This is hypothetical (sp?) scenario...

If Roman army of letsee... uh, Trajans era and Medieval armies from 1200-1300 AD, would face, which one would win?...

EDIT: European medieval armies, of course...

I think the Roman's would be a bit surprised by early gunpowder weapons and the penetrative capability of longbows and crossbows. Not to mention what a cavalry charge would be like.

Having said that, if they didn't panic (had some idea what they up against) the discipline and excellent melee qualities of the Romans would probably win the day.

Tricky.
You can expect some kind of consistency of performance from the Roman armies. The Medieval ones had much greater quality issues.

If we are talking an army of feudally levied footsoldiers fulfilling thier 40-day contract to their liege lord, then it would have been business as usual for the romans.

However, already heavy noblemen cavalry would have been a novelty. Heavy cavalry did appear in the later dates of the Roman empire, and it did impact warfare already back then.

With the development of stirrups, heavier breeds of horses, the tactics for concentrating heavy horsemen and the development of armour, I think the Roman legions would have been hard pressed to stop a detrmined charge.
Half-ton horses in formation moving in a straight line at speeds up to 50 km/h with a pointy bit sticking out at the front — well, even if you got the guts to stand your ground it may not make much difference.

The Romans would have had to pick up pikes and daggers PDQ, essentially changing their mode of fighting to resemble the professional mercernary infantry of the 12th-13th c. No doubt they could have retrained like that and become the scourge of noble cavalry, but they would have had to change a few things.

There were disciplined infantry (mercenaries, 'les routiers') in the ME. And for sheer professionality it would be hard to top the military orders.
Not just cavalry but missile weapons had come a long way since Roman times. Siege warfare was more advanced. The nobles hated them, but the engineer was an indispensible figure for any hard-hitting Medieval army. And the huge siege catapults invented in China and spread through the ME would have been of a type unknown to the Romans.

Medival shortcomings weren't in weaponry or even tactis, but in administration and discipline, the areas were the Romans would shine.

The answer really boils down what exactly you mean with 'medieval'.
Of course, Rome would win against a Carolingean army, or a landlord with some peasants. Or against Guileaume le Conquereur. Maybe the Romans would loose the first skirmishes, but it wouldn't take long for them to adapt (Pikes, mostly).
Still, against a heavily armored Knight army (say, Barbarossa's crusade), they'd had no chance. Not to speak of Landsknechte or the Mongols...

A Roman army would be run over by heavy knights, if the knights knew what they were doing (Not always something they did!)

However, the real strenght of the Romans always lay in their ability to adapt to any changes in warfare. Caesar converted heavy legionaires into light skirmishers with great results. Scipio learned how to dodge the elephants etc.
The Romans would often lose the initial battles, but they would never lose the war.

The emperor Valens was killed and a large portion of the Roman Army destroyed by Gothic Knights. Don't remeber the battle name exactly.

Adrianopolis 378.

And the Goths did use heavy cavalry, but hardly what we mean by knights yet.
In any case it was a post-Constantine (post-legion) Roman army that was destroyed.

without cavalry support on the part of the medieval army, the romans would always stand a chance

without cavalry support on the part of the medieval army, the romans would always stand a chance


Nope, Romans would win even if they would face the best medieval army.

without cavalry support on the part of the medieval army, the romans would always stand a chance
Unless the troops were peasant levies or the host of a city state like Milan, medieval armies were typically formed around cavalry.
It was more aquestion of infantry support than anything else.:)

Nope, Romans would win even if they would face the best medieval army.
And you draw this conclusion based on exactly what? ;)

And you draw this conclusion based on exactly what? ;)

I won't tell that because it would probaly kill the debate. ;)

A medieval army would destroy a Roman army simply because they would have better weapons and armour.

I won't tell that because it would probaly kill the debate. ;)
Ah...
You've got nuffin' then, I take it?:lol:

you are correct but im just saying with out the knights rome would always stand a chance

Without the knights Rome would win hands down, no contest.

With the knights... well, they'd most probably lose.

That said, the Romans might be able to pick up comparable cavalry. Maybe in mercenary form?

Rome would win. At lest on long term period, probaly in a single battle

Rome would win. At lest on long term period, probaly in a single battle
Assuming the medieval guys would be obliging enough to line up for annihilation.;)

Considering how Medieval wars were usually fought, that would only happen if they had absolutely no other choice.

And the hypothetical scenario here wouldn't include long term factors.

@Cruddy Leper; longbows were known tot he greeks, and the same goes for crossbows, fo which the ballista is actually the evolution of (the origional crossbow being the syracusian "gastrophetes" and could be considered a mad-mans crossbow, easilly able to outperform any other crossbow because of its size; large enough to require a man to put his weight on it to re-spring it)

@Verbose; the Roman civl war between the Caesar and Pompey records Big C's troops utlizing pikes; in theory, the use of them may have been kept up, as "small pikes" as I deem them (at 12 feet, larger then the traditional hoplite spear of 6-8 feet, but short of the average pike of the era of around 16 feet long; though monster 32 foot pikes existed, they seem to have coem ina nad out of favor relitivlly quicklly during the alexandrian era; but I dont have a great deal of evidence to substantiate that) were used on what woudl be called "early cataphracts", the Contarius troops, under the reign of Trajan; these first units seem to have been experimental, but considering that durign the course of second and third centuries, such cavalry became more and more wanted, it seems to have been successful; this heavy cavalry reliance may be the direct predessor of the medieval knight, as the gods know that while knightdom was orgnized in a psudo-late Roman, germanic fashion, that western europe outside of Rome had no cavalry tradition outside the Iberians and Guals, both absorbed by Rome.

@Xen Wasnt Archimedies credited with the invention of the belly bow ???
Also given that the romans inproved on the Greek ballista Do you know if they attempted to also improve the belly bow ?

well, the ballista itself is an improvment over the belly bow; its far more powerful then the bellow bow (and so easilly outclasses any crossbow to have ever existed) however, if you mean imrpoved more "portable" versions of it, I have heard that the Romans made use of rifle sized Ballistae, and that these are the predesceors of the europes crossbows (late Romans apperentlly made use of them particuraley)

Hi guys,

Rome would just collect Sarmatian horsemen like they had in the past, hence the Romans win.

@Scythian Jatt; Rome very rarelyl used Sarmatian Horsemen during the Trajanic era; and later on, most Skythians were sent to Britain, but even then, thier were hardley overwhelming number sof them.

the Role of mercenaries in the Roman army wasnt a huge deal until the later period of Rome; even durign the dramitic third century, the role of mercenaries wa slittl emore then to deal with "local threats" like a tribal warband tryign to penetrate the frontir to raid, and to raid the enemy in return every once in a while (but that was a tactic more true of the 1st, and 2nd century empire)

That said, the fact that the Romans tended to whack the sarmatians into the ground dosent speak very well of Skythian cavalry domiance (which means its so big surprise that they were in turn subjegated by other steppe-peoples)

hi Xen,

That said, the fact that the Romans tended to whack the sarmatians into the ground dosent speak very well of Skythian cavalry domiance

This is according to who? To the best of my knowledge, the Scythians were un-rivaled when it comes to horseback warfare.

regards,

hi Xen,



This is according to who? To the best of my knowledge, the Scythians were un-rivaled when it comes to horseback warfare.

regards,

tell that to the Alans, then the Roxoliani, and then the Huns, and the numerous other steppe people who schooled the Sarmatians (who themselves had defeated and replaced the Skythians), and thats discounting the Romans,Parthians, and Neo-Persians all of whom had thie rown unique histories of utterlyl destorying skythian armies, but not beign able to expand on it, because thier was nothign consolodate in Skythian territory

tell that to the Alans, then the Roxoliani, and then the Huns, and the numerous other steppe people who schooled the Sarmatians (who themselves had defeated and replaced the Skythians), and thats discounting the Romans,Parthians, and Neo-Persians all of whom had thie rown unique histories of utterlyl destorying skythian armies, but not beign able to expand on it, because thier was nothign consolodate in Skythian territory

Didn't the Romans simply used a collective term for Scythians and just call them Sarmatians too?

I ask for no quarrel, just wishing to get to the facts, whether its good, bad or ugly.

regards,

the collective term war skythian to the general public, I'd suppose, but military officers, and Roman officials, and historians certinally knew, and documented the changes in who was who in the old Skythian plains, and particuraley, which tribes were in charge (so that Rome would know who to bribe, and who to kill, and who to utterlly decimated, and who could be trusted for mercenary service)

well, the ballista itself is an improvment over the belly bow; its far more powerful then the bellow bow (and so easilly outclasses any crossbow to have ever existed) however, if you mean imrpoved more "portable" versions of it, I have heard that the Romans made use of rifle sized Ballistae, and that these are the predesceors of the europes crossbows (late Romans apperentlly made use of them particuraley)

Strange, Given that the belly bow could peirce right though legionaries shield and armour i would have thought both the greeks and romans would have made more use of such an invention.

As for Ballista I had the impression that the romans simply "copied" greek Ballista design, Eventually making numerous small imporvements. They made it lighter, more powerful and accurate. Distinctly doing away with large Verticle arms which obstructed the gunners view

Strange, Given that the belly bow could peirce right though legionaries shield and armour i would have thought both the greeks and romans would have made more use of such an invention.

As for Ballista I had the impression that the romans simply "copied" greek Ballista design, Eventually making numerous small imporvements. They made it lighter, more powerful and accurate. Distinctly doing away with large Verticle arms which obstructed the gunners view
The crossbow seems to be one of these 'forgotten' inventions. Googling 'crossbow' there seems to have been a hiatus of mention of the thing in the west between 400 AD and its reappearence after 900 AD. After which point the Byzantines referred to it as a 'recent Frank invention' — they don't seem to have had any notion of it before.

It certainly looks as if the weapon was known in Roman times, but not in much use. No one seems to have realised the potential. Roman armies in general weren't that hot on missile troops — they tended to be mercenaries of secondary importance while the legionaries preferred to either use their javelins or kill up front and personal.

This peference for javelins can be seen in late Roman defensive architecture. The wall of Carcassonne in southern France was built around 400 AD and used windows and shutters from which javelins could be thrown, but no arrow slits. These first appeared in the later medieval add-ons to the original Roman walls that are still standing. You can go have a look at them. Impressive!:goodjob:
Exactly why the Romans didn't like bows, crossbows etc. seems unclear. But at least their soldiers weren't trained in their use.:)

simple; in early western civlization, thier is a profound disrespect for missle carrying troops; in simpley wasnt honourable to kill your enemy from range with a bow; while the Romans, in thier time, may have forgotten the bronze age roots of why they didnt use archers, and so did make use of auxilliaries for archery(since thier were no high quality archers in Rome of great numbers) its because that the culture stigma of at least a bi-gone by Roman times era, assumign ti had dissapered by then, left the central areas of the empire with out skilled archery practicing populace

@friendlly fire- yes, a belly bow coudl pierce through a shield and armor, but so could a good ballista

simple; in early western civlization, thier is a profound disrespect for missle carrying troops; in simpley wasnt honourable to kill your enemy from range with a bow;
You're absoutely right, of course.:)
'That's one smart stick [arrow], if it can tell a brave man from a coward.'
The come-back line by one of the badass Spartiates taken prisoner on the tiny island of Sfakteria by Athenian peltasts — light infantry archers — when chided by some Athenian.
The problem seems to have been the 'democratic' attitude of missiles.

In the Middle Ages the noblemen knights had an utter contempt for archers and crossbows alike. Partly because they were getting killed in this ignoble way.;)

The exception might be the Germanic tribes in their forests to the north with ships, bows and very little cavalry. The bow was a weapon fit to be weilded by royalty for the old Scandinavians.:goodjob:

http://img230.echo.cx/img230/7347/wooo6jd.gif whoop-de-freackin'-doo http://img230.echo.cx/img230/7347/wooo6jd.gif

;) :p

(that is pretty neat to knwo though; I always thought because of the general lack of missle troops in scandanavia that it too had a pervasive dislike of missle warfare.

that is pretty neat to knwo though; I always thought because of the general lack of missle troops in scandanavia that it too had a pervasive dislike of missle warfare.
Nope. The old Scandinavians, Germanic people in general, used to hang amulets of a bow-and-arrow of the cradles of male children to help them grow up to be good archers.
The god Ull, one of these shady characters from before the better known and later Aesir, was a divine archer.

This high regard for the bow must at least partly explain the British tradition of archery. The Celts in Britain and the Germanic peoples were actually quite close and intermingled culturally. Dark Age Germanic nobles had this system om swapping women around in long range marriages to form alliances — and the system included the Celts as well.

Anecdotaly about Viking age archery:
At the battle of Svolder in the year 1000, where the Norwegian king Olaf Tryggvasson lost his kingdom and his life, one of these larger-than life Icelandic saga-heroes was fighting for Olaf. The Icelander was a great archer and naturally had a bow he alone could pull.

After accurately meeting out death to the enemy from the afterdeck for quite a while, the bow broke in his hands with a mighty crack, at which point the king looks about himself and asks:

'What snapped with such a might sound?'
Gloomily the Icelander answers:
'Norway from your hands, oh King.'
'Tosh! Take my bow and use it instead.'

So the huge archer picks up the king's bow, pulls it, and the thing disintegrates in his hands. Holding the pieces he then looks at king Olaf, shakes his head and mutters:
'To weak.'

After which, being an Icelandic hero, he picks up an anvil standing around on the deck, and using it he cuts a bloody swathe through the enemy trying to board the royal ship before being cut down.

Archery was important in Scandinavia because hunting was very important. Our vast forrests and not-so-develloped agriculture was the reason for this. Since noblemen loved to hunt, they automatically became good archers. In battle, they would usually wield swords and shields though, unmounted. The horse was used to carry you to battle, but once you got there it was useless :D

The come-back line by one of the badass Spartiates taken prisoner on the tiny island of Sfakteria by Athenian peltasts — light infantry archers — when chided by some Athenian.

Thats the island where the spartans accidently burnt all the underbrush and set fire to the place ? Which finally allowed the Greeks to capture them.

@ Xen yeah seen it in action. It drove the arrow straight through and a good quater of the way into the wood frame holding up the armour.

Thats the island where the spartans accidently burnt all the underbrush and set fire to the place ? Which finally allowed the Greeks to capture them.
This is in Thucydides. The way I remeber it, the Athenians had captured and fortified a position on the coast of Lakedaimonia (Pylos I think). The Spartans sent an elite force to occupy this little island off the coast. Bad mistake, as the island had no water, and the Athenian fleet appeared, cutting off their retreat.
There may have been a fire as well, I don't remember, but I'm pretty sure it was the lack of water that made the Spartiates give up. :)

Knights ussually only charged once and then dismounted to fight on foot, also tactics by the medieval time hadnt really advanced but had really just changed. Infantry formations wee generally more loose by the 13th centery to avoid artillary and arrows.Also, they may not have ahd pikes(in the sence of 15 foot long iron spears) but they did have uhh.....er....(well, i cant think of the name but theyre 15 feet long and made of wood). So i acnt think of the name, but they were feared by horseunits beacues of the devastating effects they would have on them. Actually anyone was afraid of them, the only way to effectively take out a wooden pike unit was from behind as there wood pikes were so long it would take forever to turn around.Also, note, artillary wouldnt be that big of an advantage because trebuchets werent quite invented yet(to lazy to check but i want to think 1488).The biggest advantage the mids would have would be the bows and bullets. Longbows can shoot aproximately 300-900 yards, seeing as how Rome LEOVED infantry and putting there men in overly tight formations this would be bad, very bad. And early grenadiers+early pointmen would tear up some roman A**.But, in general roman leaders were better tacticians than most medieval leaders. Assuming the scenario is a grassy flatland with a hill on opposite sides for archer advantage and ROME is attacking(romes vs medieval army) it would be close but this battle goes to The medievals.

Knights ussually only charged once and then dismounted to fight on foot,
Pardon? Typical Knights couldn't even walk...
Norman mounted swordsman, maybe.

Also, the length of a Pike doesn't really matter. The Hoplites/Phalanx which ruled the battlefields up and until Alexander were cut into pieces by the Romans, even with their short gladii.
What really ended the Knight era weren't long spears - it were those halberds, gleves...whatever along with bihandle swords.
Weapons that effectively killed any horse in reach, while those formations were pretty immune to infantry attacks as well (something the Greek troops definitely weren't).

Of course, there always is that argument that "Romans were masters of adaption"...but, I don't think this applies here:
1) Metallurgical advances. The not-so-Dark Ages saw huge improvements here; if there is one thing the Germanic tribes really outshined the Romans, it was Smithing.
2) The organization of the "anit-knight infantry": Those were not highly reglemented, disciplined formation - they did pick up the genuine Germanic philosophy of the Haufen (pack) again. More like a family with everyone knowing what he has to do for the overall benefit, not following a strict code of rules.
Not surprisingly, it were the Swiss Reisläufer and the Southern German Landsknechte who were the most deeastating units of that kind.

This really depends on how you see it.

Medieval bows/arrows as well as archery techniques were greatly improved. I think Henry V's army could beat the Romans any day, for example. However, some levied medieval rabble of peasants and thugs would be obliterated. I think the concept of Legions was a very high standard on the military formation. However, Romans had also weak auxiliary armies. I think we need to standardize the question, and make the sizes comparable, similar amount of men, similar relative value of troop quality (6000 best men outfit) and finally - define territory, climate and combat role.

This really depends on how you see it.
I think the concept of Legions was a very high standard on the military formation. However, Romans had also weak auxiliary armies.

What do you mean weak auxiliaries.

They were far better than the basic foot infantry in middle ages.

Anyway...

Romans would win.

Because...

Discipline... Roman discipline, which the medieval armies lacked. Knights for example did not have discipline, really. That is why Knights many times charged into combat without orders, and many times underessapted (sp?). Yes knights were armored tanks of the middle ages, but they weren’t invincible warriors, and there really wasn’t that many of them in the battlefield. Other cavalry that the medieval armies had weren’t really that great.

Equipment… Every roman legionary wore lorica segmentata during the Trajanic era. Loricas (segmantata and hamata) were very good quality, although not as good as the aristocratic medieval armors, but that doesn’t matter because as I said there wasn’t really that much nobles (or chivarlics) in the battlefield. Large shield and the short-sharp-stabbing-sword combo used by the legionaries were far more efficient than the longsword and small(er) shield combination. Also generally equipment in the medieval armies was worse because most of the medieval infantries had whatever his village could offer. Also chain mails were in wide use during the middle ages, and the Roman lorica hamata chain mail (that auxiliaries wore) was often better, and all the legionaries wore even better plate mail. While some medieval infantry didn’t wear any armour.


Professionalism… Roman legionaries were not levied like medieval armies. Legionaries volunteered, if they did they served 20 years in the legion, of course they were paid. They were drilled, trained and disciplined so hard that tactical maneuvers became their second nature. Auxiliaries served 10 years (if I remember correctly) and they were paid half of the legionary’s income, but they didn’t need to be citizens. After they completed their service legionaries were given land or money, auxiliaries were given money and citizenship.

Technology… Roman siege weapons were better then anything, until the gunpowder based siege weapons. Also they had ballistae and other weapons to support them. The medieval army’s had better iron and stirrups.

And, Romans did have composite bows that had almost the same range as longbow.

Pardon? Typical Knights couldn't even walk...
Norman mounted swordsman, maybe.
WRONG- its actually surprisinglly easy to move around in even a full suit of armour- its only been a comedy effect by movies for the last century, and false misconseptions that lead people to conclude that moving in them was hard; true, you cant move insanelly fast; but you can move more then fast enough to take out anything that might oppose you, including any "my speed will beat your stregth" type peasants people think up as being actual opposition for them


Also, the length of a Pike doesn't really matter. The Hoplites/Phalanx which ruled the battlefields up and until Alexander were cut into pieces by the Romans, even with their short gladii.
What really ended the Knight era weren't long spears - it were those halberds, gleves...whatever along with bihandle swords.
Weapons that effectively killed any horse in reach, while those formations were pretty immune to infantry attacks as well (something the Greek troops definitely weren't).
th epiek killed the horse, as simple as that; halbards were a more multi=purpose pike, but required far more skill to use, and by all measuments, the big two handed swords were a military mistake from the get-go.

that said, put the greeks in a medival combat, or rather, the maceodnians, and they will murder; the Italio-Swiss pike formations were merelly the re-inventing fo the classical phalanx, anyone who says other wise is lying, and attempting to skew the truth; the Romans beat the Greek and macedonians because they had a superior trooper in personal stregth, training, and manuverability, as well as high quality standardized weapons


Of course, there always is that argument that "Romans were masters of adaption"...but, I don't think this applies here:
1) Metallurgical advances. The not-so-Dark Ages saw huge improvements here; if there is one thing the Germanic tribes really outshined the Romans, it was Smithing.
2) The organization of the "anit-knight infantry": Those were not highly reglemented, disciplined formation - they did pick up the genuine Germanic philosophy of the Haufen (pack) again. More like a family with everyone knowing what he has to do for the overall benefit, not following a strict code of rules.
Not surprisingly, it were the Swiss Reisläufer and the Southern German Landsknechte who were the most deeastating units of that kind.

1)not really; metalurgy took a huge downfall after the third century, and europe wouldnt see steel in large quantities until the mid and lat emiddle ages; ironically, it wasin Italy ansd spain who became the main producers of steel armour, mainlyl because they still had the best access to quality smithign traditions

2)mabey thats why the Italian schooled the germans when barbarossa tried to sub-due Italy ;) at anyrate, by the high middle ages you DO see regimented formations of troops whom know thier role, and know it well, and act in an orginized, and coherent manner actually befitting an army, and not the tradition germanic way of fighting

3)not surpsinglly, it was Italy who actually pioneered the weapons, and ways of warfare that would dominate the rest of europe, with the exception of the big bastard-swords, which didnt matter anyway, as they had no real effect, and were more of a hindrence over all

seeing as how Rome LEOVED infantry and putting there men in overly tight formations this would be bad, very bad.
misconception; the simple fact is that Roman troops were so successful because they had loose formation that allowed each man his own personal "box" of fighting space, so to make him an effective fighter, and yet keep him close enough to his comrades for mutual support in a fight

And early grenadiers+early pointmen would tear up some roman A**.But, in general roman leaders were better tacticians than most medieval leaders. Assuming the scenario is a grassy flatland with a hill on opposite sides for archer advantage and ROME is attacking(romes vs medieval army) it would be close but this battle goes to The medievals.

thier was no such thing as an early grenadire in thsi tiem frame; guns were hardley used because the gun was just as- if not mor elikelly- to blow up and kill the fire-er, or mis the target, and striaght up in the air as fire forward, or even towards the enemy; in fact, it wouldnt be until the time of the American war of indipence that guns overcame this flaw fully, with the invetion of rifleing the gun barrel, moreover, you vastlyl under esitmate the value of ballistae, which are essentially crossbows on steroids- longer range, bigger punch, faster loading; and in the case of the cheiro ballista which came into serive undre the Trajanic era, we have moble artillery ass it was mounted on a horse cart with a dedicated team of horses and soldiers to man it, meanign that not only did Rome posses a far superior form of long range weapon, but it coudl fire faster, and get to where it could be most devastating before the enemy could mount a proper response, and to top it odd, the javlin-bolt used was set on fire to give a dedicated moral shock as the enmy see thier kinsmen not only killed from afar at a distance they themselves cant reach (catpults and trebuchets artn feild artillery mind you, and are no good for that purpose, unless your enemy general happens to be retarded) but they get to see them burst into flames as well, and smell the stench of burning flesh- a very pleasent experience, I'm sure.

Its an interesting one. The legion would probably be obsolete though. Its a 3/3 infantry unit for 30 shield while medievil infantry is 4/2 for 40 and Knights are 4/3/2 for 70 shields:)

Seriously there is no correct ansewer as it depends on to many factors- what leviers/Knights are being used, the generals involved etc.

Medieval knights:

Weight:
I think it's fairly well established that 30kg or there about is what you can strap on a man and expect him to fight in. Unsurprisingly for most of the Middle Ages that would be roughly the weight of a full suit of armor. Certainly in the 12th and 13th c's we are talking about. (Admiteddly the late full plate monstrosities would sometime become to heavy to be comfortable to move in.)

Discipline:
The idea of the Medival knights as duffers at organised combat is a myth. The development of the 'tournoi' as a form of realistic combat training in northern France, England and the Rhineland in the 12th c. was designed in such a fashion that victory would go precisely to the team of knights that best understood how to fight as a unit.
William Marshall, 'the best knight in the world', made his fame and fortune as the most brilliant team-captain of that circuit, and it wasn't by single feats of arms, but by organising his team to beat all competition.
They may have been nobles but they did have war as a lifestyle. Traditionally that's not a bad way of instilling professionalism. If it had been it wouldn't be so common. Even the later imperial Roman legion tended to make the profession of soldier an hereditary one.

Knights in battle:
Medieval armies would often consist of a bit of everything. The main business end of it would be the heavy cavalry. It makes it possible to apply massive power to a point.

What a commander would traditionally do is line his cavalry up in three line, each to charge the enemy successively. Missile troops and skirmishers might be used to harass the enemy and the infantry would be standing by to move into positions opened up by the cavalry. If all went according to plan that is.

A Roman battle line would be hit by three waves of charging cavalry. The speed would open up a 2-3 second window for them to throw their pilum at the charging horsemen. Timing it right, they would do some damage, but the next second the charge would slam straight into their line.

Cavalry charges are frightning for the participants. It takes real skill to put one together and decide when the best opportunity for using it is. (A counter-charge is just about the only thing that can stop it, and timing one of those was an Art.) Once a cavalry charge starts, all you can do is hold on, try to stay as close together and as possible (the more compact, the greater the force of penetration), and hope it all turns out well in the end.

This isn't a question of discipline — it's a question of equine psychology. What the Romans should worry most about are not the knights, but the bloody horses. Maybe we can think of it as cars in formation travelling at 50km/h slamming into a line of men? Pretty hard to stop. You can stand your ground all you like. It won't really matter. That was the way it usually went for infantry under those circumstances.

The horses are nasty customers in their own right as well — stallions, full of steroids, and naturally skittish and aggressive at the same time. They also get trained to use their front hooves to beat the brains out of unlucky footsoldiers.

If the Romans legionaires ever needed all their courage and discipline it would be if facing a medieval charge by heavy cavalry. Personally I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on the horses.;)

Discipline... Roman discipline, which the medieval armies lacked. Knights for example did not have discipline, really. That is why Knights many times charged into combat without orders, and many times underessapted (sp?). Yes knights were armored tanks of the middle ages, but they weren’t invincible warriors, and there really wasn’t that many of them in the battlefield. Other cavalry that the medieval armies had weren’t really that great.
I think the episode you are thinking of is the lone nut who, during St. Louis crusade in the 1250's, contrary to the kings order, donned his armour and got on his horse in secret in his tent. Trumpets were the sounded, the tent-flaps lifted and he stormed alone against the Egyptian position only to be cut down by a volley of arrows. :crazyeye: The king was livid with rage telling everyone in the vicinity that he considered this as an act as treason.
But... that's just one nut.

No one says that knights were invinsible, but you seem to think of them as lone figures, aimlessly riding around the battlefield. If that was true, how in earth do you account for the knight becoming such a smash hit in the first place, dominating medieval warfare?;)

In fact the entire concept for success of the armoured knight on horseback hinged on these troops fighting in close formation in a very disciplined fashion. The Normans of William the conqueror had some problems with the Anglosaxon infantry, but weren't fighting in formation yet. 50 years later the feudal nobles on their horses did, and rode down infantry from Ireland to the Holy Land, provided they could deploy on a field flat enough.

The key to success was formation — the charge knee to knee — and that takes both some fancy riding skills and lots of discipline.:goodjob:

As for their numbers; the whole point was that it didn't take huge numbers. These horsemen were extremely hard to stop when they got going They had a speed advantage over infantry, and their armour was good enough to make them hard to kill or even hurt unless you get real close and could take your time. They simply didn't have to be numerous to be effective.
Technology… Roman siege weapons were better then anything, until the gunpowder based siege weapons. Also they had ballistae and other weapons to support them. The medieval army’s had better iron and stirrups.
Nope. The new forms of heavy siege catapults that appeared around 1200 were a Chinese/Arab design unknown to the Romans. Before their appearence no one, certainly not the Romans, had the capacity of breaking down masonry with catapults. The older catapults were used to fire missiles, cadavres, incendiary bombs etc. but they were simply not powerful enough to dent a proper wall. (Though admittedly there are more ways to get to grips with a wall than by catapult.)
And, Romans did have composite bows that had almost the same range as longbow.
But didn't use them.:p

Grenadiers have been around since the early 13 hundreds, the mongs loved grenadiers. Also, sure riflemen werent used alot but they WERE used, and im pretty sure even a round bullet only going 1200 miles an hour would pierce bronze.

Grenadiers have been around since the early 13 hundreds, the mongs loved grenadiers. Also, sure riflemen werent used alot but they WERE used, and im pretty sure even a round bullet only going 1200 miles an hour would pierce bronze.

A)we're not talking about the mongol, are we? no, we're not, we're talkign about medieval Europe- leave your grenadier wants at home; they wont serve you in this argument

B)whos using Bronze; the troops of trajans era were using steel buddy; that said, it dosnt make a great dela of difference; a bullet going at 1200 miles would peirce; trouble is, the best guns of the were

A)weak
B)took a horrible duration fo time to restock, and reload
C)were so innacurate to make them still littl emore then the most mobile fo light siege weapons (or alternatelly, very heavy siege weapons)at that point

Medieval knights:


Discipline:
The idea of the Medival knights as duffers at organised combat is a myth. The development of the 'tournoi' as a form of realistic combat training in northern France, England and the Rhineland in the 12th c. was designed in such a fashion that victory would go precisely to the team of knights that best understood how to fight as a unit.
William Marshall, 'the best knight in the world', made his fame and fortune as the most brilliant team-captain of that circuit, and it wasn't by single feats of arms, but by organising his team to beat all competition.
They may have been nobles but they did have war as a lifestyle. Traditionally that's not a bad way of instilling professionalism. If it had been it wouldn't be so common. Even the later imperial Roman legion tended to make the profession of soldier an hereditary one.

I think your over estimateign the knights on this one; its no lie to say that the knights great soldires; but its also no lie to say that the bes tleval of co-ordination, such as those exhibited by your example were more the exception then the rule; that said, I shoudl also remind you this isnt the late Roman army we're pittign agianst a later medival army; its the legions of Trajans time



What a commander would traditionally do is line his cavalry up in three line, each to charge the enemy successively. Missile troops and skirmishers might be used to harass the enemy and the infantry would be standing by to move into positions opened up by the cavalry. If all went according to plan that is.

A Roman battle line would be hit by three waves of charging cavalry. The speed would open up a 2-3 second window for them to throw their pilum at the charging horsemen. Timing it right, they would do some damage, but the next second the charge would slam straight into their line.
remember; the Romans also deployed in three seperate lines of heavy infantry, and the deepnes of a single line certinalyl works agianst a knight; a charge is going to brign them deep into a formation; yes, serious damage, but nothign that couldnt be refromed after this shock was over; that said, the sheer impact is going to carry them into the formation of troops that arnt nearlyl as packed as one would hope they might be, an dput them in perfect pila range for the other ranks of troops



This isn't a question of discipline — it's a question of equine psychology. What the Romans should worry most about are not the knights, but the bloody horses. Maybe we can think of it as cars in formation travelling at 50km/h slamming into a line of men? Pretty hard to stop. You can stand your ground all you like. It won't really matter. That was the way it usually went for infantry under those circumstances.

The horses are nasty customers in their own right as well — stallions, full of steroids, and naturally skittish and aggressive at the same time. They also get trained to use their front hooves to beat the brains out of unlucky footsoldiers.

If the Romans legionaires ever needed all their courage and discipline it would be if facing a medieval charge by heavy cavalry. Personally I wouldn't hesitate to put my money on the horses.;)

the romans absorbed more then thier fare share of cavalry shock combats, and almost always came out the victors of it; thie ris little doubt that a mere variation on what the pre-hunnic steppe peoples, Parthians, and Neo-Perisan all emphisized on would have made any larger a difference then those armies woudl have; indeed; my money is on the legions; tried, tested, and approved to not be able to absorb shock cavalry charges, but able to repulse, defeat, and reform from cavalries that dwarf what an average medieval battle woudl amass in cavalry

But didn't use them.:p

Yes, they did.

My point with knights was that they were often arrogant (sp?) in the battlefield, but the romans weren't... because of their discipline.

And I forgot one more roman advantage... Numbers, medieval commader was lucky to command an army of 10.000, while Romans many times commanded armies size 20.000-50.000, and the Roman army far better quality.

And here's a good stuff about Roman swordsmanship that I found...

The Gladius is supposed to be used with the Legionary Shield. You're supposed to bum-rush your opponent with your big shield and right as you slam into him, drive your Gladius around the side of the shield and into your opponent's torso. The Gladius isn't amazingly effective if you're just 1 guy fighting 1 other guy out in the open and its not intended to be. The Gladius is a weapon that's PART-OF a theology on warfare. It can't stand on its own as the best *sword* of all time, but it stands together with its shield counterpart as the best sword & shield combo the world has ever known, combined with the pillum it was the first successful non-phalanx army since the Hellenistic period started by Alexander the Great who essentially converted the world's armies into phalanx armies (monkey see monkey do) much the same way the world later copied the Roman Legion's tactics.

They have a great special on the history channel about the Gladius - talks all about Roman group tactics, how they preferred ONLY stabbing attacks as a means to achieve near-zero friendly kills. Apparently they didn't call them barbarians for nothing, the axmen and swordsmen of the north would often catch their own men with crazed swings of their *significantly* longer weapons if they stayed packed together as a result it was customary to spread out during the battle (since there is no honor dieing accidentally). So sadly for the barbarians they couldn't effectively fight the Roman's kind of battle, for the space and room each barbarian warrior needed you can fit three Romans, and all three of them can reach out and stab at the same time from 3 directions. Combine the 3 hairy Roman arms all stabbing at you with the 3 CAR-DOOR sized shields they seem to be hiding behind and it becomes a REAL PAIN to survive the roman legion.

Not only that but the Roman's armor protected their chest & shoulders extensively so they had extremely good protection from over head swings. Men with long swords (and axes) were often forced to use over-head swings when they found themselves packed tightly together or during an initial charge to avoid hitting their brothers standing next to them, which is exactly what the Romans wanted because from the sides, the roman was vulnerable, the chest armor was open on the sideds near the hip and there was virtually NO arm or leg armor. At one point some in the Legion started using grieves which protected from the kneed down but only from the front. So it seems that they weren't interested in fighting the kinds of battles where an opponent could even get a side-ways swing at them. Romans only wanted to fight directly head on and as close up and tight as possible. Since the closer and tighter they fought the HARDER it was for their enemies to swing. Sounds like genious to me! Psychotic genious anyway, lol

Dear Xen,

http://www.worldsteel.org/faq_what.php

Romans didnt use steel armour genius, it wasnt invented in britian unitl 1856.Nice try though.

http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=210955

The earliest grenade, a round earthenware container filled with powder and ignited by a wick, was made in Italy in 1427 but was not generally used until the 16th century. Elite grenade units called grenadiers comprised the tallest and most powerful men in the regiments; with the perfection of muskets, these units became obsolete. Grenades were used to some extent in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5 and extensively in World War I.

now im going to assume these are the best outfitted armies possible, therefore weze gots grenades.

http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=222519

Firelocks.

In the first quarter of the 14th century, the firelock was developed, a simple, smoothbore tube of iron, closed at the breech end except for an opening called a touchhole, and set into a rounded piece of wood for holding under the arm. The tube was loaded with shot and powder and then fired by inserting a heated wire into the touchhole. Later models had a saucerlike depression, called a flashpan, in the barrel at the outer end of the touchhole; a small charge of powder was placed in the flashpan and fired by applying a so-called slow match. The slow match, consisting of a piece of cord soaked in a solution of potassium nitrate and then dried, smoldered without flaming or becoming extinguished. The charge of powder in the flashpan was difficult to ignite, was frequently affected by moisture in the atmosphere, and required repriming just before use to ensure against misfires

ok, i get my guns over here in gun land.

Romans didnt use steel armour genius, it wasnt invented in britian unitl 1856.Nice try though.

Ahem, Romans like the Han Chinese did you use steel armour.

:p

I think the episode you are thinking of is the lone nut who, during St. Louis crusade in the 1250's, contrary to the kings order, donned his armour and got on his horse in secret in his tent. Trumpets were the sounded, the tent-flaps lifted and he stormed alone against the Egyptian position only to be cut down by a volley of arrows. The king was livid with rage telling everyone in the vicinity that he considered this as an act as treason.
But... that's just one nut.


No, I havn't even heard of that.

I was thinking all of the battle lost due to the ill-discipilned knights

No one says that knights were invinsible, but you seem to think of them as lone figures, aimlessly riding around the battlefield. If that was true, how in earth do you account for the knight becoming such a smash hit in the first place, dominating medieval warfare?

Knights in reality showed how far the european warfare had declained.
The use of over-impentious warriors in the battlefield was a weakness, so clear weakness that the Romans would have seen that, and used it as their advantage.


In fact the entire concept for success of the armoured knight on horseback hinged on these troops fighting in close formation in a very disciplined fashion.

As I said knights rearly fought under discipline. It was the byzantine cataphracts who fought under harsh discipline.

50 years later the feudal nobles on their horses did, and rode down infantry from Ireland to the Holy Land, provided they could deploy on a field flat enough.

Crusades, are you refering to them crusades. Hahaha... crusades were one of the most unsuccesfull military operations that I can think of...

And as I said there wasn't really that much Knights in the battle field.
And the auxiliaries could with their discipline kill them easily.


The key to success was formation — the charge knee to knee — and that takes both some fancy riding skills and lots of discipline.


No it doesn't, because the knights get to charge.

As for their numbers; the whole point was that it didn't take huge numbers. These horsemen were extremely hard to stop when they got going They had a speed advantage over infantry, and their armour was good enough to make them hard to kill or even hurt unless you get real close and could take your time. They simply didn't have to be numerous to be effective.

There was very little knights in the battlefield, and they weren't really that special. Now Romans had discipline, quality, man-power, morale, stratetic (sp?) advatage. I think the Roman would win...

The Roman infatry would beat the mediaval infantry easily, while the auxiliary spearmen can beat the knights easily.


Nope. The new forms of heavy siege catapults that appeared around 1200 were a Chinese/Arab design unknown to the Romans. Before their appearence no one, certainly not the Romans, had the capacity of breaking down masonry with catapults. The older catapults were used to fire missiles, cadavres, incendiary bombs etc. but they were simply not powerful enough to dent a proper wall. (Though admittedly there are more ways to get to grips with a wall than by catapult.)

Well, you see trebuched, and mangonel were much worse that the ballista-catapult or whatever... that you can see behind these two...

http://www.materials.ac.uk/images/building2large.jpg

was better than the medieval trebuched....

i think it really boils down to whos attacking who.

i think it really boils down to whos attacking who.

What do you mean?

I think your over estimateign the knights on this one; its no lie to say that the knights great soldires; but its also no lie to say that the bes tleval of co-ordination, such as those exhibited by your example were more the exception then the rule; that said, I shoudl also remind you this isnt the late Roman army we're pittign agianst a later medival army; its the legions of Trajans time
We all agree that Medieval armies differed widely in quality. The Trajan legion guarantees a measure of quality controll. With the MA you can get a little bit of everything.
As somebody should stick up for the Middle Ages against all the Romanphiles here, I just think you could use the best-case scenario for them. Put the miltary orders on the job or so.;)
remember; the Romans also deployed in three seperate lines of heavy infantry, and the deepnes of a single line certinalyl works agianst a knight; a charge is going to brign them deep into a formation; yes, serious damage, but nothign that couldnt be refromed after this shock was over; that said, the sheer impact is going to carry them into the formation of troops that arnt nearlyl as packed as one would hope they might be, an dput them in perfect pila range for the other ranks of troops
Now we are into how large and concentrated the charge is going to be. We have three lines of horsemen hitting the lines in repetition.
A Roman legion would no doubt have been worse infantry than encountered before, but with enough speed and concentrated force a charge would smash through them as well.
And a second line with Romans in a semi-open formation? If the charge has gone through the first line then that formation won't be able to stop them. If anything they will praise God for having delivered thenemy into their hands, as it's time for them to fan out and start the serious killing of footsoldiers. The pilum still has a limited range, which means only those legionnaires directly involved in the fighting will get to use them. Infantry not in a closed formation? Excellent for deploying cavalry against I'd say.;)
the romans absorbed more then thier fare share of cavalry shock combats, and almost always came out the victors of it; thie ris little doubt that a mere variation on what the pre-hunnic steppe peoples, Parthians, and Neo-Perisan all emphisized on would have made any larger a difference then those armies would have; indeed; my money is on the legions; tried, tested, and approved to not be able to absorb shock cavalry charges, but able to repulse, defeat, and reform from cavalries that dwarf what an average medieval battle woudl amass in cavalry
But all these people practiced horse archery as their major offensive weapon. Light horsemen, hard to catch, but a fundamentally different concept for using horsemen. For one they deply the horsemen in much more open formations, lighter horses, less armour, and their tactics depend on the ability to manouvre for individual horsemen. Knights would deploy as compact as possible and use weight and speed travelling in straight line — death or glory style. That's not a variation of the horsenomad mode of combat.
The late period cataphracts would be the closest a Roman army would have experienced to a medieval heavy cav. charge. And the cataphratcs were successful precisely because heavy cav. is hard to stop when it gets going. You can't really argue away 1000 years of cavalry domination of European battlefields. (Well, no doubt you'll try;).) Heavy cav worked brilliantly. Not least against light cav in open formations.

For the Medievals the battle hinges on how well the impact of the knights is exploited by infantry etc.
So I'll give you that the outcome isn't a forgone conclusion in any way.:cool:

I was thinking all of the battle lost due to the ill-discipilned knights
You mean Agincourt, Crécy etc then?
Knights in reality showed how far the european warfare had declained.
The use of over-impentious warriors in the battlefield was a weakness, so clear weakness that the Romans would have seen that, and used it as their advantage.
Battles were serious business, rarely fought. Where's your subtstantiation of your claim that Medieval knights would somehow have been low on impulse controll and in need of Ritalin?;)
As I said knights rearly fought under discipline. It was the byzantine cataphracts who fought under harsh discipline.
And the byzantines got absolutely clobbered every time they tried to fight the Frank knights. Everybody but the Mongols did.
Crusades, are you refering to them crusades. Hahaha... crusades were one of the most unsuccesfull military operations that I can think of...
No I'm not. And the idiocy of the Crusades is beside the point when discussing the tactical success of Medieval heavy cav on the battlefield.
These tactics were used everywhere where the expense of heavy cav could be afforded. And it worked brilliantly. It worked brilliantly against muslim armies as well.:goodjob:
There was very little knights in the battlefield, and they weren't really that special. Now Romans had discipline, quality, man-power, morale, stratetic (sp?) advatage. I think the Roman would win...
Well, if you get to make up the numbers, obviously there wasn't.:cheeky:
The Roman infatry would beat the mediaval infantry easily, while the auxiliary spearmen can beat the knights easily.
Why do you think so?
They first have to stop and catch the knights. Which all infantry these met struggled to do as long as they deployed on horseback and stuck to what they did best.
As I said to Xen: You can't quite argue away 1000 years of cav domination of European battlefields. Numbers and quality of knights cav did vary over that time, but the really effective infantry solutions found were all very late, and it took gunpowder to finally tip the scales.:cool:
Well, you see trebuched, and mangonel were much worse that the ballista-catapult or whatever... that you can see behind these two...
http://www.materials.ac.uk/images/building2large.jpg
was better than the medieval trebuched....
The Romans would have loved to use the Medieval trebuchet to batter down city walls. They didn't have them, so they had to find other solutions. Fortifications and siege warfare were the cornerstones of medieval warfare — much more so than field battles. By ca 1200 AD the defensive architecture of the Romans had been relearned (from the Mid East) and a number of nasty new twists had been added.
After 1200 in a choice between a Roman engineer and a medieval engineer, I'd definately take the Medieval professional.:)

Dear Xen,

http://www.worldsteel.org/faq_what.php

Romans didnt use steel armour genius, it wasnt invented in britian unitl 1856.Nice try though.

sorry buddy, your wrong; http://www.mri.on.ca/steel.html

Britain achieved the ability make steels in large quantites, but even that was somthignt hat had been known to the chinese for quite along time (wel, either thast, o rknowing how to make pig-iron)


http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=210955

The earliest grenade, a round earthenware container filled with powder and ignited by a wick, was made in Italy in 1427 but was not generally used until the 16th century. Elite grenade units called grenadiers comprised the tallest and most powerful men in the regiments; with the perfection of muskets, these units became obsolete. Grenades were used to some extent in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5 and extensively in World War I.

now im going to assume these are the best outfitted armies possible, therefore weze gots grenades.
A)the 16th centurt; the point in time when greandes, as you said it your self, were put into real use isnt in the middle ages

B)your only using thuis argument to try to have Deua Ex Machina to pull off a sure victory for the medievasl; as it is, its more logical to assume that both armies are average

C)I want you to give me real examples of greandirs being used in 13th, and 14th century battles



http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=222519

Firelocks.

In the first quarter of the 14th century, the firelock was developed, a simple, smoothbore tube of iron, closed at the breech end except for an opening called a touchhole, and set into a rounded piece of wood for holding under the arm. The tube was loaded with shot and powder and then fired by inserting a heated wire into the touchhole. Later models had a saucerlike depression, called a flashpan, in the barrel at the outer end of the touchhole; a small charge of powder was placed in the flashpan and fired by applying a so-called slow match. The slow match, consisting of a piece of cord soaked in a solution of potassium nitrate and then dried, smoldered without flaming or becoming extinguished. The charge of powder in the flashpan was difficult to ignite, was frequently affected by moisture in the atmosphere, and required repriming just before use to ensure against misfires

ok, i get my guns over here in gun land.

apperentlly, you also get a lack of logic in gunland as well; all of you rlittle information is already known to me, and has no bearing on my argument; the gunbs of the era were still horredus weapons that wouldnt become the dominat force on battlefeils until after the renaissance, and history is the very clear ibdicator that I;m right in this particuler case; if guns were as effective as you seem to want them to have been, then they woudl have been far more dominat of the battlefeild; they werent.

And the byzantines got absolutely clobbered every time they tried to fight the Frank knights. Everybody but the Mongols did. to be fair, the Byzantines never got to use the armies of Belisarius and Narses agianst the Franks, did they :p internal revols in italy kept any such occurences from happening



Why do you think so?
They first have to stop and catch the knights. Which all infantry these met struggled to do as long as they deployed on horseback and stuck to what they did best.
As I said to Xen: You can't quite argue away 1000 years of cav domination of European battlefields. Numbers and quality of knights cav did vary over that time, but the really effective infantry solutions found were all very late, and it took gunpowder to finally tip the scales.:cool:

but you cant argue away history; the Romans have a very long history of crushing enemies whom use the exact from of cavalry manuver that the franks, and other medieval powers used, and crushing them well.

but you cant argue away history; the Romans have a very long history of crushing enemies whom use the exact from of cavalry manuver that the franks, and other medieval powers used, and crushing them well.
And the Romans also have a very long history of being overrun by cavalry. Even in their own time, the Romans still had their hands full when fighting enemies who used heavy cavalry, who didn't even used strirrups and as such couldn't support as heavy riders. The Romans should praise themselves lucky that this didn't happen too often.

Succes in warfare is about combined arms. Sure the Romans had superior infantry, but without a strong cavalry arm the infantry will be handicapped.

Alexander showed this to the world - that calvary and infantry depends on each other to maximise results.

And the Romans also have a very long history of being overrun by cavalry. Even in their own time, the Romans still had their hands full when fighting enemies who used heavy cavalry, who didn't even used strirrups and as such couldn't support as heavy riders. The Romans should praise themselves lucky that this didn't happen too often.

Hmm, Pontus had heavy cavalry, cataphract supported by horse archers and horse javeliners. The roman won them easily... Goths won Romans only because the roman army was decalining... Hmm... Parthian used tactics were
many times too mobile for the romans, yet the Romans destoryed, or crippled them.

Succes in warfare is about combined arms. Sure the Romans had superior infantry, but without a strong cavalry arm the infantry will be handicapped.

Yes, but you see the Romans had cavalry too, now it might not be so powerful, but there were more of them then the knights. Now if they are supported by the heavy infantry, things can get rahter messy for medieval Infantries. With the numbers in place, discipline, and the arrogance of the knights, the Roman could easily lure the knights, with their inferior(but better disciplined) cavalry into close, slow combat where they aren't that great anymore.

Alexander showed this to the world - that calvary and infantry depends on each other to maximise results.

I agree.

I really don't see where this pointless discussion is supposed to go. That's the umpteenth time a similar subject ends in that completely silly "What-if" argument:

"Yes, but Romans are smart, give them another 1000+ years and the could have easily beaten the Mongols/ Coer d'Lion/ the Waffen-SS/ the US Army of 2005/ the United Federation of Planets."

THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. Period.

We're talking about if the Imperial Roman Army of 100-200AD with some adaption to new tactics (say, several years of experience) could whack a Knight Army.
If I'm wrong here, sorry.

Also, "Knight" has different meanings in different languages. A German Ritter by definition cannot really walk, or fight on the ground - simply because that name means nothing but Reiter (rider).
Don't know about the ethymology of Knight, maybe someone can help me here. IIRC it is related to the same root as German 'Knecht' = servant.

Of course, even German Ritter sometimes fought without horses - for example, in Barbarossa's Crusade, after they had to eat them...
But that is like the German WW2 'Fallschirmjäger' infantry units after '41 - they kept the name, but they were no longer airborne. Same as a 'Ritter' on his own legs is no longer a rider.

Parthian used tactics were
many times too mobile for the romans, yet the Romans destoryed, or crippled them.
Actually, the Parthians usually won over the Romans.


Yes, but you see the Romans had cavalry too, now it might not be so powerful, but there were more of them then the knights.
Roman cavalry is notorius for being beaten by the enemy calvalry, and retreating behind the infantry who would usually carry the day.


With the numbers in place, discipline, and the arrogance of the knights
What about the arrogance of the Romans? Sure Knights were often over eager to charge, but just as often they could be quite diciplined.
The battle of Adrianople is a good example of how Roman arrogance and enemy cavalry led to their doom.

Since we compare two so large timespans, it's too easy to find a single moment in history that supports you. Sure the Trajan legionaires were 8 feet tall and could shoot fireballs out of their arse, but if we take the best of the Romans we should also take the best of the Knights, and therefore it is not fair to focus on the arrogant ones. What about the Knights Templar? Or the Hospitallars? Don't you think they were diciplined?

And the Romans also have a very long history of being overrun by cavalry. Even in their own time, the Romans still had their hands full when fighting enemies who used heavy cavalry, who didn't even used strirrups and as such couldn't support as heavy riders. The Romans should praise themselves lucky that this didn't happen too often.

Succes in warfare is about combined arms. Sure the Romans had superior infantry, but without a strong cavalry arm the infantry will be handicapped.

Alexander showed this to the world - that calvary and infantry depends on each other to maximise results.

I hate it when people try to bring in stirrups; they dont count for anything; they make learnign how to ride easyier, which counts for alot in the long run, but, the lack of stirrups didnt hinder the development of heavilyl armed shock-horsemen, or hinder thier use in combat; you just have to be a betterhorseman, with more rigourus training to be able to pull it off; the most obvious point in support fo this, is that fact that

A)modern iders have tried using no stirrup horses; its hard for them to learn, and they say its quite hard, until they get use to what you have to do

b)an ancient warsaddle is quite effective at keeping the rider in-place

c)and the single biggest support; the ancient world clearlly had shcok cavalry that worked wonders on the battlefeild; thie ris a huge assumption by people that as tiem goes on, armies get better, and better; this is hardley the case, just ask the British empire about Afganistan or Zululand, and these are merelly extreame and well known examples

Actually, the Parthians usually won over the Romans. proof please; the Romans have a long history of dricing the Parthians right back into thie rown lands, charging into the Parthian homelands, and pillaging thier cpaital city, and then making a peace treaty; after the imperial reforms of Augustus, Rome has no trouble smashing anything the horsey riders can throw at them, until the economy collapses


Roman cavalry is notorius for being beaten by the enemy calvalry, and retreating behind the infantry who would usually carry the day.


What about the arrogance of the Romans? Sure Knights were often over eager to charge, but just as often they could be quite diciplined.
The battle of Adrianople is a good example of how Roman arrogance and enemy cavalry led to their doom.
I'd liek examples of this please; the cavalry fo the republci was crap' the cavalry of the imperial era wasnt; Rome didnt carry a single army through its history, over tiem the make up of army, and the quality of soldires was changing to meet the needs it had to face, in accordence with what resources it had; somtimes, thier were mistakes in the reforms, but durign the reing of Trajan, we have an apex Roman army


Since we compare two so large timespans, it's too easy to find a single moment in history that supports you. Sure the Trajan legionaires were 8 feet tall and could shoot fireballs out of their arse, but if we take the best of the Romans we should also take the best of the Knights, and therefore it is not fair to focus on the arrogant ones. What about the Knights Templar? Or the Hospitallars? Don't you think they were diciplined?

they were 9 feet tall, and could shoot lighting out of thier ass, get it right ;)

that said, i dont deny that the orders coudl tak epart; but no god-damned greandirs- they just didnt exist at this time.

Xen, I never said that the ancients didn't have shock calvalry. In fact I think I said the opposite. But you are wrong when you claim that stirrups don't count for nothing.
The introduction of the stirrup allowed for heavier cavalry. As a greater weight of man and armor could be supported in the saddle, the almost-certainty of being dismounted in combat was reduced, and in the initial charge a lance could be 'set' rather than held over-head—leading to an enormous increase in the impact of a charge.

but you cant argue away history; the Romans have a very long history of crushing enemies whom use the exact from of cavalry manuver that the franks, and other medieval powers used, and crushing them well.
Ok, but help sort this one out for me.:)
Exactly which ones do you mean?
And we obvisoulsy are not talking horse archery, but horsemen in formation using lances and naked blades and deployed to ride down infantry.

This kind of heavy cav. tactic used in the high Middle Ages came into use after 1000 AD.
It's efficiency depended on the stirrup, introduced around 800 AD (turned up around 600 in Byzantium, introduced from the east).
The stirrup maybe doesn't impress everybody around here, but the new stability to the horse-rider unit provided by it (and new and better saddles and bits) made for a quantum leap in cavalry efficiency.

Ever ridden a horse? These things make an enormous difference!:eek:
It is certainly not a question of 'learning to ride' if by riding you mean more than being 'able to sit on a horse'.
I think you underestimate exacty how active an exercise riding is. Anything that helps balance and stability in the saddle gives you leg up on the guy trying to do the same thing without them. There is no way a horseman without stirrups can compensate for the disadvantage compared to the one that has.

First stirrups made the individual horse-rider combo more powerful than ever, most of the power derived from the weight and speed of the horse. Then it was discovered that mass tactics could increase this power exponentially. The Romans never met anything like it.

These things were sufficient to change the balance of power on the battle field. If it hadn't occured infantry would have continued to rule the battlefields.

Actually I think we are to some extent discussing from different positions on the idea of progress.
I feel a bit as if we are refighting the 'battle of the ancients and the moderns' (later 17th c.) — was it at all possible to reach the standards of excellence showed by the ancients?:D
It think Western Europe certainly had done so by the high Middle Ages, and made several new discoveries in the process, including military matters.

The Roman army may have peaked around Trajan and gone downhill later. Question then is when military competence started to increase again? I'm perfectly fine with admitting that for infantry they set a standard hard to match. At the same time I think it's fair to say that cavarly warfare changed in a much more fundamental way that infantry warfare between Roman times and the Middle Ages.
The cavalry defeated by Roman legions would have been utterly destroyed by Medieval knights as well.

Honestly, I think you and Naziassbandit (sorry, I'm indcluding you here as well) are treating cavalry as an aberration between the great periods of infantry warfare in history — as an effect not of the intrinsic qualities in this kind of warfare, but the result some kind of degeneration in infantry capability.

I obviously don't think that was the situation at all. Developments in equipment, tactics etc. made horsemen supreme for about 1000 years, until the balance reversed again.
The fact that cavalry played a subordinate role for anothe 400 years and no role at all the last century has made it hard for us today to grasp what fighting on horseback, and fighting mounted troops, meant.

I'm fascinated with the use of horses in warfare. Maybe I am overestimating the Medival knight compared to the Roman legionnaire? Or maybe not. These things are hard to compare hypothetically.:)

I'm in any case very sceptical about anything like an attitude towards Medieval warfare that seems to assume all involved were incompetent morons compared to ancient Rome. I find it abundantly clear they weren't.:p;)

proof please; the Romans have a long history of dricing the Parthians right back into thie rown lands, charging into the Parthian homelands, and pillaging thier cpaital city, and then making a peace treaty; after the imperial reforms of Augustus, Rome has no trouble smashing anything the horsey riders can throw at them, until the economy collapses
The Parthian wars started with Roman disaster, they were then able to strike back and pillage and such as you claim, but the Parthians did likewise and invaded Syria, Cilicia, Caria and Phrygia, and it was only their lack of occupying troops (Calvalry sucks at sieges) that prevented them from keeping it.
The wars went back and forth. Some Roman counter expeditions were happy if they were able to reach Armenia, and this after having sustained heavy loses.
It wasn't until the time of Trajan that the Romans actually learned how to beat the Parthians, and this were at the height of Roman power, at a time when Parthia was already in decline.


I'd liek examples of this please; the cavalry fo the republci was crap' the cavalry of the imperial era wasnt; Rome didnt carry a single army through its history, over tiem the make up of army, and the quality of soldires was changing to meet the needs it had to face, in accordence with what resources it had; somtimes, thier were mistakes in the reforms, but durign the reing of Trajan, we have an apex Roman army
Yeah yeah, Trajan Trajan. One of out many Emperors. Rome lasted for so long, and all you bring to the table is this little piece of it's history.
As you said, the Republican cavalry was crap. So was the later cavalry. And the lastest cavalry wasn't even Roman, but German.


that said, i dont deny that the orders coudl tak epart; but no god-damned greandirs- they just didnt exist at this time.
I am not a part of the grenade-discussion.

Oh one thing to add to this whole discussion:

An other reason why the role of cavalry increased, was because of the decline of Roman infrastructure. As the Empire fell, the roads became worse and large infantry armies were hard to move about.

I really don't see where this pointless discussion is supposed to go. That's the umpteenth time a similar subject ends in that completely silly "What-if" argument:

"Yes, but Romans are smart, give them another 1000+ years and the could have easily beaten the Mongols/ Coer d'Lion/ the Waffen-SS/ the US Army of 2005/ the United Federation of Planets."

THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. Period.This is why I tend to stay out of these discussions.

Well, it started more promising :(...

Stop whining

Until Septimius Severus ruined the legions, they were well trained, well equipped, well led, disciplined professional soldiers. The legions were able to conquer North Africa, half of Europe, and a large part of the Middle East. But arguing whether the legions could have withstood Pickett's Charge, defeated the 1st Air Cavalry in the Ia Drang Valley, or successfully defended the Lines of Torres Vedras against Massena is fruitless.

@All; trajan wasnt brough tup by me, but by someone else; I f I were arguing my own thought, it would be a thrid century Roman army that the medieval were fighting, as they truelly were th epinnacle of the Roman military, and would have schooled even Trajans legions; as far Trajan bein gmy litle showpeice, every single one of you know that isnt the case; all of you; you using it as an argumentative device to try to weaken my position; get over it; you know very well that several emperors of the third century were able to go into, and pillage the hell out of mesopotamia, and you also know that by the third century, Rome had a cavalry force to be reckoned with, and had found a wonderful balencing act of military deployment of 1000 infantry, and 500 heavy (Roman) cavalry to take care of its fronitr duties in the form fo the milliarii units of deploment, and the role, and usage of Romes heavy cav were incresing, for the same reasons that knights were so effective; but the biggest flaw in the miedval argument, and admittentlly, I have let myself get sidetracked by it, is the focus on cavalry- yes they were important, but they were hardley all thier was to the battle, and to that end Rome has a distinctlly upper hand in third century; troops no longer carries the slim pila, but actual spear, useful four counterign cavalry charges, and had long devloped the needed co-ordination skills needed between the arms of the forces present to get a greatdeal of co-ordniation betweenthe infantry, andf the now well versed cavalry

@storealex; you know as well as I do that after AUgtian reforsm Roman cavalry began to get better, and that by the tiem fo trajan, it was to be a feared sight; the third century saw an increase in cavalry profiecny, so much so that several emperors were part of an elite cavalry guard who aided patrol the west; the guard, unfortunatelly, was disabanded for poltical reasons, unfortunate, as it could have been a wonderful step towards making a stretegic force reserve that coudl have aided Rome, relitivlly well in used on a regional basis at that time (but thats beside the point; what is th epoint, is that you claim for Roman cavalry beign crap dosent bear merit at all; later cavalry drawn from germanic mercenaries? yes, **** on a stick by all means, but Rome didnt have the money to go and build up armies as seen during the 1st, second, and early/mid third centuries by then, and had to go for a cheaper, faster solution)

Oh one thing to add to this whole discussion:

An other reason why the role of cavalry increased, was because of the decline of Roman infrastructure. As the Empire fell, the roads became worse and large infantry armies were hard to move about.

Really?

I thought it was because Rome had weak central reserve and the Armies had to be very mobile... And that the barbarians sometimes used the roads as well.

Xen, you say you want examplesof a battle in the timeframe when grenades were used, well then give me an example of when a Roman army foguth a medieval army? You cant, thats why this question is hypothetical and thats why i say the grenades would tear up Rome's army, its a hypothetical battle so assum the best possible armaments were incorporated, EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE WIDELY USED. Also, if steel was INVENTED in 1856 by a guy in britian than how could the Romans and chinese have used steel before it was invented. I dont care if you have a link to some random site, my links were from the freekin histroy channel.com and a steel manufacturing company, a steel manufacturing company. I dont think i would trust some random site over actual sources.

And guns existed, yes, we both agree that they were horribly innacurate but there is no proof for a horrid misfire rate. But how inacurate can a weopon be from 40 feet away, after roman infantry javelin harras and charge at the enemy formation the mids could let of a barrage and then have the mid infantry attack.

ohhh, and what i meant by it really boils down to who attacks who i meant it depends if the romans attack the mids or the mids attack the romans. I think whoever defends would probably win.

Xen, you say you want examplesof a battle in the timeframe when grenades were used, well then give me an example of when a Roman army foguth a medieval army? You cant, thats why this question is hypothetical

I want expamles of when particuler occurences took place, prefferbaley several occurences, to establish a set pattern to proove that what people say woudl happen actually did happen ona common enough basis to assume it woudl happen in a hypothetical Romano_Medieval wesern european battle.

and thats why i say the grenades would tear up Rome's army, its a hypothetical battle so assum the best possible armaments were incorporated, EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE WIDELY USED. Also, if steel was INVENTED in 1856 by a guy in britian than how could the Romans and chinese have used steel before it was invented. I dont care if you have a link to some random site, my links were from the freekin histroy channel.com and a steel manufacturing company, a steel manufacturing company. I dont think i would trust some random site over actual sources.
A)obviouslyl enough, steel was invented far before 1856; most quality history books will make note of this fact; just type in "Toledo steel", or "Damasqus steel" for example sof soem fo the finest steel fo the middle ages; the steel makign process wasnt unkown to the Romans and chinese for that matter

B)give me a goodamed exaple of a western medieval army using them- just one god-damed example, and tell us how effective it was; I'm willing to bet real money that A)your not going to find any examples, because the invention werent utlized when they were first made, and B)that thwy werent effecitve until later improvements on the design took effect

pquote]
And guns existed, yes, we both agree that they were horribly innacurate but there is no proof for a horrid misfire rate. But how inacurate can a weopon be from 40 feet away, after roman infantry javelin harras and charge at the enemy formation the mids could let of a barrage and then have the mid infantry attack.[quote]

A)thiers no garuntee a Roman army woudl b using javlins at all; pikes well recorded as being used, and third century Roman armies didnt carry javlins all, but relied on real dedicated missile support from prior ranks, leaving the infantry to close up fighting

B)no proof? just do soem rudimentery reserch into early guns; youll find ample proof that guns in that era were both inaccurate, and dangerous; only thire ease of use made them used at all, and theyu still didnt dominate the battle feild until well after this time; hell, pike regiments were still used up into the Malburian era of european warfare, assumign youve even doen the reserch to know who he was, or the era of warfare that he participated in.

Again, the question is not properly defined, and is irrelevant.

"What if" threads are no fun.

im starting to see this as pointless, none has changed anyones opinion on the matter, and its kindov childish to quarrel over something like this. I think i'll go start the Lunch Box v.s Cargo Plane thread now.

Undecided. There is too much variation of armies across europe in the period stated, to choose a winner. Another thing is that, I presume, the Legions in Trajan's era were considered the best, so it's only fair to put them up against the best of Europe in the Medieval period (reckoned to be 1066 to 1492). Battlefields also play a part.

Again, the Roman legions would win

Because, Roman legions had both quantity and quality advantage, they also had moral and discipline advantage.

Roman army's medical cear was also better to that of any army untill 20th century.

Early gunpowder weapons don't really matter, because they are horribly inaccurate, they are dangerious to their user, and they have very, very short range, (hand held gunpowerder weapons I mean)

What else do you need.

neither side would win, they would collapse from the shock that somebody invented a working time machine

neither side would win, they would collapse from the shock that somebody invented a working time machine


Okay, thats what I thought too...

Roman Army wins surely

Because, Roman legions had both quantity and quality advantage, they also had moral and discipline advantage.
What's the point of a comparison of troop performance when the premise is that one side is outnumbered in the first place?:confused:

Undecided. There is too much variation of armies across europe in the period stated, to choose a winner. Another thing is that, I presume, the Legions in Trajan's era were considered the best, so it's only fair to put them up against the best of Europe in the Medieval period (reckoned to be 1066 to 1492). Battlefields also play a part.

*considered the best*, and actually the best are two very different things; I put my money on the legions thast held th eempire together during the third century, in the face of economic collapse, currption of government, invasion on every inch of the frontir, and rampant civil wars being a breed of soldier the world has rarelly seen in all its history. Gods bless the Illyrians.

Again, the Roman legions would win

Because, Roman legions had both quantity and quality advantage, they also had moral and discipline advantage.

Roman army's medical cear was also better to that of any army untill 20th century.

Early gunpowder weapons don't really matter, because they are horribly inaccurate, they are dangerious to their user, and they have very, very short range, (hand held gunpowerder weapons I mean)

What else do you need.

You're joking. If the Romans were not aware of their existence, such weapons could cause the entire lot to run like hell.

I would actually like to have some expert historians issue their opinion on the matter, as I see mostly laymen talking to the praise of Rome. The variation in Medieval armies was so great, that pitting the best medieval against the best Roman would cause a medieval win.
But I agree the standard Roman Legion may have been better than the average, but that is the problem, they were standardized, which means elite medievals could win over them.

The Romans would have loved to use the Medieval trebuchet to batter down city walls. They didn't have them, so they had to find other solutions. Fortifications and siege warfare were the cornerstones of medieval warfare — much more so than field battles. By ca 1200 AD the defensive architecture of the Romans had been relearned (from the Mid East) and a number of nasty new twists had been added. After 1200 in a choice between a Roman engineer and a medieval engineer, I'd definately take the Medieval professional.

Acuattly, that catapult was more accurate, it had better range and firepower than a trebuchet. You're forgetting what middle ages were: time of ignorance.

I think that the Romans would win. Firstly, they would shower the knights/men-at-arms with javelins. Their organization would work well too. Knights would charge whenever they wanted too. With auxilaries, Rome would do even better. Camel Riders ;)

Acuattly, that catapult was more accurate, it had better range and firepower than a trebuchet. You're forgetting what middle ages were: time of ignorance.

Uh, I dont think so...the catapults have basically a pull back and let loose action, but trebs had a counter-weight. The middle ages were not a time of ignorance. Look at monastaries

i second that, trebuchets were the reason they stopped building castles. There much more powerful and accurate then any catapult, and(since they can be compacted) can travel ove more types of terrain than catapults. Ohhh....and any man who calls the middle ages a time of ignorance is only being ignorant himself. It was more-so an age of re-enlightenment.

ohh, and dreadnought, like the reference to half-life in your sig.

i second that, trebuchets were the reason they stopped building castles. There much more powerful and accurate then any catapult, and(since they can be compacted) can travel ove more types of terrain than catapults. Ohhh....and any man who calls the middle ages a time of ignorance is only being ignorant himself. It was more-so an age of re-enlightenment.
You're absolutely right about the increase in fire-power of the counter-weight trebuchet. And of the high Middle Ages in general!:goodjob:

It didn't stop castle building though since there were countermeasures. From around 1300 at least stones in French castle walls usually come with what's sometimes called a 'loaf'; i.e. there is a raised ridge of stone running horizontaly down the middle of it very much like a loaf of bread in shape. What they do is make sure that the rocks hurled by a trebuchet never connected with a flat surface or an individual stone. These 'loaves' disperse the kinetic energy over several surrounding stones in the section of masonry hit. Walls built like that could take most punishment from a trebuchet and it took gunpowder artillery to bring them down.

I haven't seen this feature of Medieval defensive technology in the UK, but over there the great age of castelbuilding was over by the 14th c. since royal control of the land by other means was better than in France, hence less need for castles.

You're forgetting what middle ages were: time of ignorance.
Yours then, I take it.:lol:

Yours then, I take it.:lol:


Well, no. If you have forgotten what I meant...

http://www.materials.ac.uk/images/building2large.jpg

The catapult that you can see there had longer range ETC.

Oh, and here's a smaller version of it... or something (http://antique.mrugala.net/Rome/Balliste%20romaine/Legion%20XXIV%20-%20roman%20ballista%20siege%20catapult.htm)...

The rebuilders didn't almost find any material good enough to make the strings, because they were to be so strong.
The catapult was not a huge crossbow, it had very diffirent working mechanism (sp?) and it fired stones, like trebuchet.
And one of the best advantages was that it did not fire in a such huge arc as the trebuchet.

And, to be certain threbuched was invented in china, so middle ages were time of ignorance.

Uh, I dont think so...the catapults have basically a pull back and let loose action, but trebs had a counter-weight. The middle ages were not a time of ignorance. Look at monastaries

It isin't the catapult you're thinking of...

Monastries were the only place were the hellenic knowladge really survived.

Well, no.

The catapult that you can see there had longer range ETC.

The rebuilders didn't almost find any material good enough to make the strings, because they were to be so strong.
The catapult was not a huge crossbow, it had very diffirent working mechanism (sp?) and it fired stones, like trebuchet.
And one of the best advantages was that it did not fire in a such huge arc as the trebuchet.

And, to be certain threbuched was invented in china, so middle ages were time of ignorance.
Range is of no use compared to mass when battering down walls. Even accuracy is of limited usefulness. The trebuchet uses the leverage principle and it's just not possible to build a catapult that can compete in the business of chucking great big slabs of rock. (And sure, it's not just a big crossbow. The Romans had those as well, and it's not the same.)

And the place of invention is inconsequential when discussing ignorance or no — from approx 1200 Christian Europe knew and used the trebuchet so they clearly weren't ignorant. The Romans on the other hand...;)

I'm sorry but, your view of the Middle Ages comes across mainly a set of negations — you list things you assume the MA lacked compared to Roman times. About several of them I think its fair to say you are mistaken. But you also don't seem to have any real interest in things Medieval.

What-if-comparisons like these are not really possible to make, as several people who have gotten bored with this thread have already pointed out. You have every right to admire Roman capability and ingenuity, of which you seem knowledgeable. Fine!:)

How about extending the same courtesy to the Middle Ages instead of just applying a formula of negation to it? Take an active interest in it on its own terms?:p

It isin't the catapult you're thinking of...

Monastries were the only place were the hellenic knowladge really survived.
And the cathedral schools and the universities. The church was everywhere, and wherever it went it needed trained functionaries.

We're not talking about the Dark Age, but of the High Middle Age here.

Heck, even the courts (lots and lots of them thanks to the fragmented politics of the time) were centres of learning by the 13th c. for the simple reason that government required lots of trained lawyers to make sense of the overlayering of Roman, Canonical and traditional Germanic law you got. They may not have been primarily engaged in Platonic philosophy, but they were some very learned and shrewd people around.

There were lots of very useful things the Greek and Roman had no knowledge of that people in the Middle Ages knew — mostly about agriculture, politics, law, how to organise society etc.

Comparing levels of knowledge in the Roman Empire and Medieval Europe is tricky — but generally the small elite concerned with the fruits of Greaco-Roman philosophy in ancient times is dwarfed by the segment of Medieval society with access to advanced forms of knowledge thanks to the church.
I think it's fair to say the Middle Ages had a less brilliant elite of learned men, but a much broader base of people of learning.:goodjob:

Why, oh why keep people underestimating the power of Trebuchets?
The fundamential principle of those things is superior to any ballista/catapult/onager.
Even today, with all those near unbreakable materials we have, it would be superior - but if you compare medieval wooden structures, with hemp cords, or (better) hairs...you simply have to accept that even the best of those constructions were limited to a size the trebuchet could exceed several times.
And, the energetic loss to friction is almost neglectable for Trebs (at least, in comparism).
Trebs were superior to cannons until the 15th century (when its about destroying structures).

The Japanese Yakuza in the construciton industry used trebuchet-like engines for a long time to level buildings.

What-if-comparisons like these are not really possible to make, as several people who have gotten bored with this thread have already pointed out. You have every right to admire Roman capability and ingenuity, of which you seem knowledgeable. Fine!:)

Well, isin't it nice when you disguise your bashings with those smilies.

Well, isin't it nice when you disguise your bashings with those smilies.
If this is the case I apologize.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103180

whats the link for?

It becomes quite obvious, once you click it... http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

in the end, regardless of who would win
id just love to see it
crusader knights with lances down and full speed
with the romans standing camly with all there machines behind etc.........
it would be wonderful

Heck, even the courts (lots and lots of them thanks to the fragmented politics of the time) were centres of learning by the 13th c. for the simple reason that government required lots of trained lawyers to make sense of the overlayering of Roman, Canonical and traditional Germanic law you got. They may not have been primarily engaged in Platonic philosophy, but they were some very learned and shrewd people around.

When you compare Roman governmental system and medieval system; there isn't really any comparison, the Roman laws were better than any law-system until napoleon. The feudalism was a systematical tyranny; it was slavery with somewhat better purpose or name, even during the 1200-300 years. The Roman government was very conservative yes, but it allowed far better personal rights, movement rights, trade rights then the absolutisms, or feudalisms of medieval ages ever allowed. Also, it was less corrupted (believe it or don't ;)), and the pax Romana allowed many areas of devolvement to evolve. It is easy to forget the benefits of a external peace and stability when you're self have use to life in such, (or I hope you have. ;) ), this is what Rome offered: Two-hundred years unbroken peace, to the war torn ancient world. The medieval ages were ages of war, plague, corruption, inquisition, peasants and (yes) ignorance. When the universities and schools, or whatever, started to appear, it was reappearance of education, not invention of education, like it’s in civ.

About 80% (I think) of the hellenic knowladge had been lost in europre, the knowladge was regainded later on.


There were lots of very useful things the Greek and Roman had no knowledge of that people in the Middle Ages knew — mostly about agriculture, politics, law, how to organise society etc.


Roman law was not used during the middle ages, and society organization was completely diffirent, or worse. And, the ages between 1200-300 were ages of rather low politics. ;)

Comparing levels of knowledge in the Roman Empire and Medieval Europe is tricky — but generally the small elite concerned with the fruits of Greaco-Roman philosophy in ancient times is dwarfed by the segment of Medieval society with access to advanced forms of knowledge thanks to the church. I think it's fair to say the Middle Ages had a less brilliant elite of learned men, but a much broader base of people of learning.:goodjob:

Peasentry class (the largest class) was dumber than the freedmen class in the Roman empire. You see the schools to were ignorant, most of the knowledge that the hellenic times had produced were lost, it was the arabic world that were it lived on. The islamic world was pretty much the home of civilization, learning, culture, science and art, and the Arabs continiued were the Romans had left, without arabic world we would life about 200 years behind in our technology, or something... Also, better teached elite meant better governors, bureocrats, scholars, medical personel, and others.'

Oh, and sorry about the thing that I said about bashing, um, I had a bad day... :)

Terje, still not obvious, i had already clicked on it before and didnt get why you posted it, am i missing something?

Terje, still not obvious, i had already clicked on it before and didnt get why you posted it, am i missing something?
Oh. Well, I was only hinting towards that this discussion has been done quite a number of times before, so if you wanted more argumentation, that thread could be helpful. Or, as a hint towards that if you search the forum, you'll most likely find whatever topic you want to discuss buried somewhere in the deep. :p

But it's still an interesting discussion; although it serves no practical purpose, it can be enlightening at times...

Crap, 500 Knights, no matter how cool they are, would be no match for a real army with 20,000+ Legionaries. Romans would beat any 500-1200 AD force due to the amount of men they are able to field.

Gunpowder changes things, obviously.

Crap, 500 Knights, no matter how cool they are, would be no match for a real army with 20,000+ Legionaries. Romans would beat any 500-1200 AD force due to the amount of men they are able to field.

Gunpowder changes things, obviously.

So you're saying that the Roman army was not better than 1300 AD army?

Because, I do think it was, 1300AD did saw many significant changes in the military, for example pikes became to more important in the Armies, and Infantry did became more disciplined, and better quality... but nothing of like the legions, yet... I think... :p

Early gunpowder weapons were mostly ''weapons of fear'' due to the smoke and scary bang voices they create. Early gunpowerder units did not replace crossbowmen or bowmen it rather just created an third type of ranged specialist. Early gunpowder weapons were (too) slow, inaccurate, and it often blew to the face of the gunner.

At best they were a useful novelty that was to be used in small numbers and in specific circumstances.

It wasn't untill more advanced muskets started to appear after the middle ages. :ar15:

Early gunpowerder units did not replace crossbowmen or bowmen it rather just greated an third type of ranged specialist.

They also were used in small numbers because they were not liked by most soldiers. Example: In 1439 a venician army slaughtered their own Bolognian mercenary handgunmen because they hated them as cowards who killed their betters at distances. ( much like the French hatred for longbowmen )

The Franks were mainly infantry when they took France off the Romans, while undisciplined, they were fairly well equipped and good natural fighters.

I discovered this game recently and it seems to present a much more accurate and complete array of military units in a civ style game.

http://www.theagesofman.net/index.html

The barbarian infantry of the Dark Age are slichtly better than the Legion but lack ranged troops so makes for an intersting conflict.

^^^ Is it just me or does that game appear to be using Civ 3 graphics in some of its screenshots?

Civ 3 Galley
http://www.theagesofman.net/images/Sea1L.jpg

Civ 3 Swordsman
http://www.theagesofman.net/images/War1L.jpg

The feudalism was a systematical tyranny; it was slavery with somewhat better purpose or name, even during the 1200-300 years.
Yes agree it was, and it was invented sometime in the 11th c. (the Carolingian empire didn't use it) and then spread from it's core area in Northern France, Normandy, Norman England and the German Rhineland. These nobles had an attitude to 'les villaines' somewhat similar to modern ideas of racial superiority.
When the Byzantine emperor made the crusaders swear an oath of feudal allegiance to him in the First Crusade the count of Toulouse refused since feudalism meant nothing to the Occitans of southern France. Same thing with the Italian city states, kingdom of Sicily, the Spanish monarchies, Scandinavia, Slav kingdoms in the east etc.
When the universities and schools, or whatever, started to appear, it was reappearance of education, not invention of education, like it’s in civ.

About 80% (I think) of the hellenic knowladge had been lost in europre, the knowladge was regainded later on.
I agree. And as you say it was relearned from the Arabs. But that process was mostly complete around 1250.
I'm really only talking about the peak of the High Middle ages, pre-Black Death anyway.
Roman law was not used during the middle ages
The Byzantines continued to use it, which means it was still in effect in large parts of southern Italy, Venice etc. Germanic laws were applied where you got Germanics, which means lots of places but not everywhere. Southern France continued to apply the laws of Justinian until the French conquest in the 13th c. So the Roman law was known, and applied in many places in Western Europe.
And then you got the Canonical law of the church, which was based on the principles of Roman law anyway. So the situation was one of considerable legal confusion as these legal systems don't quite see eye-to-eye in many cases. This is where the Universities come in. They mostly started as places for advanced training in law and medicine from around 1000 AD.
Oh, and sorry about the thing that I said about bashing, um, I had a bad day... :)
We're all cool here then.:cool::)

Crap, 500 Knights, no matter how cool they are, would be no match for a real army with 20,000+ Legionaries. Romans would beat any 500-1200 AD force due to the amount of men they are able to field.
OK, I'll agree it's not a far fetched senario.;)

On the other hand, 500 Legionnaires, no matter how cool they were, would likely also be overwhelmed by sheer weight of numbers by 20.000 angry Medieval pesants. Same with 500 knights. Just give the pesants enough incentive. In the Jewish rebellion around 70 AD, in one instance what essentially a force of unorganised rabble smashing though a Roman legion, killing 600 of their number, out of pure enthusiasm.

If you get 24.000 Legionnares, the cream of Roman history, and I get the 24.000 man army of Philippe Auguste at the battle of Bouvines 1214 (defeating 70.000 or so troops from Imperial Germany, England, Flanders etc.), I'm reasonably confident I can pull off a victory for the north French feudal cavalry.:goodjob:

OK, I'll agree it's not a far fetched senario.;)

On the other hand, 500 Legio