Were Greece and roman alike in their military?

Answer 1

Well, they certainly used the metric system, the US certainly didn't during the Vietnam era.

Other than that, one cannot compare the organizations, again, other than the above; and the fact that they were all male armies (up thru the Vietnam War).

Comparing the Roman army to the US Army would be like comparing a Roman Chariot to a Vietnam era M48 Patton tank. Which, for civilians, would be like a wheel barrow to an automobile.

Answer 2

ancient Rome

They were equipped with Lorica Hamata, (iron chainmail body armour) a bronze or iron helmet, a scututm, ( a large oval shield made of reinforced by three thin layers of oak, trimmed with a bronze lining and a metal boss) a pilum (a type of javelin) and a gladius (an iron short sword) as his main weapon.

They would throw their 2 pila (javelin) (it was specifically designed so that when it was thrown the iron shank would bend, making it impossible to be used as a weapon once it made impact) and then afterwards, they would charge. Their shields were lightweight and durable and were large enough to cover most of their body, the roman legion's shields's rendered large weapons, difficult to hit with, which made it easy for the legionnaire to counterattack with their short sword, the Gladius (usually by thrusting it) and kill their opponent with ease.

Ancient Greek

The main difference in equipment being that the hoplites used a dora (a 9 foot spear) wore heavier, more protective helmets and used a considerably larger shield. heavier more protective armor was also more common. The were equipped with a sarissa (13-21 foot long spear made of sturdy cornel wood with a iron spear head and a bronze butt spike) a small wicker shield with a thin bronze plating strapped to their arm and often wore linothorax body armour (linen body armour) (on rarer occasions, bronze plate armor in the form of a muscle cuirass) and a simple bronze conical helmet. They also had a small short sword, a xiphos which they almost never used, since the only time it would be helpful is when they were flanked or the enemy had somehow gotten past their sarrissas (usually that case only happened in rough and uneven terrain) at that point however it probably wouldn't do much good. Their formation relied heavily upon the spear's length keep the enemy away. The tactics usually involved pinning their enemy down with their incredibly long spears, their overlapping shields and incredibly long spears made a frontal assault against them suicidal (considering the terrain wasn't rough and uneven).

usually when they had you pinned down with their sarrissas they'll charge you with their cavalry regiment at your flanks or from behind. They required even terrain to be most effective and became increasingly ineffective the more rough the terrain became. There sarrissa's were raised up in the air whenever they were being hit by arrows or other missile weapons, and did a fairly good job at keeping arrows from getting through.

Answer 3

The Romans used the hoplite phalanx invented by the Greeks from the 6th century BC to 321 BC. A phalanx was a big, compact square formation up to eight lines deep. The hoplite was a heavily armored infantryman who wore a bronze breastplate and helmet. He used a round shield which the Greeks called hoplon and the Romans called clipeus. The shape of the shield allowed the men in a lane to interlock with each other. This made the impact of their charge stronger and made it easier not to brake ranks when charged by the enemy. The hoplite phalanx spread from Greece to Italy and was adopted by the Etruscans and the Romans.

After their humiliating defeat by the Samnites at the Battle of the Caudine Forks in 321 BC, the Romans adopted the battle formation of the Samnites: the maniples. The soldiers where lined up in small squares instead of a single big square. This gave he army greater flexibility and the system was particularly suited for mountain warfare.