from history

    one on one spartan would win because a spartan was picked out from birth and a roman citizan would be taken at like 12 yrs old to surv the empire

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Regardless of what Hollywood says, its Rome.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    I will judge them by height of power which was not the same time...Rome. Rome was a giant empire; Sparta was a city state.

    • Jedisrule6 years agoReport

      But Sparta had an elite fighting infantry

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.