Aztecs vs. Spartans

[Elta]

I'll give the same answer I gave in the Inca thread: don't have time to look it up now, as I'm doing this while doing uni work, but I'll check the numbers for you when I get the chance.

Fair game

 

[Dachs]

While Spartans may have raised funds between the wars that was the only time they did effectively.

Very true, and the reason that the colonies were so relatively easily recaptured by the Athenians because of Spartan ham-handedness in colonial administration, especially after the death of Lysander, who spearheaded the whole enterprise in the beginning. But the original point was that there was an exception to the usual rule.

But Sparta raised enough funds for the peloponesean wars with a bit of Persian help.

You can always count on Persia to screw with the Greek balance of power.

It is no wonder that after Sparta defeated the opposing Greek cities those cities created a new alliance , regrouped and created a military quite ready to fight the Spartans again.

With the exception of (possibly) Thebes, all hegemonies in Greece were violently challenged, so no, it's not much of a wonder.

Well Agisilaos was leading when Sparta suffered the infamous defeats by Thebes .

It's more fashionable to blame Kleombrotos for Leuctra, though. And Agesilaos did do a reasonable job of preventing Sparta from being completely destroyed. But he wasn't particularly competent, that's correct.

 

[Till]

The reason why Sparta was so militaristic was because they lived in constant (justified) fear of a helot revolt. They were badly outnumbered by them, which made it critical that every able body served in the military in order to keep the helots in check. This also means that sending soldiers out of the country for extended periods of time was highly dangerous and undesirable. Even small losses were catastrophic.
If i recall correctly, the capture of some hundred Spartan soldiers by Athens causes Sparta to sue for peace during the Peloponnesian War, since they didn't dare risk losing them.

Sparta would probably prevail in most battles (assuming the terrain/climate allows the use of phalanx formations and heavy armor), but i can't see any way of them winning a war without the help of their allies. On her own, Sparta would be lucky to get a draw.

 

[Dachs]

The reason why Sparta was so militaristic was because they lived in constant (justified) fear of a helot revolt. They were badly outnumbered by them, which made it critical that every able body served in the military in order to keep the helots in check. This also means that sending soldiers out of the country for extended periods of time was highly dangerous and undesirable. Even small losses were catastrophic.

This is very true. I guess it depends on whether this is a purely tactical or strategic exercise. And even in the latter, the Aztecs were sitting on their own discontented vassals as well; Tlaxcala was mildly pissed at being used as a reservoir for human sacrifices.

If i recall correctly, the capture of some hundred Spartan soldiers by Athens causes Sparta to sue for peace during the Peloponnesian War, since they didn't dare risk losing them.

Yes, the incident of Pylos-Sphacteria (425 BC), where around 200 Spartiates were captured by an Athenian combined-arms assault on their island hidey-hole (they were abandoned there by the defeat of the Spartan navy). It was used as a way to threaten the Spartans in the years leading up the Peace of Nicias, and was a key motivator in that peace (as were the deaths of Brasidas and Cleon at Amphipolis). That represented something like five percent of the highest level of the gene pool in one battle right there, so understandably they were extremely leery of having those troops killed.

 

[Vietcong]

spartins win hands down.
i can see an 5,000 man spartin army wining aginst a 15 or 20,000 aztec army.

 

[Gecko1]

Spartans easily win. The only way the Aztecs win is if they dicide to kill instead of injuring.

 

[flyingchicken]

Neither will win if they fight in a vacuum or in the earth's core.

A war between the two with their status at the heights of their power: neither. Their navies sucked.

A battle between groups of Aztecs and Spartans: depends entirely on the situation. One old Spartan limp can't possibly outmatch a group of ten Aztec boys with sticks and stones. A group of three hundred Spartans and their helots could probably hold off tens of thousands of Aztec warriors at some tactically advantageous terrain. Aztecs with access to AK-47's and appropriate instruction manuals against bronze-stuff-armed Spartans could probably hold off the Greeks, depending on supplies and numbers.

 

[Dachs]

Their navies sucked.

If that were the case then would this have happened?

 

[flyingchicken]

I seriously doubt those ships could have gone through the ocean to go from Sparta all the way to Mesoamerica, which is my point. Their navies sucked when it came to transcontinental travel, which would be the only thing that would matter when it came to Aztecs vs Spartans.

 

[Traitorfish]

Spartans, easy. A tightly-packed, heavily armoured phalanx would annihilate the individualistic, lightly armoured Aztec warriors. Among other things, the Aztecs generally avoided killing their enemies, instead preferring to take them alive for sacrifice. Admittedly, the Aztecs gave themselves more vulnerability, but the peasant skirmishers and elite cavalry employed by the Greeks should be able to secure the flanks.

Also, will people shut up about the jungle. The Aztecs lived in the central Mexican highlands, not the Yucatan jungles. That's the Maya, who were different.

 

[scy12]

If that were the case then would this have happened?

But isn't that the exception to the rule ?

 

[Dachs]

I seriously doubt those ships could have gone through the ocean to go from Sparta all the way to Mesoamerica, which is my point. Their navies sucked when it came to transcontinental travel, which would be the only thing that would matter when it came to Aztecs vs Spartans.

But you didn't say that, you just said that their navies sucked.

But isn't that the exception to the rule ?

It is, sort of. There's also the period from between about the fall of Alcibiades (the second one, after he was allowed to return due to success at Cyzicus) to the battle of Arginusae. And Sparta did have something of a navy, but it didn't do much because the ephors and gerousia were afraid of risking it outside of the Peloponnesus. The Spartan navy was still generally higher class than most other Greek states', but it was the worst of the best of the navies. And it would have beaten any Aztec flotilla pretty easily (though not as easy as Cortes).

 

[flyingchicken]

But you didn't say that, you just said that their navies sucked.

For the purposes of actually waging war with one another I honestly think it should go without saying that their navies were not up to the task. But that's just me; I'll try to be more specific next time.

 

[Luckymoose]

Why not native Americans from the same 300ish BCE time period vs. Spartans? There is no reason they should get a 1700 year break.

 

[pawpaw]

Why not native Americans from the same 300ish BCE time period vs. Spartans?

That would about the time of the rise of Teotihuacan, a huge city state empire but built more on trade than warfare--not a military power.

 

[blunt3d]

I forgot where i read this but i know the Aztec's would'nt just bumb rush a tight formation. They had weapons to break these formations up like hornet nest grenades and many other weapons then just clubs,bows,and spears. Not saying that they would make a huge difference but i don't think people should sleep on them.

 

[Commodore Nate]

I forgot where i read this but i know the Aztec's would'nt just bumb rush a tight formation. They had weapons to break these formations up like hornet nest grenades and many other weapons then just clubs,bows,and spears. Not saying that they would make a huge difference but i don't think people should sleep on them.

Something like hornet nest grenades have the potential to sway this argument in favor of the Aztecs.
Then again, I guess it's a matter of whether or not Spartans are allergic to stings

But in all seriousness, if Spartan ranks are ruined due to a distraction like that, their biggest strength is gone. Once a handful of Aztecs get into the phalanx, they can turn the tide of battle by preventing the formation of another one. Without the great barrier that the phalanx provides, the Aztecs would win just by sheer numbers.
However, the caveat for that scenario is, would the Spartans be affected by that, and if so, what would be required numbers?

 

[Sharwood]

If the Spartans wouldn't break formation if fire was used, I doubt hornets would stop them. I'm sure the Spartans had dealt with far more painful things, in training, than hornet stings.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

But for example 10 hornet stings may be more distractive. You're a pretty tough guy if you don't react when a hornet stings you in your eye. Or throat.

 

[Sharwood]

The Spartans were pretty tough guys. When I was ten, something - never found out what it was - bit me on the balls while I was fielding in a game of cricket. I caught the ball flying low to my left. I'm sure trained Spartan soldiers were somewhat more steadfast than I was then.

And a reaction like swatting the hornet away isn't exactly breaking formation.