Rome had more manpower and better defensive equipment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_against_Nabis

Among other reasons, in a battle which I can't remember where the number of troops was approximately equal, the Roman legion proved more flexible than the Greek phalanx and therefore defeated it.

You're right, Highlander, BUT I'm thinking of a specific battle between Greeks and Romans where everything was about equal except that the phalanx was pitted against the legion. I can't recall which one, heard it in college from a professor (Armin Panning) whose every answer could have been copied down and sold to an encyclopedia, he was that precise. It probably wasn't Spartans against Romans, though. I'm just offering it as a factor. The phalanx was a human tank and vastly superior to the free-for-all that had come before it, but it wasn't as good as the legion. Of course it's always possible I'm remembering it wrong, but this was his specific answer to my specific question, so maybe not.

rome had more man power and you have got to remember that when the romans came about sparta was no longer the force it once was

Sparta had just suffered a devestating disease crushing the population and also demorilizing them. Yet had it not been for that plague sparta would have succesfully held back the Romans. Look back to the battle of thermopolye when sparta was at a climax it crushed the persians. Imagine 300 spartans and 3,000 free greeks against 500,000. Now apply that to roman forces who were less.

From what I know, Sparta had just been in many wars and was low on mostly everything. THey still put up a god fight but could have done better.

Sparta's old way. the Laws of Lycurgus had been gone for hundreds of years since 218.......the Sparta that Rome sacked was not the same Sparta of the early 5th century bce. , they had very little manpower...don't forget the agoge bootcamp had also been gone from Laconia since 218 also..so the Spartans were no longer the professional army they once were. The Greek allies were defeated at Cynosephale 198bce, and at Pydna 168bce, because the legions easily outflaked the greco phalanx , once the phalangites saw the flank fall they routed to save their own skills. The Spartans were never had tactically inclined generals, mostly were corrupt at home and incompotent in the field of battle. Plutarch tells how the last king of Sparta died in the streets of Alexandria in about 216bce after being defeated by coalition of Achaeans and Macedonians at Mantinea, after the battle only twohundred Spartans remained they fled for Egypt to get help from Ptolomy, he never helped the Spartans take their homeland of Laconia back, so they attacked the royal guard of Ptolomy. Most of the Spartans were killed and the last few commited suicide by stabbing themselves in the gut. The Sparta that Rome later sacked was Spartan only in name not in blood, Plutarch says how Sparta was occupied by brigands and thieves from then on.

Twice Sparta tried to regain regional power through a heavy blend of traditionalism and social revolution: once under Cleomenes III (235 - 222BC) and again under Nabis (207 - 192BC). Cleomenes was defeated by the Achaean League, and then Nabis was defeated by the Romans, who were joined by the Achaean League. After that defeat, the Sparta joined the Achaean League. Fifty years later, the Achaean League was defeated by the Romans, and Sparta and the rest of the Greek cities in the League became Roman protectorates. Really, their prior defeats and traditionalism were what caused the Spartans to lose to the Romans. By the time the Romans showed up, Sparta did not have much power left. And since the Spartans had a traditional and antiquated army made up of hoplites in a phalanx, Rome and her allies wouldn't have had much trouble defeating them sooner or later. Oh yeah, the allies. When the Romans fought Nabis, they used Achaean, Macedonian, Cretan, Rhodian, and Pergamese soldiers, their allies, to do plenty of the fighting.

if im not mistaken the first battle included the entire spartan army of the time and it defeated the roman legions sent, but the victory came at to higher cost and the spartans were left with only a tiny morscle of its original strength which allowed the romans to defeat the remaining soldiers with ease, but you are right about the spartan strength of the time it it wasnt the power it once was, the spartan way of life was flawed its pure bloods were vastly out numberd by the slaves who effectivly kept the machine of the state running. also lets not forget that the only great victory that the spartans ever had was the thermopylae, which was in it self a great achieve ment, but you forget that the spartans these great warriors struggled to defeat athens in a long war, and the athenians werent even considered great warriors, if you asked me spartans werent the best at all, samurais are the best soldiers man for man ever.