Roman Empire vs 12th century Europe

[hewhoknowsall]

What if Rome at is peak is, for some reason, transported in time to the 12th century, and gets into a war vs medieval Europe?

In this scenario, the two landmasses (both being Europe) are somehow separated by an ocean 800 miles long (let's say that this Roman Europe is somehow placed into the Atlantic Ocean).

Fight!

[LightSpectra]

Latinophiles will make an appeal to the discipline of the Romans though anybody with sense knows that Roman warfare became obsolete for a reason.

Do I even have to answer the Mongol versus U.S. question?

[hewhoknowsall]

"Roman warefare become obsolete for a reason" uh no, the reason why medieval armies didn't use many Roman tactics is because they were lost in the dark ages.

[LightSpectra]

The alleged "Dark Ages" (which is a ridiculous term that no credible historian uses with its original intent anymore) came about because of the defeat of the Roman armies in the first place. Even ignoring this absurdity, one only has to observe the late-Eastern Roman Empire, which had a far more advanced military than the 1st century Romans but experienced varying levels of success against their neighbors.

[ParkCungHee]

Or we can compare the tactics of militiaries left largely unchanged by the fall of rome, and see how they compared. When the Normans came to Ireland, the Celts there were using the same tactics as Gaulic and British Celts: I.E. get in a line, yell real loud, and all run up and stab somebody with a nasty looking implement. These guys gave the Romans, needless to say, a serious problem for a big part of their military history. It is a footnote in the history of Norman Conquest, because those "dark age" military figures had technology far in advance of that of the Romans.

[Dachs]

In the twelfth century, the Roman Empire was mostly successful (albeit somewhat mixed) against other European states. Hungary got beat down, for instance, and the Empire consistently experienced success against Outremer. Admittedly, at the end of the period they suffered some nasty reverses, like the lunatic Italian campaign and the initial phases of the war against Guillaume II (redeemed partially by the victory on the Strymon). I'd say that it was more or less balanced, but slightly in favor of the Romans.

[LightSpectra]

12th century ERE had a far different military than the Roman Empire "at its peak," by which I would assume to be something like the 2nd century or so.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by hewhoknowsall

What if Rome at is peak is, for some reason, transported in time to the 12th century, and gets into a war vs medieval Europe?

In this scenario, the two landmasses (both being Europe) are somehow separated by an ocean 800 miles long (let's say that this Roman Europe is somehow placed into the Atlantic Ocean).

Fight!

And why is this in 'World History' again?

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

12th century ERE had a far different military than the Roman Empire "at its peak," by which I would assume to be something like the 2nd century or so.

If the thread isn't going to make any sense in the first place, why follow along with the OP?

[storealex]

Rome at it's peak wasn't the weak and degenerated Rome that was overrun by barbarians centuries later. At it's peak, Rome was a dynamic nation that overcame in it's wars, even after serious military setbacks.
What I think would happen, it's that Rome would suffer a series of defeats initally. The lack of stirrup and effective cavalry would be a serious disadvantage against heavy knights. But Rome could fiels absolutely HUGE armies and support them. Like against Charthage, Rome would adabt and overcome. Eventually.

[flyingchicken]

Christians will win over pagans on any historical time-frame of the week.

[kulade]

The Romans would all die being over a thousand years old.

[Princeps]

Roman military would crush any medieval field army with sheer numbers. Romans were much more capable strategically and logistically. Where a medieval army would have perhaps ten thousand on the field, the Roman army at its peak could have raised had many times that. Most medieval kingdoms could not afford to maintain standing armies nor could they have mustered the same amount of manpower from their population. Effectively, for every armed peasant on the battlefield, the Romans would have one professional soldier and an auxiliary.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by ParkCungHee

Or we can compare the tactics of militiaries left largely unchanged by the fall of rome, and see how they compared. When the Normans came to Ireland, the Celts there were using the same tactics as Gaulic and British Celts: I.E. get in a line, yell real loud, and all run up and stab somebody with a nasty looking implement.

False. The medieval Irish had adopted the shield-wall tactics which had dominated Northern European warfare since the Roman period- themselves a relic of Roman warfare, merely manifested as a far cruder form. Furthermore, it was identical to the tactic used by Norman infantry at the time; Norman tactically superiority lay in the greater ability with combined arms tactics, specifically the use of archery and cavalry, rather than the inherent obsolescence of the shield-wall itself.

These guys gave the Romans, needless to say, a serious problem for a big part of their military history. It is a footnote in the history of Norman Conquest, because those "dark age" military figures had technology far in advance of that of the Romans.

Questionable. Beyond the Great Conspiracy of 367, itself a failed attempt to take advantange of the dramatically weakened garrisons after a civil war, they were little more than a peripheral nuisance of Rome. They were certainly posed no threat to a major Roman deploment in a pitched battle. Certainly, it's not indicative of comparitive military quality.

[ParkCungHee]

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

False. The medieval Irish had adopted the shield-wall tactics which had dominated Northern European warfare since the Roman period- themselves a relic of Roman warfare, merely manifested as a far cruder form. Furthermore, it was identical to the tactic used by Norman infantry at the time; Norman tactically superiority lay in the greater ability with combined arms tactics, specifically the use of archery and cavalry, rather than the inherent obsolescence of the shield-wall itself.

That pretty much defines what made the shield wall obselete! By medievel time combined arms was the method of they day, and if you all just relied on your shield wall, you'd be picked apart by the enemy and then overrun.

Questionable. Beyond the Great Conspiracy of 367, itself a failed attempt to take advantange of the dramatically weakened garrisons after a civil war, they were little more than a peripheral nuisance of Rome. They were certainly posed no threat to a major Roman deploment in a pitched battle. Certainly, it's not indicative of comparitive military quality.

Actually, I was reffering to the long and numerous wars the Romans fought with Celtic Peoples while expanding.

[hewhoknowsall]

Couldn't the Roman army at its peak field over 500 k forces consisting of professional soldiers? Most medieval armies would be lucky to field 10 k forces, most of which were drafted peasants.

[LightSpectra]

If we're speaking of the Roman Empire versus any one of those European powers, then they'd probably win just for that reason. Though that's a horribly stupid scenario, and I'm going to presume the question is simply a pretentious way of asking for a comparison between Roman warfare and medieval European warfare, in which case the latter wins by far.

[hewhoknowsall]

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

If we're speaking of the Roman Empire versus any one of those European powers, then they'd probably win just for that reason. Though that's a horribly stupid scenario, and I'm going to presume the question is simply a pretentious way of asking for a comparison between Roman warfare and medieval European warfare, in which case the latter wins by far.

The scenario is Roman Empire (peak) vs ALL of those 12th century European powers.

[LightSpectra]

Well that's an impossible question, because the Roman Empire at its peak is occupying half of those countries.

[hewhoknowsall]

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

Well that's an impossible question, because the Roman Empire at its peak is occupying half of those countries.

...seriously? Think about it.