Trajan Era Legionaries
vs.
Feudal Japanese Samurai

I think European Knights vs Japanese Samurai is a better since they both existed durring the same time period and were counterparts to one another.

One-on-one, the Samurai for sure.

Trjanic legions were amougn the most rough and tough troops the world has seen ever, period; even in one one one combat, they have a chance agiasnt the japanese samurai, for roman trainign in general was bent on being able to hover between one on one fighting, and formation fighting; I weill remind you all, that, unliek th emass media migth have you belive, the Roman army rarelly used "sheild wall" tactics; hence the reason why each trooper was givien 3 feet between him, and any other fighitng trooper; usch was for the optimal spacieng to allow each trooper to fight proficientlly agiasnt an opponent, while, if needed, beign able to recieve support from his buddies if in a pinch.

I reming you, that samurai use long swoards, and if anything, the Roman army was geared to take on such oppoenets, and the Trajanic era legionaries are the apex of this movemtn, winnign great victories agiasnt the european Kingdom- the Dacians- who used a weapon most similer to hwat wa sin the european arsenal at the time, to the japanese style swoard, and while the dacians were l;ackign in the armour department, it didtn particurlay matter in Roman tactics the amoutn of armour the opponent had; the general aim was to stab at the face, and while this would have been hmpered by the masks samurai wore, the high leval of training, combined with the sixer of the Roman galdius itself help to balence out this fact.

The reason the legions failed, i will remign you all, was NEVER because of a lack of martial profiency, but becaus einternal squables, and economic collpse made the legions too expensive to maintian, thus the empire was forced to look to cheaper alternatives

Trjanic legions were amougn the most rough and tough troops the world has seen ever, period; even in one one one combat, they have a chance agiasnt the japanese samurai, for roman trainign in general was bent on being able to hover between one on one fighting, and formation fighting; I weill remind you all, that, unliek th emass media migth have you belive, the Roman army rarelly used "sheild wall" tactics; hence the reason why each trooper was givien 3 feet between him, and any other fighitng trooper; usch was for the optimal spacieng to allow each trooper to fight proficientlly agiasnt an opponent, while, if needed, beign able to recieve support from his buddies if in a pinch.

I reming you, that samurai use long swoards, and if anything, the Roman army was geared to take on such oppoenets, and the Trajanic era legionaries are the apex of this movemtn, winnign great victories agiasnt the european Kingdom- the Dacians- who used a weapon most similer to hwat wa sin the european arsenal at the time, to the japanese style swoard, and while the dacians were l;ackign in the armour department, it didtn particurlay matter in Roman tactics the amoutn of armour the opponent had; the general aim was to stab at the face, and while this would have been hmpered by the masks samurai wore, the high leval of training, combined with the sixer of the Roman galdius itself help to balence out this fact.

The reason the legions failed, i will remign you all, was NEVER because of a lack of martial profiency, but becaus einternal squables, and economic collpse made the legions too expensive to maintian, thus the empire was forced to look to cheaper alternatives

:eek: Wrong. Japanese coordination as a disciplined group would win the day, not their equipment. The japanese Katana is quite able to cut through a Lorica Segmentata and although the japanese lacquered armour isn't very well suited to keep the Gladius from perfurating it, both situations aren't even a close aproximation of one another. The Sengoku era Samurai equipment is far superior to anything the legions had. Also, their army command communication systems were fairly advanced. The Daimyo even used large flip-card signs set up in certain places to transmit complicated messages. Like a calender, they flip the cards over the top and a different one is visible.. Each flip-card has a pattern of holes. This pattern is read by the unit leaders on the manipular level, who then executes orders. The Roman-drilled Chop-hidebehindeshield-Chop Swordfight Style of Romans teached at the age of 20 can't be compared with Kendo teached from the age 4. If we go for a full-fledged Legion (with auxiliaries, cavalry, "artillery" and support) against a of a similar size Samurai army, the Japanese win hands down.

Besides the technological advantage, Samurai also has a very long military tradition. They trained their whole life just to perfect their skills with a bow and sword as well as their discipline. Think about it, the Samurai cast was founded and devoted soley for warfare, while the majority of Roman Legionaires were recruited among the peasants and land owners of recently conquered territory.They got better equipment, are more capable individually and have superior cavalry and archers. Maybe samurais were sometimes undisciplined when it came to engaging combat, but they surely knew how to fight as a group.With the right conditions the samurai could certainly prevail. I think it would be a close match, however.

another issue is roman loyalty...as well as samurai unity...samurai especially, with incorporated and viable tactics and forces from all the samurai clans would be a supreme force to be reckonned with, as was unified roman groups...such an interesting hypothetical quarry... oh well, my vote is still with the samurai with no disrespect for those grungy effecient romans

The erroneous assumption some here (read : Xen) make is that samurai used only the Katana.

Samurai were proficient (perhaps not each individually, but a large group of samurai) with a vast array of weapons : polearms, the katana, even larger swords such as the no-dachi, bows (iirc not too far from the vaulted english longbows) and so forth. So to claim that the samurai would fail because legionaires were trained to handle swords is foolish at best.

It is, of course, even more foolish when you consider that (despite popular imagery carried by POST-FEUDAL Japan - ie, Japan after the samurai warriors had become samurai administrators) most late feudal japanese army were perfectly able and willing to use firearms, and, say what you will about the legions, firearms is one thing that would have caused them extensive problems.

In the end, both had enough strengths and weakness (roman organization vs japanese martial training) to make a match-up between any early/mid feudal japanesse army and top-level roman legions very, very, very even - the only thing I can promise you for such a fight would be a furious bloodbath with the winner paying their victory very, very, very, very dearly.

In the end it comes down to a simple factor of time position : samurais came later, which means that late-feudal samurai armies had gunpowder. Rome didn't. Given what's otherwise a very even match-up, the samurai being able to throw firearms in the mix would probably give them the win.

On the other hand, given that gunpowder effectively makes martial training a lot less effective, give both sides firearms and Rome carry the day - with gunpowder's japan having the best individual fighters become rather irrelevant, and Rome having the superior military machine gives them the decisive edge.

Surprising as it may seem, I agree with a good deal presented (actual facts as opposed to nonsense spewed by those with an appernt grudge agiasnt the west dose that after all) and as such, while I still think that the Romans have an edge, I'll certianlly agree that any engagement would be a blood bath, though; the assumptions run rampant in this thread, by myself and others is proficenct;

A)I'll conceed that the equipment of the samurai was better, but I'll never be convinced that trainign froma young age leads to the superiorty of troops; for the simple reason that there have been plenty of examples of where a bunch of guys who joined an army in thier early to mid twenties tranined up, and utterlyl schooled people whom had trained thier entire life for the fight; although I'll conceed that I'm mostlyl familliar with ancient battles that illustrate the point, and almost all of it is cnetered on examp,es in the western world of those not limited ot the ancient era, I'm more then willign to bet examples exist in the east as well that illustrate the point

B)as far as individual weaponry goes, the samurai loose, fo rthe simpel facat that having a large group of people all with tier own weapony dosent lend itself well to battles in which, by the nature of the opponet (the romans in this case), one must fight in pattern and formation, where individual differences in arms and armour become a liabitity, rather then a stregth, hence the reason why formations based armies gained so much domiance int he first place, where every man is either equipped exactley the same, or so similer, the diffences a negligible, and cease to be a factor

C)the quetion fo roman loyalty and of samurai loyalty is a non-question; Japanese culture woudl inspire them to fight, as would Roman culture, and the sheer fear fo what would happen if they were ot be cowards on the battle feild; after all, howmany retreats do we hear about in Roman history? The same question goes for the history of japan, for in both cases, i think thier are few.

D)as a pojtm fo clarity, the Romans didnt "chop", unless it was neededto act as a parry for the enemy weapons; Roman drill is quite clear that while a cut can miam, it is the thrust that kills, at least with the arms of Rome; however, it should be noted that they too were hardley limited to the gladius; from an assortmetn fo differnt types of pilums, of differet weights and what not, so the general, afte rhaving recieved infomation on what the enemy carried, could make a proper choice on what woudl be the optimum range for a pilum throw, to assroted types of spears (pikes were credited to what gave Ceasar victory over pompet, who had a superior number of cavalry) and of course, the good old Roman innovations on the battle feild (such as armouring the Legionary into a form that that, in addition to the standard armour,m added grieves, usually reserved for Centurions, as well as arm-armour, styled from what Galdiators wore to protect the arms and shoulders, and ofcourse added re-inforcment all over in terms of armor); that leeds me to speculate that, if it was a full campaign that was beign waged agiasnt japanese forces, that even if a first engagement had went in the japanese favor,t hat the res tof the campaign would sternlly go to the Romans in victory

A comparison is inept, since the two groups are fr wildly different eras and technological levels.

Much like comparing the legions with early European muskety.

Awww XIII, it's just for fun :-D

Regarding point A and B you seems to make a terribly erroneous assumption - that the Japanese had no organization or strategy. Yes, the troops would have used separate weapons - but they WOULD Have formed in units along the line of who used what weapons best - expecting them to act in the warband strategy.

Japan might not have had AS MUCH organization as Rome, but they were very well organized. And as for strategy, let's not forget here that Sun Tzu's was very, very widespread in Japan, and that most if not all of the feudal warlord had a well-read copy.

Point C I agree with.

Point D, disagreed. Japanese would have adapted too - if nothing else, Japan has shown a remarkable capacity for swift adaptation of technologies and ideas when the time call for it - and a harsh war with a deadly enemy would call for it. Let it simply be said that anything Rome would have deployed that was superior to the Japanese equivalent, well, chances are the japanese soldiers would have their own version of it by the next battle.

I'd say samauris have a slight edge, though I agree that this is comparing two wildy different tech eras.

I've never been a fan of sun-tzu; not because, as most migth think because I tend to permeate a opinion of haughtyness for the west, but rather, that it's over-rated as a "military" work; it has smacked to me as being more akin to a guide of why to wage war, then actually how to wage war, and the descriptiones it dose give of what to do are so broad as to be uslesss unless the person reading had some compitency in military matters to begin with.

that said, i bever said that the japanese wouldnt be orginized, did I? You assume that i thought as such, when in reality, I've cracked out a few books to try to get a better understanding of it all; but my side is still with the Romans; for the same reasons; it dosent matter if indivdual units carry the same weapons, its just good order to have an entire front of troops carrying the same stuff, to present a uniform front the enemy, so that every part can fight in cohesion, and present the same leval of resistence; why is that so important? because time and time agian, a wise commender will exploit any weak point in an aenemy line by diverting more troops to that area; further exposing that area of weakness to more troops, and troops likelyl to be trianed in tryign to exploit that weakness; when fighting in the pre-gunpowder (and lets face, it early gun-powder era as well), "chopping" your ranks and having them fight with assorted weapons and styles only gives the enemy a chance to see what works best agiasnt what, and if a weak point is found, then they can take advatage of it; where as if the japanese were ot have any single weapon effective agiasnt the legions, its assured not to be in large enough supply as to tip the battle o farin thier favor; while, obviouslly, if the Romans found that they had a particuler advatage agiasnt a section of a japanese line, thier troops, armed in a manner that has the edge agiast the section, could fully exploit it, and that alone could lead to a break in the japanese line, and, possibly, to a general rout.

I've never been a fan of sun-tzu; not because, as most migth think because I tend to permeate a opinion of haughtyness for the west, but rather, that it's over-rated as a "military" work; it has smacked to me as being more akin to a guide of why to wage war, then actually how to wage war, and the descriptiones it dose give of what to do are so broad as to be uslesss unless the person reading had some compitency in military matters to begin with.

You make a point. Sun Tzu deals much more with overall strategems and quite a bit on "subduing the enemy without fighting".

Xen - so by your argument there is something wrong with fielding an army that is not made entirely of the same type of troops?

Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!

So I ask you : how would japan having archers as well as spearmen, swordsmen and cavalry in their overall forces be anything that might make them WEAK?

As for the Art of War, it was never a treatise on how to win battle, so if you read it expecting to be told how to win individual battle, it's obvious you didn't get what you were looking for in it.

It's a treatise on strategy - how to wage war, not how to fight a battle. And as such, it teaches all the important points. Does it put forward individual tactics?

No, because that's useless - tactics are ENTIRELY too dependant on the field, the type of weapons, the enemy army you face for any guide to "teach" anyone tactics in a lasting fashion.

But strategy is somethign that changes a lot less than tactics, and Sun Tzu's is an outstanding take on strategies and how to fight overall WARS.

A)You mis understand me completlly; never did I say that it was bad to have multiple componets of an army; but you seems to have insinuated that they all would have been part of a single battle line; that is where the mistake was; Rome used many different troops on the battle feild; but they were all in formations indipendent of one another, with soem notable exception for archer/H. Infantry placement.

B)tactis too dependent on the battle feild? that sthe biges tload of crap I've heard on the subject this week; read soem of the military treatises by the Byzantines, whom tacticle guides served the empire for at least 600 years; they go a far step further then mere stratgey, by describing what are good tactics for certian opponents, using tried and tested experince of commanders to gain an over all understanding fo what schools fo thought the enemy of any particuler enemy nation woudl be thinking in thier war effort; I have not yet read vegetus or tactitus I'm regretful to say, but I have the feelign I can expect similer detials in thier work; all of this leading to chronicled in books the expertise to fight common eenmies, as well as those never, or rarelly encounterd before; though as history shows, much was still left to the commander on th ebattle feild, such tacticle guides certianlyl gave a head start in it.

Watch your language. I'll tolerate no 'biggest load of crap' type language in this forum. - XIII

C)"Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!"

perhaps you are forgetting that two types of armies conqoured the roman world, one type held it together (and upon the fall of the latter, and the adoption fo other types, it fell); I speak of the Republican, and Early Imperial legions; troosp that were the primary troops of the empire, of some little city state that some how devised for itself a trooper that was equally at home in the diverse terrians from the highlands of scotland to the deserts of northern sudan; AUxilla had thier role fo course, and they coudl be an important tool on the battl efeild; but they were of secondary importance to that of legiosn themselves, comparitivlly at least.

The Samurai was mainly fighting as cavalry is battle. Heavy/Medium cavalry will defeat legionaires any day.

The Samurai was mainly fighting as cavalry is battle. Heavy/Medium cavalry will defeat legionaires any day.

proove it.

Only PRE-Augustan reformed legions had any incident with any cavalry; while, remarkbley when cosidering your obviouslly well backed up and reasoned conclusion on the matter, post austian reformed troops; of which had reahced thier height by the time of Trajan, not only bowled over enemy cavalry of assorted types; but did it so well as to force the Parthians, the very epitomy of cavalry tactics in the west, out of Mesopotamia all together!

I'd say the Roman Legions would have a much better chance of defeating any Japanese Samurais. The Romans' turtle formation would totally confuse the Japanese, although it would probably arouse their appetite for some weird dish (raw turtles). Anyway, even if the Japanese did have a stronger cavalry due more to inventions than anything else, the Roman formations were devised in such a way to where cavalry would have the most difficult time trying to penetrate the Roman lines. I have a question, did the Romans use any unit similar to the Greek hoplite with those long spears/poles? I think Roman infantry if deployed in battle without any formation would be useless against the samurai, seeing as the Japanese used much longer swords than the Roman 'short swords'.

There is no need for patronizing, Xen. Especially not when you're wrong.

If the Roman army had throughout most of the third and fourth century been undergoing a transition, gradually increasing the number of cavalry, then the end of this period of gradual change was brought about by a dreadful disaster.
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.

Emperor Theodosius, the immediate successor of Valens, appreciated that after the disaster at the battle of Adrianople drastic changes were necessary.
Not only had the eastern army been wiped out, but the Roman reliance on infantry was now outdated.
After achieving peace with the Goths, he began to enlist every German warlord he could bribe into his services. These Germans with their horsemen were not part of the regular army, but were federates (foederati) for whose services the emperor paid them a fee, the so-called annonae foederaticae.Only six years after the Battle of Adrianople there was already 40'000 German horsemen serving under their chiefs in the army of the east. The Roman army had changed forever. So too had the balance of power in the empire itself.
If the west at first did not adapt the same method as the east, then it soon learnt its own lesson, when emperor Theodosius a few years later met the the western usurper Magnus Maximus in battle in AD 387. The western legionaries, widely regarded as the best infantrymen of their day, were ridden down and crushed by Theodosius' heavy cavalry.
The lesson was not immediately learnt by the western empire and in AD 392 Arbogast and his puppet emperor Eugenius saw their infantry defeated by the Gothic horsemen of Theodosius.

READ THE FIRST POST!

it specificlly states that the troops in question are from trajans era; not the piss poor troopers from the 400's, buthe crack troops of the 100's; there is a world of difference between the two, one that you seem to have missed in your haste.

The Romans would win. Because they are Romans. :)

No Xen, it is you who should read more carefully.

"The western legionaries, widely regarded as the best infantrymen of their day, were ridden down and crushed by Theodosius' heavy cavalry"

And

"The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle."

The Legionaires crushed by Theodosius was cracktroops. And even if the earlier Legionaires was superior to these cracktroops, it wouldn't change the fact that heavy infantry cannot win against heavy cavalry, unless the infantry is specialized to do exactly that. Why do you think it was the knight, and not legionaire style troops that dominated the battlefield in medieval Europe? Simple; the knights would run right over them!

you dotn seem to understand; the militaries themselves were differnt; the troops worlds away in comparison; comparing the armies of theodosius and trjan is liek comapaing two differtn armies, from two differnt nations.

More over, the point presented is hardley universal, as those sdame trajanic legions clearlly demostrate; or perhaps you wish to skip over that entire ocnquest of mesopotamia from the heavy cavalry weilding Parthian empire?

The point is that the Nipponese were not just good cavalry, but good archers, spearmen, and swordsmen. Very versetile. Whereas the Romans are very adaptable to all situations. Thus, it would be a bloody battle, but I forsee the combined arms of the samauris winning.

I think it is very important to know who was attacking how. If the Romans were defending and had enough time to use their biggest strength, building stuff, the Samurai forces would have had a really hard time.

If the Romans were attacking and the Japanese defending; the Japanese have the upper hand.

If both armies "just roamed the country-side" and happened to meet eachother I think it would have been a Japanese victory. Simply because, although they are great in formations, they were master-level individual warriors as well and always ready while the Romans needed time to prepare.

And you seem to forget that the Parthians crushed the Romans at the battle of battle of Carrhae. Copied from Vikipedia:

"It was one of the greatest defeats the Roman Empire ever suffered. The Parthians, while outnumbered, used heavily armed and armored horsemen, called "cataphracts," in conjunction with horse archers to defeat the Roman heavy infantry."

But alll this aside, you still haven't aswered this question:

Why do you think it was the knight, and not legionaire style troops that dominated the battlefield in medieval Europe?

Putting forward individual tactics might be somewhat worthwhile, but in the end, a treatise on strategy will have far more lasting appeal.

A treatise telling you how to win battles against the Parthians, Turks and Mongols wouldn't have helped anyone fight World War II, at least not much.

A treatise on strategy, insisting on the importance of settling on objectives that can be achieved quickly, on the importance of being as well informed as possible about the enemy and on the importance for the political leader to NOT stick his head in the military decision process might have been useful for a few of the countries involved, though...

(Rome probably didn't need that AoW though, my point was simply that while the Roman had a very good understanding of HOW to wage a war, so did the Japanese).

And you seem to forget that the Parthians crushed the Romans at the battle of battle of Carrhae. Copied from Vikipedia:

"It was one of the greatest defeats the Roman Empire ever suffered. The Parthians, while outnumbered, used heavily armed and armored horsemen, called "cataphracts," in conjunction with horse archers to defeat the Roman heavy infantry."

But alll this aside, you still haven't aswered this question:

Why do you think it was the knight, and not legionaire style troops that dominated the battlefield in medieval Europe?

A)Carhhae wad due tot he ineptitude of crassus as a general; his claim to fame was his "victory: iver sparticus, which he only won becase spartacus decided to have a traditional battle; Crassus would not have done anything at all if it hadnt been for the fact that the Roman senate had finally gotten tired of th erebellion in full, and was able to call soem of the best generals of the era, including the famous Pompey; Crassus, not truelly being able to command his troops to a satisfactory victory over soem rebellious slaves, was hardley the man f choice to command agiast a trully orginized opponent liek the parthian empire.

B)knight sonly dominated th ebattle feild because Roman infantry, while being on to take on enemy infantry fairlly well, was no longer up to par with eh legions of the past; by the time mounted war fare had emerged as th edominat factor in european warfare, the legion as we are talkign about here had not existed for the better part of a century, if not a century and a half! Having limited resources, the Romans couls hardley be expected to re-make the entire army along the same lines as it had been durin gthe heigh tof empire, and instead decided to counter limited numbers of heavey cavarly with thier own limited number sof heavy cavalry; at least in the east, where the ruling statesmen were at lease semi-effeicent at times; in the west, the leaders prooved slow to adapt, only having around 3 formations of cataphracts in service (each probably of about 1200 troops, not counting command ) by the time of Diocletian!

The ris eof horsemen as the dominat force in europe is long and complicated, and istn as simple as "knights are better then infantry"; if that was the case, larg epike formations as made famous by the swiss in the latter middle ages, somthign that looks surprisinglly liek the pike formations of the macedonians would never have come into service.

A)Carhhae wad due tot he ineptitude of crassus as a general Crassus was not a complete fool, besides, the Romans proved several times that fools could lead their army to victory, as long as the legionaires was superior enough to the enemy troops.


The ris eof horsemen as the dominat force in europe is long and complicated, and istn as simple as "knights are better then infantry"; if that was the case, larg epike formations as made famous by the swiss in the latter middle ages
Dude, that's almost what I already wrote to you, see:

"heavy infantry cannot win against heavy cavalry, unless the infantry is specialized to do exactly that"

The Swiss pike formations was designed to counter knights, though it was also highly effective against normal infantry. Lot's of different infantry types took on heavy cavalry quite well, however, none of these were equiped in a way that was any where near the equipment of Roman legionaires.
If the legionaire type of infantry was good against heavy cavalry, then surely someone would have copied it. A horse will not charge a wall of pikes, but it has no problems charging into a guy with a shield, pilum and gladius.

The main reason why it wasn't copied was the cost, tell me if I'm wrong Xen. Don't Legions cost large sums of money to maintain? So if you don't have a centralized military and not that much cash on you Legions aren't the way to go. Thats a main reason why you don't see Legions in the feudal age, becasue Kings relied on Lords. Lords relied on Knights and peasent fighters. These were relativly cheap for the king to maintain, as the lords paid for everything. Legions were just not an option for feudal times, or other countries during Rome's time. Although some Carthaginian and Seluclid heavy infantry seems similer to the Legions ;)

The swiss armoured pikeman were expensive as hell. They could easily have used legionaire equipment instead of the pike, still they chose not to. Wonder why?

And how about Constantinoble? Also very centralized, could easily afford HUGE armies of any troop type. Still they relied on heavy cavalry.

The swiss armoured pikeman were expensive as hell. They could easily have used legionaire equipment instead of the pike, still they chose not to. Wonder why?

And how about Constantinoble? Also very centralized, could easily afford HUGE armies of any troop type. Still they relied on heavy cavalry.

A)you obviouslly ar emissign the styles of the armour of swiss pikemen; take a good look it, its all (or at least a good damn deal of it) stylized forms of armour as dipicted on classical art; in thier own way, they were using roman armour, as made best they coudl with the knowldge they had of what it looked like; even in the napoleonic era, classical helemts were still very visible on most cavalry regiments, and cuirass as made foamous by the conquistdors is influnced by the muslce cuirasses fond on mouch of Greek and Roman art forms (for the important people at least)

B) :rolleyes: You nee dto study history more

1)the eastern empire DID rely on infantry for a great deal of its workings; the great general narses, a contemporary of grand Belisarius, and arguabley his match (its just he istn as famous as Belisarius) was well known for dsimounting his heavy cavalry, and having them fight in a manner not all that unlike the more classic legionaries

2)all this is more remarkbale, when considering it had been drilled intot he military consicitus for th elast two centuries that Roman infantry in the form it had taken after 250-350 AD (give or take few decades in between really; its hard to give an exact date) was crap on a stick, and that Cavalry was the key to victory (which, obviouslly, it wasnt)

Crassus was not a complete fool, besides, the Romans proved several times that fools could lead their army to victory, as long as the legionaires was superior enough to the enemy troops. .

A)yes, he was a fool, please provide soem evidence to proove he was anything other then a rich bastard who only wanted to further his politcle career, and could barley lead his army to fight the side of a barn, et alone the parthian empire

B)remember, the Roman army was harldey sterile in its devlopment; the armies of Trajan were not the armies of Ceasar, Pompey and Crassus


Dude, that's almost what I already wrote to you, see:

"heavy infantry cannot win against heavy cavalry, unless the infantry is specialized to do exactly that"

The Swiss pike formations was designed to counter knights, though it was also highly effective against normal infantry. Lot's of different infantry types took on heavy cavalry quite well, however, none of these were equiped in a way that was any where near the equipment of Roman legionaires.
If the legionaire type of infantry was good against heavy cavalry, then surely someone would have copied it. A horse will not charge a wall of pikes, but it has no problems charging into a guy with a shield, pilum and gladius.

how can they copy it if they dont know it existed in the first place?

A)medieval europe was harldey a place for javlins, was it? Javlin use by the Romans arose because the Romans 9as well as most of europe in the ancient ages) though that archery was a rather sissy way to go about fighting; post roman europe ha dno such qualms (partially because of the romans insistence on eventually having specially trained auxilla to use bows anyway)

one cannot doubt that the bow is far more effective at range then a javlin (on avergae at least); but likewaise, one cannot doubt the superiort yof a javlin over a bow in close combat; particulrey when they extra legth woudl make all the difference agaisnt a mounted charge

B)taking the culture into account, and how javilns werent used much in post dark age europe to begin with, one can see why a pilum was never re-adopted into the aresenal of europe

The main reason why it wasn't copied was the cost, tell me if I'm wrong Xen. Don't Legions cost large sums of money to maintain? So if you don't have a centralized military and not that much cash on you Legions aren't the way to go. Thats a main reason why you don't see Legions in the feudal age, becasue Kings relied on Lords. Lords relied on Knights and peasent fighters. These were relativly cheap for the king to maintain, as the lords paid for everything. Legions were just not an option for feudal times, or other countries during Rome's time. Although some Carthaginian and Seluclid heavy infantry seems similer to the Legions ;)

EXACTLEY!

armies are as much a combination of social, politcal and economic factors as they are direct other military factors; too many seem to never realize this fact; it is the same reason why the US has troops armed with kevlar body armor and night vision googles, while say venzula has generally AK-47s, and other mass market weapons supplying its armies (that said, teh AK is still a very versitle weapon, and no dis-respect is mean to venezula, it is simply to show how even the most ancient trends in why things are the way they are in the world of war will never change)

-as for the Roman look-alikes; its no surprise; after the republic became military powerhouse overthrowing carthage, and conqouring Macedonia (and in the midst of conqouring Lower Greece, and Iberia), the other nations of the med sea took to copying the Roman style of equipment, but never seem to have quite cought on to the Roman drill

How about: Roman legions vs. Han era Chinese infantry, supposing Trajan lived longer and ended up invading China...

now thats a topic for another thread ;)

A)you obviouslly ar emissign the styles of the armour of swiss pikemen; take a good look it, its all (or at least a good damn deal of it) stylized forms of armour as dipicted on classical art; in thier own way, they were using roman armour, as made best they coudl with the knowldge they had of what it looked like; even in the napoleonic era, classical helemts were still very visible on most cavalry regiments, and cuirass as made foamous by the conquistdors is influnced by the muslce cuirasses fond on mouch of Greek and Roman art forms (for the important people at least)
This is very farfetched. Roman armour is not similar at all to those of the Swiss pikemen. You might as well say: "The Romans wore armour, so did the Swiss, so the Swiss were like Romans" What's next? Trajan lived, I live, so I must be Trajan?
Here is picture's of Swiss pikemen:

http://3mpub.com/rhodes/images/pikeman%20web.jpg

http://www.malefic.jp/shopping/foundry/pics/sw1_2.jpg

Does their armour or arms seem to be very similar to this:

http://www.caerleon.net/history/army/legionary4c.jpg

Obviously not.


B) :rolleyes: You nee dto study history more
Instead of throwing wild and unfounded accusations around you, try to keep to the subject please.


1)the eastern empire DID rely on infantry for a great deal of its workings; the great general narses, a contemporary of grand Belisarius, and arguabley his match (its just he istn as famous as Belisarius) was well known for dsimounting his heavy cavalry, and having them fight in a manner not all that unlike the more classic legionaries
So? Dosn't prove me wrong. And it cannot, since it's the bloody fact for dummies that the Byzantine heavy cavalry, ran over almost any infantry type they ever met on the battle field. They relied on heavy cavalry to win their battles, not legionaires.

A)yes, he was a fool, please provide soem evidence to proove he was anything other then a rich bastard who only wanted to further his politcle career, and could barley lead his army to fight the side of a barn, et alone the parthian empire
No. Crassus was just a sidenote. If you are so interested in him, then YOU provide evidence to back up your statements. I really don't care about him.


A)medieval europe was harldey a place for javlins, was it?
Actually, the javelin was used to great extend in Medieval Europe by Slavs and Irishmen. Though not like the Romans used them.


B)taking the culture into account, and how javilns werent used much in post dark age europe to begin with, one can see why a pilum was never re-adopted into the aresenal of europe
Culture my ass. Medieval Europe was hundreds of different cultures, all with different ways of fighting. In war it's supply and demand. If the legionaire trooptype was superior to knights, then someone would have reinvented them, with javilins, shortsword and all, and others would then have copied them and the Knights would not have ruled the period.

No. Crassus was just a sidenote. If you are so interested in him, then YOU provide evidence to back up your statements. I really don't care about him.

side note I think not. you ised crassus as an example of how legions, from a differtn era, could be ridden down by cavalry; but the comparison is faulty; Crassus was never the commander trajan amounted too, and you seem to forget that it is the legions of Trajans era that we are talking about; either provide evidenc to back up your claims, or drop the point.


Actually, the javelin was used to great extend in Medieval Europe by Slavs and Irishmen. Though not like the Romans used them.
But they hardley had the res tof what it took to make a legion, did they?


Culture my ass. Medieval Europe was hundreds of different cultures, all with different ways of fighting. In war it's supply and demand. If the legionaire trooptype was superior to knights, then someone would have reinvented them, with javilins, shortsword and all, and others would then have copied them and the Knights would not have ruled the period.

culture your ass indeed. Medieval europe was all one big narrow minded organism when it came to how your military was set up; sure, thier were deviations, brought on by those in desperate striaghts, but no one can deny the fact that if they had the resources, they would have made thier army as homogenous as any other from Europe.

This is very farfetched. Roman armour is not similar at all to those of the Swiss pikemen. You might as well say: "The Romans wore armour, so did the Swiss, so the Swiss were like Romans" What's next? Trajan lived, I live, so I must be Trajan?
Here is picture's of Swiss pikemen:

A)I dont have an internet copy of the picture, so i cannot show it, I can only provide a reference to the page in a book, and hope that i can at some point scan the picture in to show you; In the Book "Warriors of Rome" (rathery ****ty name, but over all a fair book, but nothign breathtaking in its detail of the legions) On page 63, one can stenciling of the remains of decoration from a poipey style galdius scabbard; upon this, is very clearlly, a helmet of the same type re-developed in Italy during the renassiance~ your first pictures helemt~ (it then spread in popularity to the rest of europe) even if you choose to ignor that evidence, you cannot ignor that even if the example didnt exist, that the cuirass of swiss pikemen is based on the big single plate of armour that is made so famous n so many greek and Roman relifes (i reming you, that during the time of the swiss pikemen, lorica segmentata was not known to have existed), and the helmets are, if not directlly based on old Roman examples found on thier art owrk and thus copied, still stylizations of classical helmets; other wise the culture of the day took over in what the wore, but the armour itself was Roman based; if you need more evidence, go search your self for helmet styles such a the "barbute" (if I remembered the spelling correctlly) a bow back to old Hellenic design of helemt (once again, this type of helmet was devloped in Italy)






So? Dosn't prove me wrong. And it cannot, since it's the bloody fact for dummies that the Byzantine heavy cavalry, ran over almost any infantry type they ever met on the battle field. They relied on heavy cavalry to win their battles, not legionaires. But dosent it? it already prooves that the Byzantines are step more complex then the heavy cavarly uses exclusisvlly you made them out at first, and thiers a good deal more evidence showing just how pivitol the Infantry was in the commanders line ups; its true that the cavalry did form the main thrust in every battle, and that this usually led to victory; but then they were never facing legioneris of trajans day, were they?

side note I think not. you ised crassus as an example of how legions, from a differtn era, could be ridden down by cavalry; but the comparison is faulty; Crassus was never the commander trajan amounted too, and you seem to forget that it is the legions of Trajans era that we are talking about; either provide evidenc to back up your claims, or drop the point.
Have I ever said Crassus was even close to Trajan as a general. No.
Im not forgetting anything here, because I know that the difference between Crassus era Legions and Trajan era Legions, and it's not as big as you want it to be. For an example they have much more in commen than Trajan Legions and Swiss Pikemen have.
Funny how you demand that I should back up my claim. How about you back up your claim huh? Afterall, it is you who actually give a damn about this part of our discussion. Not me.


I wrote this:

Actually, the javelin was used to great extend in Medieval Europe by Slavs and Irishmen. Though not like the Romans used them.

And you reply with this:


But they hardley had the res tof what it took to make a legion, did they?
:lol:

The Javelin was also a sidenote. You wrote that the javilin was hardly used in Medieval Europe. It was wrong, so I corrected you. End of story.


culture your ass indeed. Medieval europe was all one big narrow minded organism when it came to how your military was set up; sure, thier were deviations, brought on by those in desperate striaghts, but no one can deny the fact that if they had the resources, they would have made thier army as homogenous as any other from Europe.
Wrong. Medieval Europe in Constantinoble was very different from Medieval Europe in Scandinavia for an example. The Russians fought differently than the French, etc. And some did have the resources. I already mentioned Byzantine. Other factions such as Venice or the Templar Knights had more gold than you can imagine.

A)I dont have an internet copy of the picture, so i cannot show it, I can only provide a reference to the page in a book, and hope that i can at some point scan the picture in to show you; In the Book "Warriors of Rome" (rathery ****ty name, but over all a fair book, but nothign breathtaking in its detail of the legions) On page 63, one can stenciling of the remains of decoration from a poipey style galdius scabbard; upon this, is very clearlly, a helmet of the same type re-developed in Italy during the renassiance~ your first pictures helemt~

So, you base your discussion on a picture you have seen in a book. You know damn well the Gallic was what Trajans soldiers used. Sure, a Roman might once have had such a helmet, but does that really change anything? The Gallic was the helmet of choice for Romans legionaires.


the cuirass of swiss pikemen is based on the big single plate of armour that is made so famous n so many greek and Roman relifes
Dude, the legionaires almost never used that design. The Greeks did, the Roman officers did, but the Legionaires didn't.


(i reming you, that during the time of the swiss pikemen, lorica segmentata was not known to have existed)
Hilarious. Roman stonecarvings, many who was still standing in public spaces in Rome and elsewhere, is filled with lorica segmentatas. All they had to do was look:
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/trajan&troops.jpg


the Byzantines are step more complex then the heavy cavarly uses exclusisvlly you made them out at first
Can I call you a liar? Because I never said exclusively. Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that they relied on heavy cavalry, not that they never used infantry at all.


but then they were never facing legioneris of trajans day, were they?
No, because legionaires of Trajanes day were obsolete.

I'll conceed the point on javilins; they were used in medievfal europe, and i didnt know to the proper extent, thank you for correcting me.

though I'm far from convinced on your other points, I'm not convcined that he legions wer eobsolte by the time of Theodosius, nro that they woudl have ever been obsoltete until the time of early gun powder in europe; th elegiosn simply prooved themsleves more then bale to take on the same types of troops that you say would be able to trounce them on a continuous basis, the empire only looseing ground when it had to switch to a differnt form of soldire, under a differtn system of military orginization.

No offense xen, but for someone with nearly 10k posts, you'd think you'd know how to proofread your posts before sending them :p

that would betray the style that people know me best by; horrible, horrible spelling ;)

its the tell-tale signature of a post by yours truelly ;)

(that, and I'm too lazy; though I plan to write an article I've been wanteing to do for a while in word, so it wont have errors; though this all assumes I survive the impending hurricane)

I beleive the samurais would win, despite the fact that they would be outnumbered, their induvidual fighting style would wreak havoc among roman lines desgned to despersed massed cavary charges, not a barrage of arrows followed by light infantry with swords the size of a lampost. the roman auxillaries would run... I know I would

Back in the XVI and XVII centuries some generals in the spanish and dutch armies did experiment with 'legionaries'; after all they had grown reading the classics and the romans had to be right: legionaries should cut pikemen in little pieces.

But they didn't...

The reasons were varied: for example, most wars in the pike and shot period were fought in the plains of Northern Italy, Northern Germany and the Low Countries, far more suitable for pike phalanxes than the rough hills of Greece-Macedon were Pydna and Cynoscephalae were fought; cavalry had evolved a lot, including real evolution in the biologic sense, with bigger, faster horses, and legionaries had always been vulnerable to heavy cavalry (one of their few weak spots); and musketeers did support very efficiently the pikemen in a closely integrated formation that seems to have been more flexible than anything tried in the hellenistic armies as far as we know.

Half the battle with Roman legionaries is the tactics; somthing I suppose I should have been emphisizing more then any actual peice of equipment; it was flanking actions (and fighting in terrian far more benificial to the Roman infantry) that led to thier victories over the Greeks, not thier equipment (of course, I'm sure the units equpped with Pilums found them rather satisfactory in those cases)

@Cataphrak- I doubt most of that reasoning for a samurai victory; the Auxllia wouldnt run, and light cavalry didnt pose that much of a problem for the legions; it was heavy cav, and, mor eworryinglly for the legions the "combination" cavalry, whom would have been adopted to several differnt military roles (your namesake, the cataphract, under its late Roman/Byzantine feilders is a perfect example for that point, being, in a strict sense, the heaveist of the heavy cavalry, while being adept at being a skirmishing, and a light cavalry as well; not to mention its soldires coulddismount, and fight as infantry far better then the standard infantry themselvs could, it seems)

all that said, sorry for the late response; hurricans are currentlyl plauging my area of the world, and are often forcing me and most of the rest of my portion of florida to evacuate

Samurai had guns, and Romans didn't. hmm, I wonder who will win... gun vs. sword...

Gee, a wonder who has been keeping up in the conversation or who has enough common sense to let dead threads lay...

if you woudl have actually folled throught the htread, you might actually, just possibly that is, know that from the begginnign its has been taken that this would be a pre-gun powder matc-up; but considering your willign to to bring a perfectlly dead thread back up to the top, with a comment of absolutely zero value in it, and in doing violateing forum proceedure, I'm not at all surprised.