Greek or Roman History?

[David C. Clarke]

Which do you guys prefer from a Military viewpoint?
The free men fighting as Hoplites for their Polis or the slightly..."corporate" and anonymous Roman Legionary?

Seriously, is Greek Military History, pre-Alexander, more exciting than Roman Military History?

Cheers,
~D

[ckleisch]

Although, I like the history of the Spartans I think the Romans with there innovative tactics and various wars are more fascinating. Even more so to read Ceasar's commentaries about fighting the Gauls and Vercingetorix in the original Latin. The brillance of caesar and his campaigns I believe are overshadowed by Alexander. Even the actions against Carthage by Scipio and the events ivolving Hannibal are interesting to read.

[Andy H]

The Greeks constant in fighting and run-in's with the Persian Empire beat the Roman legions any day.

Andy

[David C. Clarke]

Well guys, let me ask, has anyone read of the various wars between the Greek City States in Sicily and Carthage? I've found it makes pretty interesting reading.

Cheers, David

[ckleisch]

I have read about the activities of Pyrrhus and his activities with Messina in Sicily against the Carthaginians. Pyrrhus known as "The Eagle" fought several battles against the Romans defeating them but in his last battle he fought to a draw and withdrew from fighting to fight the Carthaginians in 273 to 275bc. He had little success and finally withdrew to let the city states fend forthem selves against both powers. By 256bc Rome conrolled all of the Greek cities on Sicily and ran into the power dreams of Carthage. The advant of Dido's curse was to begin.

[Victor]

I personally prefer the Romans. They fought a much larger diversity of enemies as the Greeks did and with more lasting success.

[Lars EP]

I personally prefer the Romans. They fought a much larger diversity of enemies as the Greeks did and with more lasting success.

Both, for various reasons.

The diversity of Greek Military, based on their many different society-models.

The pragamatism, consequence and efficiency of the Roman military.

Regards --- Lars

[Tim Smith]

The Greeks were more heroic.

The Romans were more professional.

Both are interesting!

[Oderint Dvm Metvant]

I agree with Tim, sure the Greeks had Achilles and did have some good concepts and discipline (see "Carnage and Culture" by Victor David Hanson) but for pure military efficiency - Rome Uber Alles

[Prit]

Greetings, Commissar!

I think there are merits in both, and I would hate to have to choose between them. Late Rome, particularly the really involved episodes like Carausius and the Saxons, has always fascinated me.

As for Greece, it's the stuff of epics - I grew up with movies like '300 Spartans' being shown on TV, and loads of ancient history at school. The endless alliances and fluctuations in fortune following the Sparta-Athens war are fascinating.

Prit

[David C. Clarke]

Greeetings Prit!!! I admit there are attractions to both, but, compared to the Greeks, the Roman Legionary seems much more faceless. This is just my own, non-scientific, perception. Can anyone think of any good tales of an ordinary Roman Legionnaire or Centurion?

Cheers,
~D

[ChristopherPerrien]

In The Gallic War, Caesar tells of a centurion who reported to him after many hours of fighting in a redoubt around the town of Alesia, The centurion reported to Caesar that the position was "held", this centurion had 120 arrows in his shield and both eyes put out. How could Caesar lose
with a army containing soldiers like that.

If I recall there are a few other mentions of singular soldiers in the book,

Great book haven't read it in 20 years, need to dig it out.

[Lars EP]

Greeetings Prit!!! I admit there are attractions to both, but, compared to the Greeks, the Roman Legionary seems much more faceless. This is just my own, non-scientific, perception. Can anyone think of any good tales of an ordinary Roman Legionnaire or Centurion?

Cheers,
~D

Nope. But then I can take an example as Masada... so typically Roman. A bunch of Jewish rebels sits in a mountain-fortress, that cannot be taken.... Cannot be taken? Of course it can be taken. Build a road up there. Three years? And so what? Build it!

That's the kind of stuff I find fascinating about the Romans.

Regards --- Lars

[ChristopherPerrien]

Everyone wants to about the faceless Romans and how they worked like
"ants" , afterall they were masters of seige warfare.

However the remember the original "ants" were the myrmidons of Achilles.

As far as greeks vs romans, I would like to see a battle between Alexander's phalanx against Caesar's legions. Now that would be a good fight. Iron would probably prevail over bronze, but who knows.

[Oderint Dvm Metvant]

In The Gallic War, Caesar tells of a centurion who reported to him after many hours of fighting in a redoubt around the town of Alesia, The centurion reported to Caesar that the position was "held", this centurion had 120 arrows in his shield and both eyes put out. How could Caesar lose
with a army containing soldiers like that.

When reading episodes like that - you have to remember that Caesar was shipping each volume back to Rome for publication after he wrote it - I'll bet there was 3 arrows and a grazing scar on his cheek - still cool, but embellishments abound