Rome's Top 3 worst defeats

can't really argue . My interpretation is solely based on impressions . The numbers and the capabilities of the Roman period is being less than later eras ı would simply argue they had to be more hurting than , say Adolf , losing a division here or there . ı have this Osprey book somewhere that -only as an example- that in the post Roman times 300 troops could make an army and anything involving more than 50 on each side would make a battle .
 
can't really argue . My interpretation is solely based on impressions . The numbers and the capabilities of the Roman period is being less than later eras ı would simply argue they had to be more hurting than , say Adolf , losing a division here or there . ı have this Osprey book somewhere that -only as an example- that in the post Roman times 300 troops could make an army and anything involving more than 50 on each side would make a battle .

Once the Roman state organisation disappeared, that was certainly more the case - it took a lot of effort to call up a 'proper' army in medieval times, so a lot of small engagements would have been made up entirely of mercenary or noble troops, and battles of any size rarely lasted more than an hour.
 
that in the post Roman times 300 troops could make an army and anything involving more than 50 on each side would make a battle .

But there were also battles of similar size to those in Antiquity in Medieval Europe, so definitely not all engagements were that small.

Another thing is that Medieval sources often mention only the number of knights which fought or died on each side. Sometimes they don't even mention all knights - for example according to Jan Długosz in the battle of Grunwald Polish army lost only "12 more significant knights killed" (but he doesn't write how many of those not significant died). And knights had their numerous retinues. Apart from knights and their retinues armies consisted also of other components.

Regarding Roman times - the biggest battles compared to mobilizational capabilities were seen during the Punic Wars. The series of defeats inflicted by Hannibal nearly exhausted the Roman Republic's manpower reserves. That was a real bloodbath. After the Punic Wars Rome was also often losing enormous numbers of men in battles - but at that time Rome was already an empire with population numbering dozens of millions, while during the 2nd Punic War territory of the Repubic was limited mostly to Italy. However, already at that time Roman population was bigger than that of Carthage and Roman enemies in near future.

IMHO minor engagements inolving "like 300 or 50 men on each side", as r16 wrote, were also more frequent than large battles in Antiquity. But we simply don't have info about those minor engagements, because of smaller number of surviving sources from Antiquity than from Medieval.

However, large field battles were relatively rare events - just ask yourself how many battles did Alexander fight in Persia or Caesar in Gaul? Skirmishing encounters, hit & run warfare, minor engagements, sieges of small strongholds, sacking of villages & towns - this surely also took place, and was more frequent.

In the Middle Ages situation was similar. The so called "Great War with the Teutonic Order" in years 1409 - 1411, had seen only a few large pitched battles - the most well-known of which are Grunwald and Koronowo. At the same time, there were countless minor clashes and sieges on various scale.

Perhaps the third largest pitched battle of that war (after Grunwald and Koronowo) - was the battle of Bardiów* in 1410 (most likely in November) against forces of Emperor Sigismund - who was an ally of the Teutonic Order. Rather little is known about this battle, but on one Polish history forum I saw estimations, that probably it involved around 5,000 troops on the Polish side and that Emperor's forces (commanded by Stibor of Stiboricz) were more numerous.

It is not sure who was the commander of the Polish army at Bardejov - but most likely Spytek of Tarnów or John of Szczekociny.

*Modern Bardejov in North-Eastern Slovakia.

it doesn't take into account the fact that a modern regiment is about 900 strong while a Roman legion numbered around 5,000, with about as many auxilia again.

Regarding the strength of legion - it depends on period.

Not always it was 5,000 (and not always auxilia was as numerous as legion itself). Moreover, according to what I've read (e.g. John Warry, "Warfare in the Classical World", Adrian Goldsworthy, "The Complete: Roman Army", Gregory Daly, "Cannae, The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War", Krzysztof Kęciek "Magnezja 190 p.n.e.", Osprey's "Battle of Philippi", etc.) Roman legions were often understrength. The real strength was relatively rarely the same as "paper strength".

Regarding regiments - I suppose that modern regiment is 900 strong on peacetime strength? Or this also applies to mobilized regiments? In WW2 infantry regiments on wartime strength had over 3000 men (authorized / "paper" strength). On peacetime strength active service regiments had perhaps 1500 men or less.

But for example Polish pre-war 56. Inf.Rgt. numbered 1968 men on peacetime strength, due to the fact that its garrison was near the German border. It was regiment of "type II (strengthened)" - regiments with garrisons near the German / Soviet border belonged to this group.
 
You know necroing threads is against board rules, Domen?

Unless u swiftly come, swiftly necro it and fast fast get out (like "Veni, Vidi, Vici a Thread").

that really wasn't a clever response at all, nor does it address the reason why necroing is against the rules.

Frequently these decade-old threads are filled with tons of popular misinformation that are annoying to read, and can mislead newcomers to this board. Plus the original posters are long gone and don't really care what you have to contribute.

But people must know random gibberish about Poland.

Guys, just let it die.

Quite. I was about to attack the OP before noticing the whole 2004 thing and realizing the chance of him seeing it was zero.

This is 2004 WH. Byzantium does not count.

Because I was being facetious, and deriding the quality of old timey WH posting (of which I am no doubt guilty myself).

Moderator Action: Stay kinda on topic and the thread can live.

if this is meant for me , ı am on topic .
No, not at you, but at the quoted posts above. :)
 
LightSpectra said:
the reason why necroing is against the rules.

Frequently these decade-old threads are filled with tons of popular misinformation that are annoying to read, and can mislead newcomers to this board.

This is the reason, according to you?

So in your opinion decade-old posts generally contain more misinformation than recent posts ???

Do you believe that the Western Internet Community is becoming less ignorant over time? :p

Or is it because during the last decade so many users from Poland joined this forum to fight against popular Western misinformation, including me? :p

=========================================================

Regarding this:

Lord Ball said:
But people must know random gibberish about Poland.

Uhmmm - this was your response to my post, in which I necroed this thread, listing some battles lost by Rome during the history of Rome's military conflicts.

I'm not sure what exactly was "about Poland" in that List of Roman Defeats (even if it was gibberish).

Either you have some paranoid Polonophobia, and see discussion about Poland everywhere, or... or I don't know what to think about it.
 
Regarding the strength of legion - it depends on period.

Not always it was 5,000 (and not always auxilia was as numerous as legion itself). Moreover, according to what I've read (e.g. John Warry, "Warfare in the Classical World", Adrian Goldsworthy, "The Complete: Roman Army", Gregory Daly, "Cannae, The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War", Krzysztof Kęciek "Magnezja 190 p.n.e.", Osprey's "Battle of Philippi", etc.) Roman legions were often understrength. The real strength was relatively rarely the same as "paper strength"..

This is very true - indeed, I saw a transcript of what appears to be a roll call at the garrison at Vindolanda (on Hadrian's Wall) which recorded that some three-quarters of the garrison were absent, including five of the six centurions! Nevertheless, this doesn't really change the point: we don't downgrade modern units as they suffer losses; the 1st Armoured Division is a division whether it's got 10,000 or 10 soldiers left in it. What's more significant is that elements of the legion structure changed over time, especially the removal of the Rorarii (the last-ditch reserve of light troops) in quite early times, and the socii with the reforms of Marius. The general trend was downwards, with the notable exception of Praetorian units, which were generally maintained at double strength. A post-Marian legion was normally about 4000-5000 on paper, although the actual numbers present, especially when not in the field, varied considerably.

Regarding regiments - I suppose that modern regiment is 900 strong on peacetime strength? Or this also applies to mobilized regiments? In WW2 infantry regiments on wartime strength had over 3000 men (authorized / "paper" strength). On peacetime strength active service regiments had perhaps 1500 men or less.

But for example Polish pre-war 56. Inf.Rgt. numbered 1968 men on peacetime strength, due to the fact that its garrison was near the German border. It was regiment of "type II (strengthened)" - regiments with garrisons near the German / Soviet border belonged to this group

Yes, which is why I'm inclined to translate 'regiment' and accept the implication that the Romans had bigger regiments than we do. However, it also means that you have to translate 'the Romans fielded a force of eight regiments at Cannae', which doesn't give the sense of scale that 'a force of eight divisions' does.

Either you have some paranoid Polonophobia, and see discussion about Poland everywhere, or... or I don't know what to think about it.

Only in your posts, Domen... it's very well-informed, but it does get a little tiresome.
 
r16 said:
that in the post Roman times 300 troops could make an army and anything involving more than 50 on each side would make a battle.

Well - depends what exactly do you mean by "post-Roman times". In Medieval Europe rich knights often had large retinues & private arsenals to equip them.

For example Marcin - son of Zawisza Czarny - in 1441 had in his private arsenal e.g. 60 chain-armours, 60 helmets, 60 shields, 60 spears and 300 horses.

Often knights were using their private "armies" to "resolve conflicts" with other knights.

For example in 1423 there was a court case in Kalisz (Poland) over an assault against a motte & bailey of a knight named Jan (John).

One of witnesses during that court case, testified the following:

"Tego na nie żałuję, gdzież we cztyrzysta chłopow i we dwunaście i w ośmi ślachcicow tako dobrych jako sam wyjali z umysłem i są jachali na dziedzinę. A przyjawszy na brzeg i puścili ludzi na Janow dom, jedny na koniech, drugie pieszcem, drugie w łodziach. Tu są rozbili dom mocą gwałtem, dwoje dźwirzy wybili, jedny u wrot, drugie u łaźnie. Tu są dali Janowi dziesięć ran, panie dwie ranie i są panią łupili, są s nie suknią sjęli, ta suknia potem licem wrocona. Sześć człowiekow raniono, a pięć jich mowię tym razem, szostego wyjmuję, cso leży we śmiertnych ranach, bo nie wiem, będzieli żyw abo umrze. I to w czas woźny ty rany oglądał. Małoli na tem wszytkiem, tośm gotow ukazać na to szwytko sześcią panicow, jako wasze prawo najdzie. A jidąc zasię groblę rozmiotali."

In short - he testified that John's motte-and-bailey was attacked by 420 armed men (including 20 noblemen and 400 of their retinues). Some of them were cavalry, some were on foot and some even arrived in boats (apparently John's stronghold was located near a river or lake). As the result of the entire "battle", attackers destroyed the embankment and broke into John's house, John himself was wounded (he suffered 10 wounds according to this witness), two ladies were wounded and one lady was robbed and undressed. Also 5 further men were wounded and 1 more was mortally wounded.

Probably John was not a very popular nobleman among his neighbours. :)

In another similar conflict between nobles, in 1491, knight Stanislav Grabski of Dobra and 63 of his men, attacked Żelazków (near Kalisz).
 
Top Bottom