Yeah I had this debate with a few of my internet friends and I know it may sound blasphemous but personally, I like the Centurion better! Not only that, the Centurion would win in reality. They are much better armed and while they may not be as trained as a spartan, they most certainly had more combat experience and discipline. Just saying. Not to mention, their weapons are kickass!

A Centurion aint got shit on a spartan

2802697

Ave, Centurions

2802709 Ever heard of the Battle of Gythium. Btw, Spartans didn't wear breastplate armor. That was a myth cooked up by Hollywood to make them look more badass. Real life spartans only carried a shield a helmet and a tunic. Some even fought completely naked. Breastplate armor back in those days was heavy and very expensive.

2802709 Also Google the Battle of Gythium.

2802697

Centurion would win, they have a wider variety of weapons at their disposal, while the Spartan can only use a spear and short sword. Also, the Spartan hoplite is only effective when in numbers in a phalanx. While his bronze shield may be large and strong, the centurion has better armor, a gladius which is better than a spartans short sword, and more mobility due to his lighter equipment.

The Spartan may take more damage, but the gladius strikes quick and fatally.

The Centurion wins also based upon his military being more organized than the Spartans, also Centurions would have fought against a wide vareity of enemies that even a Spartan would fear.

Centurion wihout a doubt wins.

2802729

Um.

2802739 Yeah. Another thing impressive about the Roman army was that it adapted to all the newest changes in technology. When they battled Celt and Germanic barbarians who slashed through their leather hides, the Roman army adopted chain mail into their arsenal.

And like I said, Spartans rarely wore armor in real life other than a shield and a helmet. And even then, their armor was made out of bronze and bronze isn't a strong metal. Also the pilum javelin many Roman soldiers carried was designed to take out shields similar to the ones the Spartans used.

2802715 Haha, that's cute.

(I also notice that while there's an NCR flag in the background, none of the bodies are wearing NCR armour. That Legionary is lying to you. )

2802779

Spartans wore chestplates covering their entire torsos in bronze. It was able to hold off quite a bit (Don't let 300 dictate this) but it can be countered by the movement of a centurion.

The pilum was made to cause some havoc in an enemies formation before charging or the enemy reaches the Romans formation. They are meant to knock over soldies, wound, cause casualties, and make the area more difficult to move through. Spartans carried heavy spears and fought in a phalanx, which the Romans know how to counter.

But if it was a one-on-one battle the centurion would win just because of the reasons I listed earlier.

2802697
One on one, Spartans were a lot better than almost any other soldiers in the world at the time, but army wise, Romans every time. Hell, they went through the Agoga when they were ten, they were pretty much trained from birth to be the ultimate in killing machines of the era.
Even with a Phalanx, the Romans would break it up with artillery and then move in to mop up.

2802715
What armour is that?

2802815

What armour is that?

Looks like a mismatch of a bunch. Shoulder paladin is from T-45d power armour, the chest piece is metal armour, and the thigh pieces are part of NCR Ranger combat armour.

Not sure if it's an actual in-game playable armour or a NPC only armour, or even just something made up.

Though most Legion armour is mismatch parts so it's probably just a generic Legionary's armour.

2802854
I was meaning in game. I'm guessing it's a mod of some sort

2802815

It a retexture of a Legion Centurion's armor

2802886
Ah, cool

2802878 Well you have your answer now.

I never paid much attention to the Legion armour, since I normally just killed them, hit *take all* and sold it all. So most of the Legion I see in game are in their underwear.

May get over encumbered a lot, but it makes a lot of caps.

2802697 There is no true way to answer this question, but I'll try to add some points.

As an army, a Spartans vs Romans would depend on the situation, both sides are extremely organised and disciplined but their tactics are made with different military thinking, the Greek phalanx was made as a defensive formation to the small and rough battlefields of the Balkans, with the intuit of pinning down the enemy (and after Alexander, use shock cavalry to deliver the killing blow), the Romans on the other hand use a offensive formation with a focus on mobility and flexibility. In other words, it would depend on what kind of terrain and which side is defending or attacking.

As individual combats, during the age where both sides existed, they had similar armour (mostly leather, chain-mail and bronze), but, again, their training, equipment and tactics where made for different situations, Spartans would likely have better training (since they spent their entire lives doing that, unlike the Romans) but their equipment was made for fighting in groups, not as individuals (this is very notable in the way they held their shield), so the Roman centurion would have a better equipment for that situation

They both lose to an American Marine te true modern badass.

They both rely heavily on unit tactics, neither warrior is really intended to fight on his own. I give a slight edge to the centurion but even then I might still put money on the Spartan.