Imperial Romans vs Middle Ages English

[pawpaw]

Wades in with his 2 cents

The Romans used 2 types of Ballista's, 1 with a 2 foot arm and 1 with a 4 foot arm.

The smaller ballista could throw a 1 pound stone 300 yards.
The larger ballista could throw a 3 pound stone up to 550 yards.
The Romans also used the scorpio that shot a 2 foot Iron tipped dart @ somewhere between the 2 ballista's range.

A Roman legion had 1 ballista for each Cohort ( 10 per legion )
A Roman legion had 1 scorpio per century ( 60 per legion )

Sense the English armies of this period range from 8,000-15,000 we are talking 2-3 legions for a fair fight. Thats 20-30 ballista's and 120-180 scorpio's, all who out range the English lowbow's.

The great strength of the English was their ability to launch a lethal long range bombardment that their enemies had no answer for. But here it would be the English who were at the disadvantage. Would the English knights respond the same as the french and throw themselves in a wild charge at the cowards who refused to fight fair? I say yes, at Formgny and castillon at the end of the 100 years wars, the English under bombardment by French artillery out of longbows range, broke ranks and charged the French ( and like Crecy,Argincourt the attackers lost badly ).

Not saying who would win, but pointing out the English could not just sit there and rain arrows down on the Romans

 

[blackheart]

The remainder of Henry’s force, some 5,500 men, is made up of the archers, who have proved their incredible effectiveness throughout the war

Firstly, a full ala miliaria made up of just over 1,000 veteran Gallic cavalry known as Conttarii

Secondly, two cohorts of Syrian archers which total about 1,000 men also accompany and support the legion.

To finish the force, Legio XXX also had a standard array of artillery, one Carro-Ballistae per century for a total of sixty

I'd like to point out the number differences here. 5500 longbowmen will rout any cavalry charge that the Romans throw at them. Secondly, theres 5500 longbowmen! Get those longbowmen in range, and the Syrian archers and ballistae are gone. Get the knights to break the tetsudo and the infantry is gone as well.

 

[Xen]

Ditto for the English on both counts.

wit the huge exception that the english are not anywhere near an actually professional army- the english are experienced, but at the end of the day yeomen archers are yeoman archers, and far more prone to breake and route then a professional soldier is.

I'm not either. I'm saying that, given past events, the English could utilize natural defenses to their fullest. And they have superior technology.

Let's just face it, Xen; Postclassical armies will usually whoop the arse of any classical armies, with the exception of a few. But in general.

I have to ask, who said the Romans are going to be going on the offensive- history illustrates that the Romans woudl be quite content to make thier own entrenchments, and lob ballista fire, of which< IIRC, they have superior range with, over at the brits all day and all... "knight"

the simple fact of the matter is, ironically, that the question isnt nearlyl as simple as you want it to be- the Romans arnt a buch of idiots who go into every battle in the same fashion unless they actually were confident that the standard trooper was going to win- they felt free to modify tacts and troops as needed for every situation- the invention of Trajans super heavy legionaries (which are not mentioned in this thread) is one example, his creation fo the Roman heavy cavalry wing is another- if you think the romans are so naive not to utilize a pike when needed, a weapon mind you still used by Roman enemies in the middle east and so still of great familiarity to the Romans, is folly- the only advantage the nglish have is a bowmen, and sorry to say for you, its not that hard to send a cohort or two on a flanking movement- flixibility on the tactical leval, after all, is what the Romans excelled at.

this was what i dredged out from a past discussion: Roman army vs medievel army
As we can see the disparity between different metallurgy does make a big difference in this case, also don't discount the fact that stirrups do make a big difference. The medievel army having a looser formation and larger calvary group lets them maneouvre around the legionaires, and i htink the greatest advantage is that the medievel generals would recognise the legionaires as such and respond accordingly(I don't pretend to be a strategist but I assume they would) while the legionaires would be less familiar with the tactics that the medievel army uses.

the disparity of metalurgial qualities is overplayed 10 fold- remember, the Gauls had the same weight sin thier favor- better, stronger metals, and tactics of the same fashion you argue- yet the only tiem when they ever had a lick of a chance of winning was when they began to act like Romans. Tactics are superior to raw weaponry EVERYTIME in pregunpowder battles.

And mind you, given the roman proficiency for Roman battlefield manuverability, the odds of the Romans gaining the winng tacticel key are great.

 

[Xen]

I'd like to point out the number differences here. 5500 longbowmen will rout any cavalry charge that the Romans throw at them. Secondly, theres 5500 longbowmen! Get those longbowmen in range, and the Syrian archers and ballistae are gone. Get the knights to break the tetsudo and the infantry is gone as well.

as I've said- its only if the Romans are so idiotic not to utilize the pike (which, perhaps I should remind you, they did wheen needed) agians those knights, or so folly as to live up to the hollywood standard you surelly have in your mind of everyone in one big line moving forward- the Roman tactical absis was based on splitting up thier troops into smaller, more manuverbale units to gain a battlefeild advatage- and going agianst huge concentrated archey volleys, this offers the greatest of advantages as it spreads the roman force into units of about 500 troop cohorts- enough to take care of mounted opposition, and spreading the troops to make archery based casualtieis minimal- and that is I'm sure but a singler example of how the Romans might go about winning the situation.

 

[Jaden]

There's been a lot of talk about the longbow's role in this debate, many believing that a flurry of arrows would be the end for the Romans. Some have referenced the bodkin arrows these longbowmen utilized to supposedly pierce right through the armor of the French knights. Recent research suggests that arrows, even those fired from a longbow, aren't nearly as effective as originally thought. Indeed, even chain mail armor can provide tremendous protection from such an onslaught.

Against the French Knights, it wasn't the knights themselves that were dying in the longbow barrages, but their horses. This (among other factors) caused the French charges to falter, allowing the English to take them out at close range.

I highly encourage people to check out the following three links:

Link One: Written by a gentlemen whose English isn't exactly stellar, this link nonetheless reveals how effective even chainmail is against arrows. Now for those of you who really know longbows inside and out, you'll notice that he's only firing with a fifty pound bow against the chainmail. As longbows could have upwards of 150 Ibs of power behind them, certainly, they would be stronger. However, this is easily compensated by how close he stands to fire the bow - 10 meters at first, then an astonishing five meters! The results are rather interesting, proving the mettle (pun intended) of chainmail.

Link Two: Warning, very large picture here. Revealed here is the effectiveness of both plate and chain mail against crossbows and longbows. We see that crossbows did have the potential to break through chain, but not through plate. Longbows on the other hand had difficulty against chain, but no hope against plate.

Link Three: Finally, if you go down to the fourth post, you'll see a detailed discussion of arrows vs mail. You get a analysis of the common misconceptions, as well as a variety of primary sources proving the effectiveness of mail against almost all arrows, even those fired from the longbow.

Going through this, hopefully people can come to glean a greater understanding of arrows vs armor, and understand that even longbow fire isn't quite as destructive as many believe. What it is effective at is disruption of enemy lines, especially a cavalry charge, where is can actually be quite deadly.

Against the Roman Legionaries, longbow fire is by no means the end of them. In fact, they are incredibly well designed to stand against such a barrage. The Lorica Segmentata (while by no means as effective as knightly plate) would provide excellent protection against almost any arrow attack provided the Romans weren't point blank. Even if they were wearing Hamata (chainmail) they would be well protected at distance, as revealed by the above examples and links. Trajan's legions also wore greaves, and though their arms would be virtually unprotected, the other major variable against a longbow assault is the Scutum. More effective than shields in the Middle Ages, the Scutum's curved design meant that the power behind an arrow was generally deflected away, rather than absorbed completely. This also meant the legionary wouldn't feel the blow as profoundly as one wielding a flat shield would. As a result, the longbowmen's arrows generally wouldn't even penetrate the scutum, rather bouncing away harmlessly. Again, point blank this might change somewhat, but I'm willing to bet the scutum stands up incredibly well for the most part. And of course, even if the Scutum isn't there to deflect the shot for some reason, the Segmentata will also stand strong.

 

[Shaihulud]

the disparity of metalurgial qualities is overplayed 10 fold- remember, the Gauls had the same weight sin thier favor- better, stronger metals, and tactics of the same fashion you argue- yet the only tiem when they ever had a lick of a chance of winning was when they began to act like Romans. Tactics are superior to raw weaponry EVERYTIME in pregunpowder battles.

I didn't know that the Gauls had better metallugy, I was under the impression that they were mostly armed with iron weapons. Perhaps they had a better forging techniques where they could more consistently get steel. Unfortunately even with this advantage, their infrastructure is such that their warriors were underarmed relative to their Roman enemies. They can't consistently field the kind of armies that Rome could.

In this case, it is a one off battle between evenly numbered forces, one side with a clear superior technology. The superior social structure of the Roman will not come into play.

Written by a gentlemen whose English isn't exactly stellar, this link nonetheless reveals how effective even chainmail is against arrows. Now for those of you who really know longbows inside and out, you'll notice that he's only firing with a fifty pound bow against the chainmail. As longbows could have upwards of 150 Ibs of power behind them, certainly, they would be stronger. However, this is easily compensated by how close he stands to fire the bow - 10 meters at first, then an astonishing five meters! The results are rather interesting, proving the mettle (pun intended) of chainmail.

He mentioned the quality of the "butted or riveted mail from India" as being poor in quality, but neglected to say that they would have been made of modern steel. This negates the test somewhat, modern steel is of course much higher in strength and durability of even the best medievel armor. In fact most of the tests done are with medievel armor, iron cannot compare with steel.

Revealed here is the effectiveness of both plate and chain mail against crossbows and longbows. We see that crossbows did have the potential to break through chain, but not through plate. Longbows on the other hand had difficulty against chain, but no hope against plate.

Very good, because the quotes I posted shows the inferiority of the lorica segmanta to chain armor and that subsequent tests shows them being perforated. This matter of better metallurgy due to the invention of the blast furnace which is good to know.

 

[shortguy]

wit the huge exception that the english are not anywhere near an actually professional army- the english are experienced, but at the end of the day yeomen archers are yeoman archers, and far more prone to breake and route then a professional soldier is.

As melee infantry, that's true. But keep in mind that these "yeomen" are seasoned battle veterans who have trained practically their entire lives with the longbow, an extremely powerful and formidable weapon. As archers they are almost without equal.

 

[~Corsair#01~]

How effective would longbows be at night? It seems to me that the legionnaries would attack then- not because I'm an expert on Roman tactics but common sense dictates they would want to use their superior co-ordination at the time when the English would be at their worst.

Surely no-one doubts that the legionnaries would win if they got to close range without suffering high casualties?

 

[North King]

What the proponents of the "longbows can't go through armor" theory are ignoring is that Roman armor didn't cover the entire body... and there are usually about a thousand arrows in the air every second.

 

[Warman17]

Then the Romans will have their battle in the shade

 

[Princeps]

What the proponents of the "longbows can't go through armor" theory are ignoring is that Roman armor didn't cover the entire body... and there are usually about a thousand arrows in the air every second.

Combined with the helmet, chest and shoulder armour and large shield, the casualties would hardly be disastrous. There are also plenty of ways to counter the archers.

The Romans also have archers, which BTW have longer range than the French counterparts. And, Romans have ballistas and cavalry too.

Roman basic troops are also much better than English troops.


IMHO.

 

[shortguy]

All in all, I'd have to give the edge to the Romans. I really hate to say that, as I more than anyone am annoyed at the fawning attention that the Romans get to the detriment of all the erstwhile civilizations and states that followed them until at least the Renaissance. When looking at the matchup, though, the Romans seem to have a big edge.

I would say, though, that the matchup is very unfair, in the sense that you're pitting the army of one nation that was built based not only on the structure of the society but also on the composition of the armies of its opponents against a state with an entirely different background. My support of the Romans in this instance, then, it not supposed to imply that I believe that the Roman civilization was "superior" to that of Medieval England. I don't really think that's necessarily true at all.

 

[mrtn]

While this thread is quite interesting, why would either the English or the Romans march straight into combat without trying to talk first?

Besides, I strongly doubt that Henry V would just stand around on an open plain with his longbowmen, it's not as if he would have any big problems finding better defensible terrain in northern France.

 

[Steph]

Besides, I strongly doubt that Henry V would just stand around on an open plain with his longbowmen, it's not as if he would have any big problems finding better defensible terrain in northern France.

That's because he tried to find a close plain or an open mountain, but couldn't find any, so he fell back to an open plain

 

[Verbose]

I strongly doubt that Henry V would just stand around on an open plain with his longbowmen, it's not as if he would have any big problems finding better defensible terrain in northern France.

He prolly wouldn't.

To me this looks like Agincourt with Romans instead of Frech. Well, that's pretty obvious.

And at Agincourt the English archers did fortify parts of their line in preparation for the battle.

 

[Dell19]

I've been reading the thread for a while and it would be interesting to see the views on if the French Agincourt force fought the Romans instead. The English force in the OP is far more specialised than the Romans with the significant percentage of archers whilst the Roman army is more balanced so they may well have the edge in flexibility.

 

[Verbose]

I've been reading the thread for a while and it would be interesting to see the views on if the French Agincourt force fought the Romans instead. The English force in the OP is far more specialised than the Romans with the significant percentage of archers whilst the Roman army is more balanced so they may well have the edge in flexibility.

If trying to fight the Romans like they tried to fight the English, they would prolly get just as slaughtered.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I have always thought Belisarius under Emperor Justinian was one of the best (yes I know they were Byzantine).

Like the Greek Phalanx and the Carthaginian Elephants before them, the English Army will be destroyed by the Roman Legions. Yea lets see how those longbows do against the Tortoise Formation.

Here's a link to some info about Roman Formations: I particularly like the Repel Cavalry one.

http://www.roman-empire.net/army/tactics.html

The info on this site isn't too bad actually.

 

[Warman17]

He prolly wouldn't.

To me this looks like Agincourt with Romans instead of Frech. Well, that's pretty obvious.

And at Agincourt the English archers did fortify parts of their line in preparation for the battle.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3569069&postcount=17

This isn't like Agincourt at all.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

There's been a lot of talk about the longbow's role in this debate, many believing that a flurry of arrows would be the end for the Romans. Some have referenced the bodkin arrows these longbowmen utilized to supposedly pierce right through the armor of the French knights. Recent research suggests that arrows, even those fired from a longbow, aren't nearly as effective as originally thought. Indeed, even chain mail armor can provide tremendous protection from such an onslaught.

Against the French Knights, it wasn't the knights themselves that were dying in the longbow barrages, but their horses. This (among other factors) caused the French charges to falter, allowing the English to take them out at close range.

I highly encourage people to check out the following three links:

Link One: Written by a gentlemen whose English isn't exactly stellar, this link nonetheless reveals how effective even chainmail is against arrows. Now for those of you who really know longbows inside and out, you'll notice that he's only firing with a fifty pound bow against the chainmail. As longbows could have upwards of 150 Ibs of power behind them, certainly, they would be stronger. However, this is easily compensated by how close he stands to fire the bow - 10 meters at first, then an astonishing five meters! The results are rather interesting, proving the mettle (pun intended) of chainmail.

Link Two: Warning, very large picture here. Revealed here is the effectiveness of both plate and chain mail against crossbows and longbows. We see that crossbows did have the potential to break through chain, but not through plate. Longbows on the other hand had difficulty against chain, but no hope against plate.

Link Three: Finally, if you go down to the fourth post, you'll see a detailed discussion of arrows vs mail. You get a analysis of the common misconceptions, as well as a variety of primary sources proving the effectiveness of mail against almost all arrows, even those fired from the longbow.

Going through this, hopefully people can come to glean a greater understanding of arrows vs armor, and understand that even longbow fire isn't quite as destructive as many believe. What it is effective at is disruption of enemy lines, especially a cavalry charge, where is can actually be quite deadly.

Against the Roman Legionaries, longbow fire is by no means the end of them. In fact, they are incredibly well designed to stand against such a barrage. The Lorica Segmentata (while by no means as effective as knightly plate) would provide excellent protection against almost any arrow attack provided the Romans weren't point blank. Even if they were wearing Hamata (chainmail) they would be well protected at distance, as revealed by the above examples and links. Trajan's legions also wore greaves, and though their arms would be virtually unprotected, the other major variable against a longbow assault is the Scutum. More effective than shields in the Middle Ages, the Scutum's curved design meant that the power behind an arrow was generally deflected away, rather than absorbed completely. This also meant the legionary wouldn't feel the blow as profoundly as one wielding a flat shield would. As a result, the longbowmen's arrows generally wouldn't even penetrate the scutum, rather bouncing away harmlessly. Again, point blank this might change somewhat, but I'm willing to bet the scutum stands up incredibly well for the most part. And of course, even if the Scutum isn't there to deflect the shot for some reason, the Segmentata will also stand strong.

I have heard this as well. In the Battle of Agincourt, the English arrowheads were made out of horrible quality iron, it snapped upon hitting the heavy steel plate of the French Knights. They only won that battle because the French Knights got tired running through the muddy field while wearing heavy plate mail and were exhausted or had very little energy to fight with upon reaching the lightly clad English men-at-arms and longbowmen, who upon seeing the dying enthusiasm of the French Knights pounced and used swords and daggers to impale the knights through vulnerable spots in the amor (under the arms, around the neck, eye slits, groin). The horses they were riding likewise got exhausted and fell over, bucked their rider, or just plain died. So the English Longbow was probably only useful against very lightly armored enemies.

The English set sharpened sticks into the ground, really only useful for stopping cavalry or routing infantry through choke points, and Roman officers seeing the number of longbowmen would have ordered the legions into tortiose formation and slowly marched across the field conserving the energy of the Legionaires for the coming battle. Plus most of the English had dysentery or cholera at the time of the battle (or some form of disease). Only a small fraction of the English force wasn't sick.