Medieval Armies VS Roman Legions
- Thread starter Princeps
- Start date
CruddyLeper
Unworshipped Deity
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.
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.
Verbose
Deity
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.
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.
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
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...
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.
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.
silver 2039
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,208
The emperor Valens was killed and a large portion of the Roman Army destroyed by Gothic Knights. Don't remeber the battle name exactly.
Verbose
Deity
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.
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.
robertoross24
Chieftain
without cavalry support on the part of the medieval army, the romans would always stand a chance
Verbose
Deity
Unless the troops were peasant levies or the host of a city state like Milan, medieval armies were typically formed around cavalry.robertoross24 said:
It was more aquestion of infantry support than anything else.
Verbose
Deity
And you draw this conclusion based on exactly what?naziassbandit said:
Verbose
Deity
Ah...naziassbandit said:I won't tell that because it would probaly kill the debate.
You've got nuffin' then, I take it?
robertoross24
Chieftain
you are correct but im just saying with out the knights rome would always stand a chance
~Corsair#01~
Deity
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?
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?
mastertyguy
I'm tired!
Rome would win. At lest on long term period, probaly in a single battle
Verbose
Deity
Assuming the medieval guys would be obliging enough to line up for annihilation.mastertyguy said:
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.
@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.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
@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 ?
Also given that the romans inproved on the Greek ballista Do you know if they attempted to also improve the belly bow ?
Similar threads
