StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I've been wondering about this, what is it that middle ages armies had that the romans didn't, one thing I can think of is lances and heavy horse cavalry, maybe some heavier armor too and what about the technology levels of the two, Rome was a Bronze age civ, and medieval Europe before the renaissance was a iron/steel age civ, right? I think stainless steel was invented by Thomas Beckett, who made the fork which he said was washable, and galvinized steel isn't.
And with cavalry, let's say the scots in Braveheart didn't have wooden spears then how far would the heavy cavalary have gone through them, wouldn't the horses trip and fall over the men?

The problem is that while Middle Age armies were undisciplined, motely collections. Roman armies on the other hand were extremely disciplined, proffesional forces. In that discipline is the secret. They can easily counter the tactics of Middle Ages armies. All the Medieval armies would be are better equipped barbarians hordes.


Oh, and Roman was Iron Age. They used steel and iron, just not for armor. Bronze was easier to work with for that.

Stormbringer wrote:The problem is that while Middle Age armies were undisciplined, motely collections. Roman armies on the other hand were extremely disciplined, proffesional forces. In that discipline is the secret. They can easily counter the tactics of Middle Ages armies. All the Medieval armies would be are better equipped barbarians hordes.

How well would the Romans do against a bunch of English Longbow men? Would there shields be able to stop the hail arrows? If not they would be in considerabul trouble.

There's a good chance that the Roman legions could've beaten Middle Age armies. When Rome fell, technology and other things took a few steps backwards or at least advanced at a much slower speed because there was less sharing of knowledge in the world with everybody in different nations as opposed to a united empire. I think that's why the Middle Ages are also refered to as the Dark Ages. The Middle Age armies probably had few advantages that the Romans didn't.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The problem is that while Middle Age armies were undisciplined, motely collections. Roman armies on the other hand were extremely disciplined, proffesional forces. In that discipline is the secret. They can easily counter the tactics of Middle Ages armies. All the Medieval armies would be are better equipped barbarians hordes.

How well would the Romans do against a bunch of English Longbow men? Would there shields be able to stop the hail arrows? If not they would be in considerabul trouble.

I don't know. They'd probably be able to survive. The Roman infantryman sheild was a pretty tough thing. And some of the barbarian tribes had some pretty good archers and bows.



Just out of curiosty what is being defined as the Middle Ages in this?

Trogdor wrote:There's a good chance that the Roman legions could've beaten Middle Age armies. When Rome fell, technology and other things took a few steps backwards or at least advanced at a much slower speed because there was less sharing of knowledge in the world with everybody in different nations as opposed to a united empire. I think that's why the Middle Ages are also refered to as the Dark Ages. The Middle Age armies probably had few advantages that the Romans didn't.

They had individually better armor and some arms. But the problem is a total like of battle field discipline and en masse the advantages of the medivial army (few though they are) is totallly negated by the tactics of the legion. The Roman military machine would have devestated medivial Europe.

Sea Skimmer wrote:How well would the Romans do against a bunch of English Longbow men? Would there shields be able to stop the hail arrows? If not they would be in considerabul trouble.

The Roman legions were trained to hold their large shields up over their heads at the same time when the situation required it (except for the men in front, of course. They kept their shields in front of them and their heads were covered by the men behind them), thus making the unit almost invincible against projectile weapons. They weren't unused to stuff like longbows. A legion would easily crush British longbowmen.

Stormbringer wrote:I don't know. They'd probably be able to survive. The Roman infantryman sheild was a pretty tough thing. And some of the barbarian tribes had some pretty good archers and bows.

Unlikely. IIRC, a bodkin arrow fired from a Welsh longbow could penetrate steel plate armor at 300 feet.

Whoops, not entirely correct. Here's some more info on longbows in general: http://www.archers.org/longbow.htm

JediNeophyte wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:I don't know. They'd probably be able to survive. The Roman infantryman sheild was a pretty tough thing. And some of the barbarian tribes had some pretty good archers and bows.

Unlikely. IIRC, a bodkin arrow fired from a Welsh longbow could penetrate steel plate armor at 300 feet.

So it penetrates. So did the spears and arrows of some of the legions' enemies. It probably wouldn't go deep enough to do any damage to the soldier holding it unless it hits right on the spot where he's holding it.

Stormbringer wrote:The problem is that while Middle Age armies were undisciplined, motely collections. Roman armies on the other hand were extremely disciplined, proffesional forces. In that discipline is the secret. They can easily counter the tactics of Middle Ages armies. All the Medieval armies would be are better equipped barbarians hordes.


snip.

Dont get too carried away with your statements. Mideval times covers one thousand years. There was a period of time when European armies were not as well organised as that of Rome, but one should not forget that mideval Europe evolved out of its Roman predessor. If you wish to say that Mideval armies are little better than barbarin hordes *hears Gladiator music* please back up your statement.

Trogdor wrote:So it penetrates. So did the spears and arrows of some of the legions' enemies. It probably wouldn't go deep enough to do any damage to the soldier holding it unless it hits right on the spot where he's holding it.

See above link.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:The problem is that while Middle Age armies were undisciplined, motely collections. Roman armies on the other hand were extremely disciplined, proffesional forces. In that discipline is the secret. They can easily counter the tactics of Middle Ages armies. All the Medieval armies would be are better equipped barbarians hordes.


snip.

Dont get too carried away with your statements. Mideval times covers one thousand years. There was a period of time when European armies were not as well organised as that of Rome, but one should not forget that mideval Europe evolved out of its Roman predessor. If you wish to say that Mideval armies are little better than barbarin hordes *hears Gladiator music* please back up your statement.

All right, you've got a good point here. A lot of this does depend on what time periods both armies are coming from. As for the longbow thing, I'd have to do research to back that up.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Dont get too carried away with your statements. Mideval times covers one thousand years. There was a period of time when European armies were not as well organised as that of Rome, but one should not forget that mideval Europe evolved out of its Roman predessor. If you wish to say that Mideval armies are little better than barbarin hordes *hears Gladiator music* please back up your statement.

Of course the Late Middle Ages and Early Rennisance armies could take on the legions but they aren't really typical of the medieval age. Any army pre-Crusade is going to have a hard time. No trully medieval army is going to be able to take on the legions. They lost the notion of mass unit discipline which made Rome's legions so formidable.

The average medieval army was not very disciplined and poorly equipped with the individual knight forming the back bone. The thing is trying to fight the legions with individual tactics doesn't work. Numerous barbarians did the same, and they lost.

It was the art of soldiering that made the Roman war machine so fierce. They understood the meaning of teamwork. This is why 1v1 a roman soldier could loose against a Barbarian, but when faced against 3-1 numbers the Romans could win with just 8% casualties.

Trogdor wrote:There's a good chance that the Roman legions could've beaten Middle Age armies.

When Rome fell, technology and other things took a few steps backwards or at least advanced at a much slower speed because there was less sharing of knowledge in the world with everybody in different nations as opposed to a united empire.

Somewhat it did, they didn't use bathhouses anymore or aqueducts. Actually I remember hearing there's a section in the bible that says you shouldn't bathe. But how can we be sure that technology would have advanced if the empire hadn't fell, there were a lot of things they didn't believe in studying, like science, the higher maths, and particularly medicine which was often administered by a slave, disease was a huge problem back then.

I think that's why the Middle Ages are also refered to as the Dark Ages. The Middle Age armies probably had few advantages that the Romans didn't.

I think it's just the early middle ages referred to as the dark ages 476 (the fall of Rome) to like 900AD or something.

Trogdor wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:How well would the Romans do against a bunch of English Longbow men? Would there shields be able to stop the hail arrows? If not they would be in considerabul trouble.

The Roman legions were trained to hold their large shields up over their heads at the same time when the situation required it (except for the men in front, of course. They kept their shields in front of them and their heads were covered by the men behind them), thus making the unit almost invincible against projectile weapons. They weren't unused to stuff like longbows. A legion would easily crush British longbowmen.

I thought the longbow wasn't invented until the 100 years war between England and France, and it was a huge bow, like 6 feet tall, couldn't that go through a bronze shield?

The classic Romans would easily maul and rout any infantry from 476 to the rebirth of Pikemen, but they have no effective counter to a heavy cavalry charge with couched lance. A strong foray by knights could crack their formation and allow the medieval footsoldiers to gain the initiative. Assuming that the Roman tactics are static, they will be remarkably deadly but won't win all their battles.

Stormbringer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:Dont get too carried away with your statements. Mideval times covers one thousand years. There was a period of time when European armies were not as well organised as that of Rome, but one should not forget that mideval Europe evolved out of its Roman predessor. If you wish to say that Mideval armies are little better than barbarin hordes *hears Gladiator music* please back up your statement.

Of course the Late Middle Ages and Early Rennisance armies could take on the legions but they aren't really typical of the medieval age. Any army pre-Crusade is going to have a hard time. No trully medieval army is going to be able to take on the legions. They lost the notion of mass unit discipline which made Rome's legions so formidable.

The average medieval army was not very disciplined and poorly equipped with the individual knight forming the back bone. The thing is trying to fight the legions with individual tactics doesn't work. Numerous barbarians did the same, and they lost.

First things first. The individual knight never formed the backbone of mideval armies, that is a construct of Victorian times and has no real basis in fact. The reason for such an impression is due mainly to the mideval version of the spaggetti western, plays and ballads, and the prominace of the Joust as a sport.

Armies during mideval times were never really dominated by cavalry, you would have a ratio of about 5/1 or 6/1 or more in favour of foot.
Unssuported cavalry charges seldom worked and only the coordinated action of all arms, cavalry, infantry and archers, would win the day.
Cavalry doctrine called for cavalry to be used against the flank and never in isolation.

As to the professionalism of armies of the period..a lot depends on the time frame. Even after the fall of Rome there existed for a couple of centuries millitary units in France that were 'Roman' in their uniforms and organisation. The fall of Rome did not mean that Roman practices and traditions vanished overnight.

With the rise of the Frankish empires and the Kingdom of Wessex, you had the general levy and the select levy. The general levy was all able bodied men had to be trained to defend there town and immedite environs, which was ture even in Roman times in particular Late Roman times. The select levy was the reguar army that was composed of land magnates retinue and able bodies civilians. All able bodies men of the time were trained in combat as a matter of cource.
This system was a contiuation of late Roman practice and provided the King/Lord with a regualar army and a defended kingdom that was also able to bring in the Harvest with an army still in the field.

The discription you have given is one that was mainly a Victorion construct taken from selective sources and does not reflect what was actually the case.
As to who would win in a straight fight. Well what time period do you choose? a French army of 1412 vs an army of the early Roman Republic? what?
I cannot say, and I have not the time or inclination to do the nessary study, but I do know that you need to work more on your understanding of Mideval armies.

The French of 1412 would have a good amount of heavy cavalry and crossbowmen, plus some pike-armed infantry, so they could probably deal a Roman army some rough blows.

Shrykull wrote:I thought the longbow wasn't invented until the 100 years war between England and France, and it was a huge bow, like 6 feet tall, couldn't that go through a bronze shield?

Almost definitely. The longbow penetrated armor steel that was proof against early guns. The lorica segmantata was actually a rare armor for the Romans. Most soldiers wore either a bronze breastplate or chain mail, along with the scutum (shield), a pair of pila (javelins), a gladius (short sword), and a dagger (can't remember the name of their dagger). Early Roman soldiers wore one greave, on the right leg. Middle to late Roman soldiers did not. Late Roman soldiers also sometimes relied on linen cuirasses, as discipline broke down and the Roman army began adapting to barbarian fighting styles.

Assuming we use only Roman soldiers, disallowing barbarians, the Roman cavalry will be swept from the field. The cavalry in virtually every legion was formed of barbarians, who were often Gauls.

The longbow's rate of fire obviously varied on the skill of the archers, but a decent rate of fire was twelve shots per minute, and a good one fifteen. The average range was 240 yards, and a Welsh bow could penetrate 4 inches of oak. At the Siege of Abergavenny, a single arrow went through a mail skirt, mail leggings, the rider's thigh, the leggings again, the skirt again, the wooden saddle, and into the horse.

A modern tester fired a 30 gram arrow (lighter than most medieval) at 1mm of rolled steel plate. Broadhead arrows penetrated to a quarter of an inch. Short bodkins penetrated to 6", and long bodkins passed completely through the plate. The same arrows fired against chain mail all passed through. The broadhead suffered the worst, losing 1/4 of its force in penetration, mostly due to snapping six 2mm rings of steel mail. Other tests showed that a 70 pound bow with a bodkin arrow could penetrate 2mm of wrought iron if angle of incidence was under 20 degrees. I think it rather likely that longbow arrows could penetrate the bronze armor generally used by the Romans, though I am unsure at what range and how many would be needed to fight a legion. If the arrows penetrated both shield and armor, than relatively few would be needed. If they only partially penetrated the shield, enough would have to be fired to weight the shields down, at which point the Tortoise formation would no longer be useful. If that would be possible before the legion could 240 yards, I do not know.

It wasn't the strenght of the barbarians as much as it was the weakness of the empire that allowed the western empire to fall. It it's prime the Goths and Franks would have been little more than steps on the career ladder for an ambitious Roman General.

Medieval weapons technology might be slightly more advanced than classic Imperial but not by much and for most of the era Imperial armies would have smashed any force fielded by Medieval Europe. Late in the era there were developments that might have been able to overwhelm the Legions but the Legions were professional and most of all very adaptable and they would, given a bit of time adapt to the new situation.

The heavy cavalry would be a problem, particulary the late era versions but the Romans were no strangers to the heavy pikes, although they were considered obsolete and inflexible by the Romans when fighting mainly infantry a few heavy cavalry charges would change that.

The pike was somethink the Greeks used and pike armed infantry was crushed by the Legions centuries before the pike and the phalanx was reinvented in medieval times.

The Longbow would quite probably be the most difficult weapon to overcome. It was also a late development. Rome had fought many archer nations and survived behind shields and armor but the Longbow was so powerful it is questionable if the legionare's standard protection would be strong enough to withstand the longbows. Unlike most cavalry the legions would have some depth in their protection. The strong shields with body armor underneath would require solid hits to be effective.

The Legions also were superior in the more sophisticated forms of warfare such as siegecraft, artillery, fieldworks and logistics. The Legions would not win every battle but against the all but the very latest of the medieval armies my money would be on the legions, and even the knights and longbow men would have to fight hard to defeat Rome's finest.

A good occurance of this type of confrontation was when a Crusader group refused to give captured cities to the Byzantines. They attacked Constantiople, and got the shit beat out of them.

The romans know of the pike, but would a roman army be equiped, and its soldiers properly trained in its use? Would they even know that a pike is effective against heavy cavalry... ie "Heavy cavalry, break out the pikes!"? I don't think they ever faced a charging wall of steel before.

Wasn't the pike a defensive weapon to protect their offensive unit (the bowman, crossbowman, or gunner) from cavalry charges? If the romans infantry (main unit) form a defensive square (or whatever) with pikes for protection, the middle aged troops don't need a cavalry charge. They simply need to attack with their more numerous ranged units.

Darth Gojira wrote:A good occurance of this type of confrontation was when a Crusader group refused to give captured cities to the Byzantines. They attacked Constantiople, and got the shit beat out of them.

If I recall correctly, the bizantines no longer used the gladius wielding legion unit, rather: heavy infantry, light/heavy cavalry, and horse archers.