You can say the Spartans' style of warfare was limited- phalanx/hoplite warfare is great but it lacks the range power of cavalry.
Sparta had perfect spearmen
Mongols had perfect cavalry
If Sparta's tactics and strategies inlcuded cavalry/missile units then SParta would have steamrolled the mongols faster than Ghengis Khan can say "dayum thsoe Greeks are hardcore!"
Are you kidding me? Do you even know what kind of environment Greece is? or even worse Sparta? Spartans would have never been able to support calvary in their army in any number close to the Mongols.
You guys are also missing the biggest component to why the Spartans were not able to expand like the Mongols did. Spartan society was based off slavery. Spartans had enslaved the entire population of Laconia and thus every Spartan had to train as a soldier in order to suppress the slaves who they forced to do all their hard labor which they lived off of. Therefore Spartans were always historically reluctant to wage wars in any far away lands because they feared that if they left a slave revolt would break out.
This is why I think the movie 300 is a joke because in the movie Leonidas constantly insults the Persian king for having slaves, while at the same time the movie conveniently forgets to mention that Spartan society was built off of slavery. That why in the movie Leonidas could ask his men what profession they were and they could reply back with a dog bark whereas the Thebans could only reply that they were potters and farmers in comparison. lol
Also another reason why Spartans were not as successful as the Mongols was because they were not as progressive as the Mongols. The Mongols upon defeating their enemies would incorporate foreign things that were superior to what they currently had. Thus it was almost like a snowballing effect of Mongol power as they conquered city after city. They incorporated things like Chinese artillery, Middle eastern astronomers and physicians, etc...
Also from a tactical standpoint I think the Mongols were by far more superior, their speed was not matched till the introduction of modern mechanized infantry. Mongol strategies are also studied by modern tacticians because they were innovative, creative and before their time. They had superior generalship because of the meritocracy which allowed positions to be decided by skill rather than birthrights. Making it possible for Subotai, who was born the son of a blacksmith, to conquer 2 nations and win 65 pitched battles throughout his military career.
To compare both of these armies who are said to be the most greatest of their time, and then ask which one is superior, is not very fair because without a doubt a Mongol army would destroy a Spartan army had they ever fought in battle. But this doesn't say much since almost any army during the Mongols time would have done the same because of the advances in weaponry and armor between the ancient and medieval times.
Edited by JiG, 26 September 2007 - 09:54 PM.