Middle ages armies vs Roman armies

[CJvR]

The traditional Legions would not be equipped with pikes, but they were flexible and learned very fast from their enemies when they needed to.

The role of the pike has varied through history from the offensive phalanxes and terrocios to defensive formations and back to offence again. It remained in use until the flintlock and the bayonette merged the two weapons.

[Darth Gojira]

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.

Thank you. I always suspected that the Persian wars neccessitated large mounted forces.

[HemlockGrey]

Byzantine-style warfare wasn't even remotely similar to that of the legions.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Byzantine-style warfare wasn't even remotely similar to that of the legions.

Yes, it was, it was a direct evolution of the same doctrine--they just switched to applying the warfare system to cavalry instead of infantry to meet the threat of large eastern cavalry armies. Conversely, in the Balkans, the average Byzantine Army (Consisting of twelve Chiliarchies of foot normally) had sixteen, with a commisurately reduced cavalry force. The height of Byzantine doctrine is perhaps in the Strategikon of Maurice, which outlines the use of all-cavalry forces (including certain units to be used somewhat like dragoons) with infantry only for garrisons.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

As for a comparison of the western european forces and the military of the Principate, I would have to say--it depends entirely on the era. The military of the Principate remains superiour throughout its history to any military force in the Middle Ages, including the English, who were only able to win battles through the intelligent use of terrain to position the otherwise highly vulnerable longbows. The inability of the Longbow to be a purely decisive weapon when heavy infantry with good discipline is properly deployed, was demonstrated during the War of the Roses.

And that's the entire thing of it. In the 15th century there was a major military revival going on. The Swiss were using formations of pike and halberds that would give the legions a run for their money, surely--none of the victories against the hellenistic armies were easy, even if by their nature they turned into routs once decided, and the addition of the halberd to cover vulnerable gaps might even reverse the normal inflexibility of the old Macedonian-style phalanx. The French made a conscious attempt to form their own legions. This never quite worked out, and French infantry would never compare to that of Augustus, but there was a clear understanding and imitation of the Legionary method in the 15th century. This was also occuring in Germany, for that matter.

I would have to say that from the Swiss victory at Sempach in 1386 until the victory of the Spanish Tercios at Pavia in 1525--or, well, broadly around those times--there was a period when the Roman Legions would have been about average for a Western European force. In particular a western European force. One must remember that terrain does dictate combat; and most of Europe has never really been suited for large-scale cavalry tactics. People have forgotten this and often elevated the importance of the mounted knight to much greater than the role he really served. Before the era of Sempach or so, the Romans would really be capable of dealing with most any army on the continent--say, from the mid-14th century or earlier.

[Perinquus]

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).

Actually, I do not believe that is correct. The lorica segmentata was not an uncommon armor at all. I dispute that statement, and would like to see a source for it. It first appeared during the reign of Augustus, and may have been developed in response to the huge loss of men and materiel in the Teutoburger Wald in AD 9. It became popular because it provided better protection than mail and was actually far easier and less time consuming to make.

Mail was a common defense from Republican times. And in fact bronze seems to have been largely abandoned for body defenses in the Republican period because of its inferior protective value, though it remained for helmets for a long time. But during the 1st century AD bronze became increasingly rare for helmets as superior ironworking techniques were learned from the Gauls. The bronze that remained in service during and after the first century AD was likely all, or nearly all of earlier manufacture, and was merely kept in service because it was still serviceable. The Romans didn't have our concept of obsolescence. Arms and armor were kept in service as long as they were in serviceable condition, and no attempt was made to assure absolute uniformity of equipment, even within particular units. So you might see soldiers of one legion wearing a mix of Corbridge and Newstead type loricae segmentatae, a variety of loricae hamatae (mailshirts), along with a few loricae squamatae (scale hauberks); and you might see helmets of Coolus, Montefortino, Imperial Italic, and Imperial Gallic helmets of various types. (Note that these are terms of convenience used by modern archaeologists; we have no idea what, if any, different names the Romans themselves had for these variations in type.)

Roman armor was actually quite good. Combined with their large, heavy shields, and close order tactics, they were extremely well protected, though likely not well enough to stand up to longbows at close range.

However, the English (and Welsh) were the only ones to field longbowmen in the Middle Ages, and they never really had all that many.

[The Dark]

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).

Actually, I do not believe that is correct. The lorica segmentata was not an uncommon armor at all. I dispute that statement, and would like to see a source for it.

You're going to have to wait until October, because the source is a library book which is three counties away while I'm at school. I believe the book is "Greece and Rome at War" by Peter Connolly, but I'm not 100% certain, and I can't give you a page number. IIRC, he said it was rare compared to the bronze breastplate and to chain mail through virtually the entire existence of the legion

However, the English (and Welsh) were the only ones to field longbowmen in the Middle Ages, and they never really had all that many.

True, I believe the largest longbow formation ever used was 5,000 archers, or roughly one legion of longbowmen.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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).

Actually, I do not believe that is correct. The lorica segmentata was not an uncommon armor at all. I dispute that statement, and would like to see a source for it.

You're going to have to wait until October, because the source is a library book which is three counties away while I'm at school. I believe the book is "Greece and Rome at War" by Peter Connolly, but I'm not 100% certain, and I can't give you a page number. IIRC, he said it was rare compared to the bronze breastplate and to chain mail through virtually the entire existence of the legion

However, the English (and Welsh) were the only ones to field longbowmen in the Middle Ages, and they never really had all that many.

True, I believe the largest longbow formation ever used was 5,000 archers, or roughly one legion of longbowmen.

Bronze was reduced to virtually ceremonial purposes by the Marian reforms, though certainly one would legionaires with bronze armour well past them; simply not common. The Augustan army reforms established the lorica segmentata but that was probably never quite used as much as the mail and scale (the later being relatively uncommong but I'm referring to both together). By the time of Trajan I'd suspect that the only bronze in the army, short of helmets, would be for officers and NCOs and largely for use on parade. OTOH by the time of Augustus the use of greaves was definitely uncommon, except by Centurions, perhaps.

[Trytostaydead]

Partially reading a book on the Roman legions in the bookstore, all I have to say is.. Goddamn. Rome was quite simply amazing. Granted, a bulk of their forces were auxillary and numerically I think they would've been overwhelmed by the forces Medieval times could muster.

But all I have to say is that Roman legions were intensely trained in about every form of combat there was, and got regular work outs from constantly building and spreading the glory of Rome. I forget how long their training cycle was, but it was pretty dang long if I recall. They trained for all manners of attacks and defenses using very effective teamwork to go in there and smash to shit enemy forces. As long as they stayed as a unit, they could wade in like a chopping machine.

Infantry against infantry, I would see no problem with the Roman legions running roughshod over anyone else.. except maybe those damn brits. Everyone seems to have problems with those wild brits

Their siege tactics and sheer TENACITY was INCREDIBLE. When they wanted to take something done, by jove.. if it's on the top of a mountain and they have to build a mountain to reach it..

Eh.. sorry, I'm a bit biased in this argument

[CJvR]

After the civil war of the second triumvirate the Roman armies had some 60 legions and numbered over 500.000 men.

During the crisis of the third century the Roman army had over 600.000 men, including heavy cavalry, in arms.

[NecronLord]

if it's on the top of a mountain and they have to build a mountain to reach it..

As I recall, everyone in rome thought that Siva's Ramp was hillarious.

[Perinquus]

After the civil war of the second triumvirate the Roman armies had some 60 legions and numbered over 500.000 men.

During the crisis of the third century the Roman army had over 600.000 men, including heavy cavalry, in arms.

Augustus cut the army down to about half that size. It wasn't necessary for it to be that big in order to gurad the frontiers, and with so many legions idle, it might have given local commanders funny ideas about power grabs. It was also a big drain on the economy. This is an important consideration, since ancient economies were not quite as robust as ours in some ways.

[Stuart Mackey]

Partially reading a book on the Roman legions in the bookstore, all I have to say is.. Goddamn. Rome was quite simply amazing. Granted, a bulk of their forces were auxillary and numerically I think they would've been overwhelmed by the forces Medieval times could muster.

snip

The armies of Midival times could be anything from 10 000 to at most 100 000. Remember that Europe after Rome was fragmented and had issues with disese etc.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Augustus cut the army down to about half that size. It wasn't necessary for it to be that big in order to gurad the frontiers, and with so many legions idle, it might have given local commanders funny ideas about power grabs. It was also a big drain on the economy. This is an important consideration, since ancient economies were not quite as robust as ours in some ways.

EDIT: Augustus did reduce the size of the army to about thirty legions, but there was also the Praetorian Guard and the Vigiles, which were counted as a military force, along with the other paramilitary police units in the cities which Augustus formed and were considered party of the army (and ought be considered so for financial purposes at any rate, though I grant we're looking at a military consideration a bit different from the usual one).

Combined with the usual auxilia forces, we'd have an army of in excess of 300,000 combat troops and paramilitary forces besides. However, by the time of Trajan this force has been definitely increased.

[Stuart Mackey]

Byzantine-style warfare wasn't even remotely similar to that of the legions.

Yes, it was, it was a direct evolution of the same doctrine--they just switched to applying the warfare system to cavalry instead of infantry to meet the threat of large eastern cavalry armies. Conversely, in the Balkans, the average Byzantine Army (Consisting of twelve Chiliarchies of foot normally) had sixteen, with a commisurately reduced cavalry force. The height of Byzantine doctrine is perhaps in the Strategikon of Maurice, which outlines the use of all-cavalry forces (including certain units to be used somewhat like dragoons) with infantry only for garrisons.

What I find interesting is that Byzantium used the old Roman commands..except, of course, in Greek.

[Perinquus]

Augustus cut the army down to about half that size. It wasn't necessary for it to be that big in order to gurad the frontiers, and with so many legions idle, it might have given local commanders funny ideas about power grabs. It was also a big drain on the economy. This is an important consideration, since ancient economies were not quite as robust as ours in some ways.

EDIT: Augustus did reduce the size of the army to about thirty legions, but there was also the Praetorian Guard and the Vigiles, which were counted as a military force, along with the other paramilitary police units in the cities which Augustus formed and were considered party of the army (and ought be considered so for financial purposes at any rate, though I grant we're looking at a military consideration a bit different from the usual one).

Combined with the usual auxilia forces, we'd have an army of in excess of 300,000 combat troops and paramilitary forces besides. However, by the time of Trajan this force has been definitely increased.

I see you edited it before I could reply. As I said, he reduced the army to about half its former size, cutting the number of legions from 60 to 28,settling in the process more than 100,000 veterans in colonies in Italy, Africa, Asia, and Syria. While proscription financed previous resettlement efforts, the vast wealth of Egypt, which he seized after Antony's defeat, subsidized Augustus' massive resettlement program. He raised the troops' salary and regularized the payment of pensions, which consisted of land and money, to veterans. Augustus, thus, reduced the old threat of soldiers giving their allegiance to wealthy generals rather than to the state. He also standardized the length of military service. The Roman legion became a professional, long service force with an esprit de corp that earlier legions did not have (apart from certain exceptional units that is, like Julius Caesar's favorite, the 10th legion).