Were the Ancient Greek or Roman armies more developed?
I would have to say the Romans. The height of Greek military power pre-dated Roman military might and was largely based on organising units into a Phalanx formation (a bit of a generalisation I know, but there you have it). Roman legions were far more flexible and better equipped for dealing with units operating in Phalanx and thus the great Greek city states by in large fell to Roman might and became part of the empire.
A lot of Roman techniques were developed from Greek inventions. The Romans originally adopted the Greek short sword, the Xiphos for close quarter combat. The Romans also used the doru, or Greek spear for centuries. The Roman spears and arrow heads were also cleverly crafted so that they broke at the arrow head when they were being extracted from a wound. Roman weaponry was highly advanced also, Roman Bastilla could fire a javalin unprecendented distances. The Roman artillery was the best of the day, huge caterpults could throw burning pitch (burning oil) into a battlefield to terrible effect. The Greeks only ever used basic siege tactics on a city while the Roman knew how to tunnel walls, and the advantages of fire arrows and pitch Roman battlefield tactics evolved from Greek Tactics. The Greeks originally used the Phalanx formation where soldiers bunched together with overlapping shields and advanced forward while jabbing with their spears. The Romans developed a larger shield than th
