What if? Romans at Thermopylae

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

I have decided that this is probably the best place for this whim.

I was watching 300 - fantastic film, great interpretation of history, yet so off accuracy it is no longer worth worrying - and A flash of brilliance hit me when the 300 created their shield wall.

What if 300 core men from Roman times (eg. Caesars tenth or 300 from Scipios or an imperial legion) were put in the same place, same time in actual history.

What do you people think? would they have defeated more men? or would they not have survived at all?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

The roman approach was likely to be different. Provided they had time, three roman cohorts would have built a wall across the pass. Such obstacles were effective. When Spartacus broke out of the toe of Italy, his total casualties numbered in thousands for a handful of roman legionaries, at least according to the sources which probably exaggerated somewhat. That sort of defensive battle is something the romans were good at, but much depended on who the commander was. With someone of Caesar's or Scipio's potential then the romans would have fought well. They certainly weren't scared to take large numbers - witness the battle against Boudicca's rebels were the romans were substantially outnumbered (and without the benefit of a defensive palisade).

 

Given that, I think the romans would have done quite well. They would still have have lost in the end. The seleucid persians were no walkover as the spartans found out, and whilst the spartans were no mean fighters, they were not as team oriented as roman legions, which I think is an important consideration.

[Kosmo]

The spartans were excelent fighters that where either at war or training. This guys were a elite unit even among spartans, the best man Greece had to offer.

Their equipment was excelent for defensive battle with heavy armor and shield and a strong spear to keep the enemy away.

A head on charge against them was a dificult thing.

 

A roman army relied more on numbers and on manouvers. So in such small numbers I think that they would end up worse then the spartans did. Romans never had real elite units. They rolled over the enemy with a mass of well trained man with excelent weapons. Of course, eve like this they would have been a difficult foe for the lighter Achmenid persian units forced to close in. The pilum shower would have been deadly and the gladius was efficient in crowded situations.

Anyway, romans did not usually engaged the enemy with such small numbers. 2 manipule! Not even a cohort.

If Rome was in the place of Sparta they would have had 60.000 fully equiped men defending a palisade and would have won the battle.

 

Maybe Alexander's veteran argyraspides with their long spears could have been better.

[Titus Maccius Plautus]

The spartans were excelent fighters that where either at war or training. This guys were a elite unit even among spartans, the best man Greece had to offer.

Their equipment was excelent for defensive battle with heavy armor and shield and a strong spear to keep the enemy away.

A head on charge against them was a dificult thing.

 

A roman army relied more on numbers and on manouvers. So in such small numbers I think that they would end up worse then the spartans did.

 

I second that. The Spartans were able to resist the Persians because of discipline, discipline and again discipline. This is quite extraordinary, as we have to keep in mind the fact that these guys didn't use the bow and arrow, as they were considered women's weapons. Again another plus for the Spartans was the fact that they all wore identical equipment - no one was above the other; furthermore the Spartan ehtics interdicted luxury, whereas the Roman soldiers would pillage everything in their way if they were allowed to. In addition the Spartans were used to being outnumbered : 80000 Spartans to 1.4 million helots was something... ( but eventually this is what brought them down ).

[caldrail]

The fighting ability of the spartans is not in doubt, but you should beware of falling for a legend. In much the way some people regard the romans as invincible, so too the spartans get the same reputation. They were well crushed at Leuctra by the thebans though, and partly because spartan cavalry at that battle was mediocre and badly used.

 

The romans were more tolerant of casualties - thats true - but the much-vaunted discipline on the battlefield is something you need to look closer at, and I recommend reading about Julius Caesars campaigns to find out what he had to do to keep his men in line.

 

Also, the spartans, for all their military ethos, were less inclined toward teamwork than the romans, and being essentially a levied army they were less drilled in manoevers. There was also a cultural bias toward a one-on-one fight based on the older 'heroic' style of battle where two men might fight and decide the battle, letting everyone else go home. How much of that is merely legend I have no idea, but that element of greek warrior mindset crops up occaisionally, and is in some measure one of the sources of inspiration for roman gladiatorial combat. It might be useful to know that roman gladiators made very poor soldiers - they simply lacked the team-training required of military units.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

But, Thermopylae was not about tactics when it came down to the battle, the romans trained hard and some became veterans of loads of battles. When the spartans used their phalanx, the romans could have made their own shield wall and defended like that. Before Scipio Rome had very few tacticians on the battlefield yet they were not a pushover then. It probably comes down to the phalanx in a tight area.

 

So the general consensus is that the romans would haev been less effective than the spartans?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

But, Thermopylae was not about tactics when it came down to the battle, ...

That a very simplistic view of a tense active situation. True, a lot of it was blood and guts fighting to the last man, but then weren't the spartans defeated partly because they were outflanked by a persian ruse? Regarding tactics, if you have a pass and an approaching enemy, how do you deploy your men for maximum effect? How many reserves can you afford to keep back? Do you wait, or do you attack first? Can you build defenses? What sort of defenses? At what time of day or night is the attack to occur? What is the prevailing weather? Do you stand and fight, or fight a delaying action? There's much to consider even in an apparently simple engagement.

 

...the romans trained hard and some became veterans of loads of battles. When the spartans used their phalanx, the romans could have made their own shield wall and defended like that. Before Scipio Rome had very few tacticians on the battlefield yet they were not a pushover then. It probably comes down to the phalanx in a tight area.

 

Did the spartans defend in phalanx? It seems unlikely. The phalanx is not a defensive formation (though it can be so if the enemy attack head on) and works by pushing the enemy back on the field. The problem is that the phalanx is an awkward formation. It cannot easily manoever, it isn't adaptable to changing situations, it tends to drift sideways when marching (because the men are seeking to protect themselves via the man beside him), and requires flat ground to prevent the formation falling apart. Thre was a roman victory over the phalanx because the roman general chose to fight on rough ground, so the much-vaunted pahalanx could not retain formation and therefore lost its primary purpose.

 

So the general consensus is that the romans would haev been less effective than the spartans?

Disagree completely. Man for man the spartans were every bit as fierce warriors as the romans (possibly even more so?), but the romans had the edge on operational strategy and I suspect were better organised as an army, though much depended on who their commander was.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

But, Thermopylae was not about tactics when it came down to the battle, ...

That a very simplistic view of a tense active situation. True, a lot of it was blood and guts fighting to the last man, but then weren't the spartans defeated partly because they were outflanked by a persian ruse? Regarding tactics, if you have a pass and an approaching enemy, how do you deploy your men for maximum effect? How many reserves can you afford to keep back? Do you wait, or do you attack first? Can you build defenses? What sort of defenses? At what time of day or night is the attack to occur? What is the prevailing weather? Do you stand and fight, or fight a delaying action? There's much to consider even in an apparently simple engagement.

 

...the romans trained hard and some became veterans of loads of battles. When the spartans used their phalanx, the romans could have made their own shield wall and defended like that. Before Scipio Rome had very few tacticians on the battlefield yet they were not a pushover then. It probably comes down to the phalanx in a tight area.

 

Did the spartans defend in phalanx? It seems unlikely. The phalanx is not a defensive formation (though it can be so if the enemy attack head on) and works by pushing the enemy back on the field. The problem is that the phalanx is an awkward formation. It cannot easily manoever, it isn't adaptable to changing situations, it tends to drift sideways when marching (because the men are seeking to protect themselves via the man beside him), and requires flat ground to prevent the formation falling apart. Thre was a roman victory over the phalanx because the roman general chose to fight on rough ground, so the much-vaunted pahalanx could not retain formation and therefore lost its primary purpose.

 

So the general consensus is that the romans would haev been less effective than the spartans?

Disagree completely. Man for man the spartans were every bit as fierce warriors as the romans (possibly even more so?), but the romans had the edge on operational strategy and I suspect were better organised as an army, though much depended on who their commander was.

 

Caldrail, you really are something, you provide me with a fantastic and detailed insight on everything i say. As i said when your swinging your sword around and lunging the tactics are gone but to get to Thermopylae is where i think the romans would have been more effective. With a more flowing army they could have got more men there and built a more sustainable defence. I'm sort of asking who would win if 1 spartan took on 1 roman? but not really in that context.

 

You said that the phalanx drifts sideways, but when you are squeezed into a valley, that doesn't matter much and weren't the persians coming head on anyway?

 

How do you think the 300 romans would haev coped being betrayed and flanked from the rear, assuming they haev done exactly what the spartans have done, up to this point?

 

vtc

[caldrail]

One roman vs one spartan? Isn't that determined by the individuals capability in combat as much as tactics or equipment? Very difficult to answer questions like that and to be honest there isn't much to be learned from it.

 

In phalanx marching forward the formation would inevitably skew against the wall of the tight pass you describe, so the spartans would lose formation and potentially a disaster ensues. In that situation, a tight shield wall and stout hearts are far better then attempting to push back an entire army, who need only allow you to march forward and eventually outflank you in one way or another. A phalanx cannot be totally effective alone - it needs flank support and the walls of that narrow pass are only partially capable of that. Fine if the unit is coherent but is the pass consistent in width? The correct width? Its unlikely.

 

Put 300 romans there and outflank them in the same way as the spartans were.... Well, I suspect the romans would have fared no better in that case. Its a matter of initiative and response. If the romans were suprised by persians coming behind them then their fate was the same as the spartans.

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

One roman vs one spartan? Isn't that determined by the individuals capability in combat as much as tactics or equipment? Very difficult to answer questions like that and to be honest there isn't much to be learned from it.

True, very true.

If you check the satellite images of Thermopylae it does get wider at the mouth but it is generally quite straight, anyway the spartans didn't need to move onec they were in position they could just lunge and rest cleverly.

Put 300 romans there and outflank them in the same way as the spartans were.... Well, I suspect the romans would have fared no better in that case. Its a matter of initiative and response. If the romans were suprised by persians coming behind them then their fate was the same as the spartans.

Caesar was efficiently flanked and he was victorious in gaul. Also it is a lot easier seperate your army if your romans.

 

Although i am sending sparring like replies, i comletley agree with abou 95% of what you say.

 

vtc

[caldrail]

Also remember the phalanx is a great archery target - a big square mass of men mostly unprotected (No, rephrase that, exposed). Spartans with sword and shield are more flexible and find it easier to avoid arrows.

Edited September 8, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

 

We must remember that the Romans were indeed at Thermopylae... several times, in fact.

 

Presumably the most well known is the Roman victory at 563 AUC (191 BC) of the plebeian consul Manius Acilius Glabrio over the Seleucid army of Antiochus III Magnus, which I find very interesting (even if the records are not so detailed as those of Cynoscephalae or Pydna), among other things because the winner's side had some supposedly inferior African elephants facing a numerically superior force of Indian elephants.

 

I think this may be the right place and moment to talk about this battle, if you don't mind.

Edited September 8, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

Much is said about elephants in warfare but these animals aren't really temperamentally suitable. They panic easily for one thing. I would guess the superiority of indian elephants was down to temperament (indian elephants are known to be more compliant) and possibly size (although modern african elephants are bigger, there was a smaller species in north africa now rendered extinct). A lot depends on circumstance and he tactics involved. Elephants are never a sure thing.

 

I wasn't aware of these battles at thermopylae but not suprised. In a mountainous area a defile is bound to become a strategic path. The fact the romans won does suggest their superior team training was an advantage, but this was before the professional army, so in this case the romans were a levied army in exactly the same way as the spartans. What we don't know however is the relative quality of the persian arm,ies involved in these battles.

[Maladict]

We must remember that the Romans were indeed at Thermopylae... several times, in fact.

 

But this time the Romans were the attackers.

In fact, as far as I know Thermopylae was never successfully defended against an invading army.

[ASCLEPIADES]

But this time the Romans were the attackers.

In fact, as far as I know Thermopylae was never successfully defended against an invading army.

A non-Roman exception:

 

The 352 BC Battle of Thermopylae was the blocking of the pass during the III Sacred War (356 BC- 346 BC, fought between Thebes and Phocis for the control of Delphi), by the allied Phocians and Athenians against Philip II of Macedon.

The Phocian commander Phayllus managed to keep Philip out; it was one of the few defeats (or at least checks) of Philip.