Who's military was better Greece or Rome?

Question: Who's military was better Greece or Rome!?

Who's military was better Greece or Rome!? Give reasons to support your argument!. Best answer gets best answer!. Thanks a lot people!Www@QuestionHome@Com

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Even with both militaries at their height, although not accounting for genius commanders such as Alexander or Scipio, then it'd be Rome!.

Greeks fought in the phalanx style, which was fine against other city states who also used the blocky phalanx, but against the Roman maniple is was far too rigid!. Even though at the time of the major conflicts between Greece and Rome they both comprised of citizen militia, Rome was always the more aggressive!.

One area where the Greeks could win was in a cavalry battle, where their superior technique and experience always showed against the Romans pretty weak cavalry!. But to counter that Rome usually brought allied cavalry to the field, such as Gallic horsemen, who did more than even the contest!.

Arms and armour is another area where Rome would win!. In the maniple they had skirmishers who used javelins, the main troops armed with large shields and short stabbing swords, and the Triarii who were equiped with long spears!. The Greeks had long, unweildy, spears which made the phalanx hard to monaouvre, and small hoplon shields which couldnt really defend from much!. Basically the Roman system of fighting was far more manouverable than the Greeks: as soon as the cohesion of the phalanx was broken then its members were effectivley already dead!.

The final thing i can think of is plain mental toughness!. The Romans never asked for a truce, and their inexhaustable manpower enabled them to instantly recruit another army if one was wiped out - for instance at Cannae against Hannibal!. Virtus (Roman ideal of courage and manliness) meant a lot to the Roman soldiers, so they would perform acts of bravery in order to gain recognition of their virtus!. Whereas the Greeks viewed phalanx combat as a competition of staying power and discipline, therefore they tended to shun individual acts of bravery to compete within the collective of the phalanx!.

That's just accounting for the time when both armies actually did come into conflict!. Later on Rome's army and weaponry advanced to such a degree it pretty much left everyone behind!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Rome hands down!.

Armor and weaponry were generally superior (your legionary private wore chainmail, and even a lorica segmentata in the early imperial days, when most hoplites had to do with a "curiass" made of linen stiffened by marinating in hot wax!. The square scutum was more practical the the huge round Hoplon, the gladius was made of better steel than Greek swords, and most legionaries were not encumbered by the huge sarissa pikes which were the basic Greek weapon)

plus, organisation and tactics were better!. Greeks relied exlusively on the phalanx!. a good formation for front assault, but highly vulnerable to attacks from the rear or side, and very rigid!. The Romans, with dividing their legions into chohort and maniples were better able to manage contingencies by rushing smaller units to weak points, and the scuta lent themselves to more varied defensive arrys, such as squares or turtles!.

plus, of course, there's the obvious : the Romans did beat the Greek!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Well!.!.!. Rome conquered the Greeks!.!.!. very quickly!.!.!. won numerous battles against them!.!.!.!. so I'd probably say the Romans!.!.!.!.

Of course depends on exactly what time period!. Alexander the Great probably could have beat the Romans because they were still a tiny poor country during his life time (350 - 320 BC) but he was more interested in the Persians!. But after Alexander died and Rome won the Punic Wars the Romans were clearly a much more powerful country with a much better military in terms of pretty much everything (funding, strategy, tactics, equipment, tradition, etc!.)Www@QuestionHome@Com

It is difficult to say!. The Greek Phalanx was so effective that the only army that could defeat one was a stronger phalanx, and the formation was adopted across the Mediterranean, including by the Romans!.

The Romans had only recently switched from the Phalanx to the Manicle Legions when they faced King Pyrrhus of Epirus (they were West of Macedonia (SO NOT GREEK!!), and considered barbarian even by the Macedonians, who were themselves barbarians to the Greeks)!.

They lost the battles, but inflicted so much damage that he was forced to withdraw and go to his main objective- which was Sicily!. When he returned to Italy after his defeat in Sicily, the Romans soundly defeated him!.

The Greeks won battles, and they conquered and dominated much of the world!. When they lost battles, they were finished!.
The Romans could lose battle after battle and STILL win the war!. For centuries, their armies were good and were difficult to defeat; but even Hannibal- the General of Carthage in the 2nd Punic War could not defeat the Romans indefinitely!. The Romans simply raised new legions and sent them out against the enemy again!. They refused to quit!.

The Roman Manacle Legions were the better formation, for it was more flexible in battle and could break and reform quickly, something that the Phalanx could not do!.

So I would say the Romans had the better military, not just because of the better formation; but the sheer determination of the people in the army!.

And that isn't factoring the mastery of logistics that the Romans had (roads, aqueducts, etc)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I disagreed with rann_georgia in claiming that the Romans conquered all known world during that time!. First, during the first century BCE, though the Romans were powerful, the Romans army of 40,000 were defeated by the Parthians!. 10,000 Romans were captured, and those 10,000 prisoners were sent to the Eastern border!. But the Chinese captured that area!. Remember that even the Chinese were so powerful, that the Parthians, and later the Romans form diplomatic relations with Han China during that period!. Moreover, it was recorded that in one incident, a Han trade expedition (only a trade expedition, not an army) defeated the Roman legions!. Roman legions formed tortoise-formation, a very close unit with shield protection, but the Chinese were able to penetrate through Romans shields and armors using crossbows!.
Above clarification is just for correcting misconception!. *Though the romantic idea about the Romans as most powerful during that time is appealing, you have to know why the Romans during that time were so enamored with Chinese silk, as those sent to the Eastern fronts were so awed with shimmering banners used by the Chinese armies!.**The Mongol Empire was four times the size of the Roman Empire at her height! ***The Jewish Revolt in 66 AD, when the very poorly equipped Jews (who were being outnumbered by 5:1) defeated a legion of numerically superior Roman army, and Emperor Nero was forced to send in reinforcements!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

The Greeks had their conquests but they never could get their act together as they were a collection of city states and often at war with one another!.

War once broke out during an Olympic game because of the results!.

I would have to go with Rome, considering all time periods and the fact that Rome conquered all the known world at the time!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

basically they were identical, the romans took their citizen army ideas from the greeks, however the romans had better tactics and strategy genrally than the greeks displayed, the only real diffrence is a greater prevalance of archers and cavelry!.
note also that the spartans were the greatest fighters of all timeWww@QuestionHome@Com

Although King Pyrrhus (Greek) defeated the early |Roman republic it was at considerable cost, hence Pyrrhic victory!. Later, the Roman Empire conquers Greece, and they become the leading slaves in the Empire!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Hannibal is the Roman military commanderWww@QuestionHome@Com

I guess its rome for their weapons, shields and armor are way better than greece!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

good luck taking over either country!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com