Who Would Win in a War, the Spartans Or the Romans?

"The Spartans were some of the greatest soldiers of all time, but that isn't as great an advantage as people make it out to be. You could take any modern day special forces unit and have them face a decently trained regular infantry unit that uses better tactics and specops would probably be on the losing end of the battle. The fact is that the Spartans use outdated tactics, inferior technology, and bring fewer soldiers to the fight.The Bronze isn't that big of a problem since those shields were friggin' huge, and bronze swords still cut pretty well.As demonstrated by the 300 Spartans (and the rest of the Greek force at Thermopylae) under Leonidas a numerical disadvantage isn't necessarily a problem.The Spartan's training is their main advantage, and it is why technology and numbers aren't as much of a factor in this fight.Now, we come to tactics.The phalanx was perfect for fighting the Persians. The phalanx, especially that of the Spartans, is very effective at charging an enemy and breaking their lines. The Spartans were heavy infantry and smashed through the Persian medium and light infantry. The shield wall was also an effective tool for stopping enemy offensives.The Romans put a lot of thought into their tactics and strategies, choosing not to rely on the same approach every time they fought, even writing books on strategy and tactics. The Romans also knew that other people have good ideas, so when they encountered the manipular formation hey dropped the Phalanx like a calculus class. The Romans saw that manipular formation was flexible and gave commanders options other than "charge!"The Manipular formation also had a definitive edge against a Phalanx on broken terrain. The Phalanx's power to break enemy lines depended on the formation staying together and the lines remaining as straight as possible. If the Phalanx lost its cohesion, possibly due to someone tripping on a rock or being slowed down by a small hill the Phalanx lost its power and its defeat was almost inevitable. the manipular formation didn't have this problem and maintained its cohesion.If the Romans can force a battle on uneven terrain it is an automatic win. The Spartans are at their best on uneven terrain, but it won't give them a definitive edge.Weapons

The Romans and Spartans both used Javelins to kill at a range. The Spartans used a basic Javelin, but the Romans used the Pilum, which was specifically designed to not only pierce flesh, but strip the enemy of their shields, they didn't even have to go all the way through, if a spear is sticking out of your shield you are slowed down, and stopping to remove the Pilum will slow you down even further. This would not only make the Spartans much more vulnerable once they reached the Romans, but also slow them down and disrupt their formation." Oh, it would also kill or wound some Spartans as well.The Spartan's javelin would have been ineffective due to the Roman's famous "turtle formation," but they had no real defense against the Pilum which is the ideal weapon for combatting a phalanx. When the Spartans reached the Roman lines they would still have their spears, but they would be useless if the Romans got in close, and if they didn't have their shield the Gladius would make sure work of them.The Spartans were almost entirely covered in bronze armor. This gave them excellent protection, but couldn't take as much repeated punishment as steel. Their helmets covered most of their faces and greatly restricted their vision. The Romans used chain mail, but also had some plated armor on their shoulders and a solid steel helmet which afforded them much greater vision than the Spartans. Chainmail, would protect the Romans from slashing attacks but was vulnerable to the thrust, while their helmets could take more punishment and gave them a greater field of vision.The Spartans used massive Bronze and wood shields which protected most of their bodies and made an excellent offensive tool. The Roman shield also covered a large portion of the body, but was made of less durable material. The Roman shields smaller size made them more maneuverable, and it was very effective at blocking enemy projectiles in a turtle formation.The Spartans have a vastly superior shield but as stated before they could easily lose that advantage due to the Pilum.Then we have the scorpion, a (comparatively) rapid loading anti-personnel siege weapon that is effective at an insanely long range and packed enough power to go all the way through a man at a distance. This would wreak havoc upon the phalanx' cohesion and dish out a large number of casualties.When it comes to weaponry the Romans had the advantage of technology. Their armor was more durable, they could disrupt enemy formations, effectively defend against projectiles, and their ranged weapons were simply deadlier.It's power and skill vs. flexibility, technology, and knowledge, and when you combine flexibility and knowledge with a numerical advantage, you win.Score one for Roma.

Suggested Reading

What were Napoleon's mistakes in the Battle of Waterloo?

Napoleon made several indirect and direct mistakes during the Battle of Waterloo. Indirect mistakes, in this answer, are the mistake(s) Napoleon made which were not entirely his fault. Direct mistakes, in this answer, are the mistake(s) Napoleon made which were directly due to his own negligence.

Indirect - The Muddy Terrain of Waterloo: Agreeably, historians state that Napoleon made the mistake of attacking on a day after which it rained rather heavily. Waterloo, a generic European terrain had muddy roads which as a result, slowed Napoleon's cannons. One must understand that the British already had their cannons set up atop a hill, the key points of La Haye Sainte, Hougomont, Belle Alliance, and Plancenoit held, and Prussian reinforcements en route. Therefore, it can be agreed that Napoleon's decision to attack on that muddy day was his indirect mistake.Direct - The Splitting of His Army: Napoleon, shortly before the Battle of Waterloo, split his forces in order to chase down the Prussians who escaped from French imprisonment after the Battle of Ligny. General Grouchy of the Grand Armee was given command of almost a quarter of Napoleon's army to chase down the remaining Prussians so that they would not support the British at Waterloo. Ironically, this backfired heavily as the Prussians circled around Grouchy and eventually joined the British army at Waterloo in their final assault. Even though Napoleon had split his army, he still preliminarily outnumbered the British (until the Prussians arrived), however, by only around 6,000 personnel. If Napoleon had not sent Grouchy, surely the Prussians would have supported the British army, however, Napoleon would have had a much better chance.

Direct - Putting Marshal Michel Ney In Charge of Cavalry: The glorious French brigades of Cavalry charging under the sun up a hill which had square-formation regiments and grape shot artillery batteries ready to fire was quite a heroic sight right? Wrong. It cost the French the Battle of Waterloo and subsequently the Napoleonic Wars. Michel Ney was always the courageous and blunt general who had undying loyalty towards Napoleon. With Napoleon famished from commanding his forces at Waterloo, he decided to take a rest at a nearby farmhouse at which point the Marshal of France, Michel Ney took control of the Grand Armee and ordered a full cavalry charge. The first rules in any cavalry commander's syllabus is to never: charge up hill, charge towards square-formation troops, match your regiments against lancer cavalry, and charge against batteries ready to fire grape shot. Michel Ney committed to three of these actions (thank God the British never adopted lancer cavalry). Napoleon should have never let such an ambitious and overenthusiastic general in charge of one of the most important battles of the war.Direct - Committing His Old Guard: The Old Guard was without a doubt the most elite unit in the French army and of Europe at the time. Better than the Coldstream guards, they had undying loyalty towards the French emperor and were battle-hardened. Napoleon, even after the failed charge of the French cavalry, did not play the battle safely. As a result, he advanced his Old Guard, his most elite unit. They were obliterated as a result of a British ambush close to La Haye Sainte by rifle regiments. If Napoleon had waited just a couple more hours, he would have dodged the British ambush and the subsequent Prussian cavalry charge which cleaned up the French troops from the field.Indirect - Not Burning Berlin: "I should have burnt Berlin when I had the chance" was something Napoleon was surely thinking presumably. Although it would not have made much of a difference to the Prussian armed forces if Berlin, the Prussian capital was burnt, it would have lowered Prussian morale and subsequently the Prussians would have went home after Ligny. However, Napoleon failed to do so.

These are the top five mistakes that Napoleon made during and before the Battle of Waterloo. I realize that there are many other mistakes that Napoleon made, however, these, in my opinion, are the most impactful mistakes. Nevertheless, Napoleon was the most greatest general of the 2nd Millennium CE. He proved this by rapidly cutting across Europe and carving out of the region his empire. An empire that would shadow every state and electorate from Canada to Russia (East to West).This answer is not a substitute for professional legal advice. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is it a solicitation to offer legal advice. If you ignore this warning and convey confidential information in a private message or comment, there is no duty to keep that information confidential or forego representation adverse to your interests. Seek the advice of a licensed attorney in the appropriate jurisdiction before taking any action that may affect your rights. If you believe you have a claim against someone, consult an attorney immediately, otherwise there is a risk that the time allotted to bring your claim may expire. Quora users who provide responses to legal questions are intended third party beneficiaries with certain rights under Quora's Terms of Service (