Roman Army vs. Medieval Army

* The technology thing again.
Quality doesn't always win over quantity, and I don't think that the English technological advantage is enough to overcome odds of ~6 or 8 to 1. ;)
Elta said:
** True, but I think if they were getting attacked by some skilled pagans everyone would try to repel them in the name of the pope/jesus etc.
If the Romans have 476 tech how come they are still 'pagans'?
 
Why?

The Pope couldn't even win the power struggle in Italy, much less the rest of Europe. :p

They did manage to end the only good "dynasty" of kings that Germany had... or at least the one with a chance of taking Germany down the same path of centralization that the other western kingdoms were following.
 
They did manage to end the only good "dynasty" of kings that Germany had... or at least the one with a chance of taking Germany down the same path of centralization that the other western kingdoms were following.
That didn't feature a Papal-orchestrated alliance of the European states against the Hohenstaufens, though; they largely created their own enemies.
 
*Quality doesn't always win over quantity, and I don't think that the English technological advantage is enough to overcome odds of ~6 or 8 to 1. ;)

If the Romans have 476 tech how come they are still 'pagans'?

* If the armies were the same size, both filled with elite units and facing off in an open field who would win? The more modern army I feel. Clearly the Roman empire was massive and could pull together massive amounts of men. That is not the point.

The question as I see it is, which army man for well equipped man is more likely to win the battle.

If we are going by size then the Armies 100s of years earlier from China could have rolled over Roman armies from 476 AD. It was not uncommon for them to have battles with 400k me per side. :eek:
 
* If the armies were the same size, both filled with elite units and facing off in an open field who would win? The more modern army I feel.
Well, duh. :rolleyes:
Elta said:
Clearly the Roman empire was massive and could pull together massive amounts of men. That is not the point.
Why not?
Elta said:
The question as I see it is, which army man for well equipped man is more likely to win the battle.
Man for man is a stupid way to compare armies, and you know that. Multirole infantry will be superior, man for man, than specialized ones.
Elta said:
If we are going by size then the Armies 100s of years earlier from China could have rolled over Roman armies from 476 AD. It was not uncommon for them to have battles with 400k me per side. :eek:
According to Hydatius or Zosimus, the Romans had those kinds of numbers too. Why not apply the same sort of critical thinking to Chinese chroniclers? Empires of roughly equivalent population (if anything the Roman Empire had slightly more people) and of roughly equivalent social stratification with roughly equivalent (if anything, the Roman Empire needed to be more militarized due to the constant threat to the east) military requirements ought to have roughly equivalently sized armies.

Yeah, in short, I get pissed that Chinese chroniclers are taken at their word when everybody loves to criticize the numbers in Latin and Greek texts. If there's concrete evidence for larger sized Chinese armies, ffs tell me.
 
The best Roman vs the worst Medieval, the Romans would win w/o a doubt.

Because that would be an elite 476 army vs 477 losers. Other than that the other obvious outcome would be comparing best vs best, like English longbowmen+French knights. With knights being superior in melee and longbowmen being superior in ranged combat. So it pretty obvious who would win... the Romans, since the French and English would turn on each other. 2:0 for the Roman army so far.
 
I don't see how Roman armies could have been 400,000 men large. It just wasn't possible to supply that amount of men in one spot back then. Even the largest Roman engagements were less than a quarter that: at Cannae, Paullus and Varro had 80,000, but most armies were even half THAT size; 40,000 at the Catalunian Fields, 35,000 at Zama, 42,000 at Carrhae; we are NOT talking about a comparably large amount of men here. I know the Chinese were famous for having put together immense armies, but there were 300,000 at Salsu, which is supposed to have been a truly epic amount of men in an army even for Chinese standards (though perhaps more typical of the Sui).

So I really don't know what you guys are talking about.
 
My premise was that Chinese armies around the same time were much larger. That's basically all I said. Your post kind of confuses me.

I should note that from what I read there were people following behind the army withe as many people in the supply train as the army it self.
 
the answer is simple huns, the chinese chased down the huns invaders from china during those times they even chased them out of asia, while the romans, had to struggle all the way against those same guys, barely surviving.
 
the answer is simple huns, the chinese chased down the huns invaders from china during those times they even chased them out of asia, while the romans, had to struggle all the way against those same guys, barely surviving.

Good point. :goodjob:
 
the answer is simple huns, the chinese chased down the huns invaders from china during those times they even chased them out of asia, while the romans, had to struggle all the way against those same guys, barely surviving.
Good point. :goodjob:
Except the Xiongnu and the Huns weren't the same thing. ;)
 
ah there are many theories that says they are the same, but maybe you are right they are just theories after all
 
I think that the numbers typically available are very relevant to the discussion. We're comparing armies, not maximum military power of the whole of Europe.
If the typical Roman army consisted of four times as many soldiers, of whom most were professional, disciplined legionaries, then the mediaeval armies have a problem, given that they, as far as I know, had a significant number of conscipted peasants with no formal military training and little equipment.
 
well then for me the romans can best any medieval european army or crusade at the dark ages after the dark ages the arbalest, the gunpowder, etc will outmatch them...
 
My premise was that Chinese armies around the same time were much larger. That's basically all I said. Your post kind of confuses me.

I should note that from what I read there were people following behind the army withe as many people in the supply train as the army it self.

You said that Chinese battles routinely had 400,000 men on both sides. My post was disputing that. It appeared to me when I wrote it that Dachs was agreeing and saying that Roman armies were of a similar size, which thoroughly confused me. Now when I read it again, I can see I was just tired.
 
ah there are many theories that says they are the same, but maybe you are right they are just theories after all
Largely unsubstantiated theories, and there is ethnographic evidence against the Huns being Xiongnu. Plus, is it really all that probable that the Xiongnu, once evicted by the Chinese in the first century, kept going across Central Asia and Russia until they smacked into the Alans, Greuthungi, and Tervingi in the 360s and 370s?
 
Considering the Huns also went crazy in Southwest Asia and are believed to have originated north of the Altai Range, it might not be entirely impossible, no.
The Hephthalites weren't necessarily Huns. :p
 
ok here is wat i think maybe it was something between the hephthalites found more nomads from west and merged with them and vuala the Huns...
 
Back
Top Bottom