MattII
Prince
Harold's troops were not worn down, they charged down from the ridge and were slaughtered on the flat ground.
The Han Chinese fanboys would probably say yes.I don't know how fast a crossbow can reload, but would it be effective against, say, Equites Alares? Or the legion body proper?
So what's with this new trend of bumping years' old threads?
Oh well, might as well contribute while I'm here.
Okay. So Western European weapons technology really was that little advanced over the period of a thousand years? (The only people I know about really well during most of the medieval era are the Romans...go figure.)And in response to Dachspmg I still say that medieval armor wasn't that great. It was good at stopping piercing weapons but I think that ballistae could penetrate it.
Since Romans don't have lancer units (that I can recall anyway), and since a mounted knight weighs an awful lot, this isn't a particularly easy proposition. I still think that the Romani would have cavalry issues, unless this is after the reign of Gallienus, but they always had cavalry issues, and their infantry would do a bang-up job of mashing its way into virtually any medieval infantry anyway (except maybe the Swiss on the tail end of the era), so they could probably win in the end.Drolyt said:Just knock them off their horse and your fine.
Then good King Richard might as well hand himself his own tuchas, because Julius was a freakin' genius.Drolyt said:As a final point I'm imagining perhaps Julius Caesar against Richard the Lionheart.
Except if the use of siege weapons in field battles had been a workable proposition to the Romans, they would have used them like that historically. Since they didn't, that part of your strat probably won't work in the first place. These things were siege weapons for a reason, not field artillery. Which of course also means that the Romans start out at a range disadvantage compared to both longbows and crossbows. Either they move away, out of range, or they have to close to bring their own missile troops to bear (Balearic stoneslingers might actually have the range, and maybe the Romans have these around though).A workable strategy to beat the Europeans I think would be to use the typical flaming siege weapon to scatter the archers while picking off the knights with the ballistae and charging the archers with the infantry. If the Romans adopted the stirrup their cavalry could attempt to flank the opponent while avoiding the more heavily armored knights and the auxiliary troops with spears (perhaps adopting pike like tech) could guard the infantries flanks against knights. The fact is the Romans were good at adopting enemy techniques quickly, and although they wouldn't be able to adopt metallurgy technology quickly enough to make a difference I think they could make very basic changes to deal with opposing knights. Enough said.
Apart from that, I agree with Dachspmg: What Roman army, from what period, commanded by who, facing a Medieval army of similar issues?
With enough money to recruit professional mercenaries form Flanders and Gascony, and Welsh longbowmen, and ample access to the cream of the French noble heavy cav from the 13th c and onwards, it would have to be a very, very good Roman army to be able to weather that.
That is to say, the Middle Ages certainly could muster enough martial competence to form a combined arms army that would probably have made mincemeat of just about anything the Romans could field. The problem would be that the circumstances to allow a Medieval monarch to have access to all of these things at any given moment are far fetched at best.
The Roman army shines in quality control, but the Medieval both peaks at a higher level and dips to lows the Romans likely wouldn't tolerate.
Welllll...the Makedonian armies of Philippos and Alexandros were using ballistae and scorpions on the field, and you can find references to Roman use in Polybius' Histories. It was a pretty standard complement to a given field force from about the fourth to third century BC on down. And ballistae are fairly accurate, for one, and for another, there is an ongoing argument as to how fast a theoretical Roman "repeating" ballista (called the polybolos I think) could shoot - perhaps 10 projectiles a minute or so. There really isn't a medieval analogue to it.Except if the use of siege weapons in field battles had been a workable proposition to the Romans, they would have used them like that historically. Since they didn't, that part of your strat probably won't work in the first place.
Too, one can figure in toxotai kretikoi, Rhodikoi sphendonetai, the various provincial equites units (German, Gallic, Hispanic), and maybe even some catafractarii/kataphraktoi from the Eastern provinces. As to the Saurometae, I thought that they and the Romani locked horns on most occasions - when did the Romani use Saurometae auxilia?I think that, if we're taking into account potential mercenaries for the medieval army, that we should include hires for the Romans, too. Sarmatians, Scutarii Falacata, other potential levies; you already mentioned the Balearics.
Yeah, Roman "vanilla" cavalry usually sucked. That's why they had their allies supply troops for them too, to double the power of a given legion. Italian cavalry (equites extraordinarii) was much more powerful than the Roman citizen equivalent. And then, after they expanded more, they'd use Gallic, Germanic, and Hispanic cavalry instead. The cavalry arm really isn't augmented and standardized too well until the Dominate, or at the very earliest the reign of Traianvs (Gallienvs is probably a better starting point).Cheezy the Wiz said:The use of Sarmatians, long time allies of the Romans, would certainly lend a heavy cavalry arm to the legion, better than the small detatchment (300 Equites IIRC??) of cavalry assigned to each 4000 man legion.