romans vs greeks

[lord markedman]

my friends ar efenatical about greeks im the only 1 who has an opinion against theres so far, but id like to hear yours.

they all recon the greaks at thermopaly whoul destroy a roman legion, they also belive the greeks of this period to be more supirior to the romans in open battle 2, while i on the other hand belive the complete opposite stating that the battle dicapline far outways that of the phalanx, giving the romans far more manoverability in more scences than 1.

but i was wondering what your opinions on this are?

[hokomoko]

Well, the Roman empire controlled Greece as well.
If Greece was stronger than rome it was the other way.
In the macedonian wars the Romans and greek fought quite a lot, and in the end the ROmans were victorious, though they had some greek cities on their side as well.

[Ezephkiel]

The greek hoplite started to die out around that period for its inflexibility, as heavier skirmisher types were becoming more of a problem. The romans did copy the hoplite in the early years who served as the triarii.

But ye, the roman armies were good because of formation and tactics and their morale. Greeks relied on the good old hoplite battle line and a shoving match.

But greek hoplites are much cooler.

[Lord Trask]

its that age ole michael jordan(rome) wilt chamberlain(greek) comparison.
Both were greatest players of their time. But michael is the more evolved and contemporary. So he gets the edge, dont think wilt was much of a 3 point shooter.
good or bad anology.>?

[Angelis_Mortis]

I think in a field battle toe to toe, I would say that the Greeks had the edge (or point rather) that is why you will find that the Romans avoided open battles if they could, they would rather besiege the city states, where they knew they could win because the Romans were certainly master in the art of the seige.

Its interesting to note that the Romans then forbad the owning of weapons by Greeks, and they were not alowed to hold games or train for them for decades afterwards, this efectively over a few years took the fight out of the Greeks.

One last part that really saw the end of Greece, was that during all those years that the Romans ruled them, they were never allowed to form Auxillia and were very rarely allowed to join the Legions. The official line is that Greeks were soft and could not fight if you believe the Roman Propaganda, but most now see that the Romans didnt fancy training up tough Greeks who could fight, They must have been scared of the Greeks taking arms against them again

[noone23]

It appears the Chamberlain/Jordan analogy is lost on many of the folks here, U.K. citizens that they are, much like the way that the British government posts are lost on us U.S.A. residents. As it was, Chamberlain in his day was compared with Bill Russell since both were centers. Wilt also was the one who had the hundred point game. Sorry if this doesn't really have much to do with 1809 - the mod - but since we got onto the subject of analogies...

[noone23]

As far as the "great debate" here about Romans vs. Greeks my vote has to go to the Romans even though they aren't my favorites among the armies of the Ancient world for wargaming purposes(but then, neither are the Greeks). The fact is and remains that the Romans built a world-class empire that lasted for several centuries which the Greeks could never do since they were too busy for too long fighting each other thus allowing the opportunistic Romans to intervene and add Greece to their own empire. To my mind that pretty much settled the debate right there and then.