*I'm extremely interested in where you get that 50% number, too.
That's kind of a one-sided way to look at things...infantry made up a significant portion of both armies...Also note the fact that the Hunnic advance had little enough to do with their
style of warfare in the tactical sense. The set-piece battle of the Gallic campaign, that of the Catalaunian Fields, in which Hunnic cavalry would theoretically have ridden roughshod all over their Roman opponents, instead ended in a Roman victory...
The Huns made it as far as they did because of several reasons, one being their sheer numbers, another being the supreme distraction of the Vandals (**who, as I never tire in saying, were the real killers of the Roman Empire of the West).
***The Mongols ran over the medieval armies too...what's your point? (Besides my inherent opposition to comparing these two totally dissimilar things.)
In part, not in whole.
That's not entirely correct. The Byzantines, for example, made good use of pikemen (the
kontaratoi and
menavletoi) in many scenarios. Pikes were good at holding a center line, too, and could be used in a somewhat similar fashion to the Macedonian syntagma. (But by and large you're right.)
* 11th grade where I get all my facts from
** This is accepted as fact by everyone really isn't it?
*** The mongols were a medieval army. Besides if we are talking Europe only The English armies during the thick of the 100 years war which were mostly professional soldiers would have been a very effective challengers.
I think of it like this the Roman Empire was a big Empire able to support a large amount of me logistically. Europe in lets say the High Medieval ages was no different. Sure it was extremely decentralized, but make no mistake about it, The Pope was the emperor. The crusades are not a good example of what would happen if all of Christan Europe was actually invaded in say 1350. The Crusades were merely something on the side that could be done for glory.
Lets pretend the Romans are a technologically less advanced culture (lets say year 476 roman technology - with boats being the exception like say the São Gabriel without the cannons.) From New England in 1350. (and there are horses in the americas)
In 1345 some Roman traders came and visited The southern tip of Iberia and landed in Al Andalus -Berber controlled Gibraltar. They trade a few crops and precious things then returned home.
They mount an attack with 60,000 men. 10 legions! (in what ever time period you deem to consider them at their best.)
They quickly conquer Southern Spain and Portugal.
So the pope deems it necessary to protect the empire from these pagans. The army they form is not a rag tag group of who ever a a Lord in a fiefdom could manage to gather, but everyone. The entirety of the Pope's empires resources. Lets say that the army is simple as well. Maybe 5-10% of the guys on Siege weapons, 30% with crossbows,bow and arrows, and javelins with no armor of any kind. Another 15% With no armor and pikes to protect all of the units I just listed from horsemen. Then we get lets say 40% dismounted knights and 10% actual full blown knights.
There is no way a Equites are going to dare mess with a knight head on, they will be able get blown away, their armor isn't as good as plate, thier weapons are not of the same quality. They are not using lances (long spears yes, lances no) And their horses are not as big. It is hopeless. Not even a kontus unit would be a challenge.
As for infantry VS infantry sword and sheildsman yes plate is a lot better, but for the sake of argument most of them were in chainmail (which would be more accurate) and a few commanders in Plate or Lorica Segmentata.
So what happens when these two types of heavy infantry clash? Basically the same gear and all of them have been training for their whole lives. And don't give me any of that bologna about being more "professional" If you do something your whole life which involves killing people you are going to be pretty damn pro at it no matter what. In a one on one situation they are pretty much even.
So lets look at the other factors. the Europeans knights are not going to be slowed down much by Roman horsemen because they will be protected by their own knights. Nor will javelins or arrow fire slow them down much. Onagers and the like perhaps. It's nothing compared to what the Romans will be dealing with. Testudo is fine for protecting you from crossbow fire, but you are defenseless when you are reforming after being shelled with mortar fire or a trebuche shot. The crossbows are going to cause immense damage. And the will certainly make short work of Roman javelin throwers. So when they engage not only will they have taken much more casualties already. They will be facing the same type of unit with same amount of training and not only that they will get flank raped by the Knights.
To make it short. Knight were just as well trained on foot and on horseback as the romans, Roman armies were larger because Europe was centralized at the time. If the goal for Europe was to produce as many well trained men as the Roman army they could do it easy. The reasons battles were not as large was because Europe was decentralized and full of infighting.
Superior distance auxiliarys.
Superior horse mounted units.
Superior Siege/ distance bombardment field units.
And overall better technology.
The Romans couldn't win in an open field, and they would get crushed invading a citadel. While a Roman town would pose no more danger than a medieval one with walls.
The point is Roman armies were not so bad ass and the world did not go back in it's warfare abilities that no army of equal size could mess with the Romans until the 16th century. That is well over 1,000 years. It's non sense.
The Roman cavalry was never going to beat the medieval cavalry, but it's a truism of military history that formed infantry can beat cavalry every time, and the Romans themselves were superb at it. Even in the age of the stirrup, for example at the Battle of Legnano, a cavalry force could not defeat a trained unit of heavy infantry that remained together. (The defeat at Adrianople was neither due to the stirrup - the Tervingi and Greuthungi didn't have it - nor to an exception to this rule...the Romans were outnumbered, and the Gothic army was clearly not all horsemen.)
