Military Traditions in Athens and Rome

The ancient Greek and Roman warriors are remembered today for their strength and power. The Roman Legion and the Greek Phalanx certainly have made their mark and are still a great part of today's history. However, most people do not realize how vastly different their military recruitment and service was from one another. They also had some similarities. Also, we can conclude one of these military powers was more beneficial to the state and its citizens than the other.

In Athens, citizens aged eighteen to sixty are recruited to the military. While in Rome, citizens age seventeen to forty-six were recruited to be in the military. Because the age in Athens was so high, it caused the older people to become weaker, which was a disadvantage to Athens.

Rome, on the other hand, had an age gap much lower than Athens. Because the age gap was lower, the soldiers were much more vigorous. By setting the age limit to only forty-six, it allowed the men to perform much more ferociously. Rome was able to set the age limit so low because they had a higher population. Rome used to get its military recruitment from lower-class farmers. Now, because the population has grown so large, Rome can pick from any of these citizens. In Athens, however, while their population was large compared to other Greek city-states, they still did not compare to that of Rome. Because the Roman population was larger, the soldiers were able to serve less than the Athenians.

Athens got its recruitments from citizens and non-citizens. In Rome, the poor were excluded from being recruited in the military. Athens had trouble learning from their mistakes. Rome, on the other hand, had no difficulty learning from their mistakes and were very willing to adapt to their enemies approaches. Athens was much more suited to fighting in smaller groups compared to Rome. Rome was known for fighting in legions, which consisted of twenty-thousand people. Athens and Rome also differed in the way they assembled their generals.

In Rome, the generals were moving around on horseback and mostly observing, with little combat. In Athens, they had ten generals who were in the front and were most likely to be in combat more frequently. For the generals, in ancient Rome noble birth and wealth played an important role in military placement. In Athens, generals were voted on. These are just some of the many differences between the Athenian and Roman militaries and their recruitment processes. Among their differences, they also had various similarities.

Athenians and Romans were required to bring their supplies and weapons into battle with them. This means that they had to bring their swords, throwing weapons, spears, and shields. Both Athenian and Roman soldiers were not paid, at first. They continued not to be until both of their armies began to conquer more territory. Both military formations had the young soldiers who were in their prime in the front of the line, and older people were placed in the back.

Athenians citizens, as well as Roman citizens, both had to pay taxes towards the military. This aided in the equity of both the states by allowing them to have the means to start to pay the citizens who served in the military. The citizens greatly appreciated this because it gave them the ability to keep up with their agriculture. It also helped the soldiers provide their families. It was a method for the military to show their gratitude to the soldiers. They paid their soldiers for what they deserved. They paid them for how they fought for their leaders and protected those in their community.

Both the Athenians and Romans had very heavy infantry backing them up. This was very beneficial to them because both were sending out massive groups of soldiers all at the same time. Athens and Rome were both very focused on supporting their armies before anything else. Athens and Rome both had a “leisure” class and it is very clear that the hoplites made up a majority of the Athenian and Roman military. Being apart of the leisure class was set apart by the right to have a horse which is true again for both Athens and Sparta. Although Athens and Rome were two vastly different civilizations and differed in location, both civilizations also had many very similar aspects. These two civilizations had such a huge impact in earlier times even our current militaries have benefitted from the principles of the ancient Greek and Roman warfare by studying their ancient battles the tactics they used, and how they made use of their supplies.

The epic battles of both the Athenians and Romans will forever be remembered and have certainly changed and been an important part of history. But there seems to always be the question of who would win in a battle against each other; the Roman legion or the Greek Phalanx?

The Greek Phalanx acted as one single mass. Whereas the Roman legions separated themselves into multiple groups or “maniples”. The Romans used a line system where the youngest, who was thought to be the most strong, would be in the front. While the “prime” men were in the middle and the “veterans ” in the back. By doing this in different groups it allowed the Romans to be able to move to different areas of combat.

The Athenians, on the other hand, were clumped into one big group, although having a heavy shield and weapon force, had a significantly harder time maneuvering. The Romans had the upper hand here as they were more flexible and able to get around different terrains and obstacles. The Romans also had the advantage of having trained men at an early age, so they had more “professional” soldiers.

The Athenians were most known for their heavy, dense shields. They were very easily able to push their enemies backward giving them the upper hand during battles. However, with the shield being their main source of armor it also left a lot exposed to the enemy. The Roman legion, however, preferred shorter swords, large shields and light chain as their main source of armor. These weapons allowed for more of a defensive advantage However, when it came to pushing the enemy back the Athenians had the upper hand.

All in all both the Greek Phalanx and the Roman legions were powerful in their ways. However, the Roman legions were framed for its discipline, regulation, and authority. Rome's innovation in weapons and tactics sets it at the top. The army was very advanced for its time and the soldiers were the best because they had the best training. They also had the best weapons and the best armor. Roman society also played a big role in why they were so successful as well. Their main focus was on war and how to win. They were always coming up with new tactics and strategies on how to become better. Because Rome was already bigger than other city-state and still growing more and more people wanted to know how they can be apart of that huge city.

By setting up a successful military plan they were able to grow their army and make it the best. This not only benefited the city-state as a whole but the people in it. There were more jobs available, the people were paid, and it made everyone feel as if they were apart of something. For the Romans, it was all about winning. To them winning wars meant they were winning as a city-state. So although both Greek, Athens in particular, and Roman military were both powerful in their unique ways there is a clear “winner” in this battle of power.