Historically when did the Romans become beatable?

[HemlockGrey]

Hell, I guess you learn something new every third or fourth day.

[Shrykull]

Historically when did military technology/capability recapture what was once lost and become able to fight on parity or beat the Roman legions of old?

What about at the renaissance when canons made castles obselete. And I'm guessing they must have had some fairly powerful guns, or shields wouldn't have become obsolete. One history teacher I had said that a civil war rifle couldn't hit the big world map 8 feet away, I don't think it could be THAT bad, if you pointed a gun at me and had a 85% chance of missing it might not be that threatening.

[Perinquus]

Historically when did military technology/capability recapture what was once lost and become able to fight on parity or beat the Roman legions of old?

What about at the renaissance when canons made castles obselete. And I'm guessing they must have had some fairly powerful guns, or shields wouldn't have become obsolete.

It wasn't just the advent of more powerful guns that made castles obsolete. I doubt a classical Roman army would have had any difficulty taking the vast majority of medieval castles (though the really heavily fortified ones, like Krak des Chevaliers might have given them a tough time).

Part of the reasons castles were so effective in their day was that they were very good in providing an adequate defense against the relatively small armies of the Middle Ages. Most medieval armies were not that large, and much of their manpower consisted of barely trained peasant levies. It was beyond the logistical capabilities of most medieval states to keep a really large army in the field for a great length of time. William the Conqueror, for example, was thought by his contemporaries to have done something really remarkable in keeping an army of somewhat over 5000 men sitting on the Norman coast all summer in 1066, and in maintaining discipline. To the Romans, this would have been nothing at all.

As the Renaissance came on, states grew richer and more powerful, and their tax gathering mechanisms grew more efficient, their military, and particularly logistical capabilities increased. So in addition to better guns, they were able to field larger armies. There also came to be more dependence on professional troops, and less reliance on peasant levies, which increased their effectiveness still further.

One history teacher I had said that a civil war rifle couldn't hit the big world map 8 feet away, I don't think it could be THAT bad, if you pointed a gun at me and had a 85% chance of missing it might not be that threatening.

Sigh... yet another example of how our educational system is going down the tubes. If this ignoramus is teaching history... The blind leading the blind.

He was talking out his ass. Even an unrifled Revolutionary War-era musket was accurate enough to hit a man sized target within a range of about 80 yards every time, given a good marksman. Rifled arms were accurate at much longer range. Rifles existed since the 15th century, but were slower to reload due to the greater difficulty of ramming a very tight fitting (and it had to be tight fitting in order for the rifling to impart spin to the projectile) ball all the way down a 30 inch (or longer) barrel. All this changed in the mid-19th century with the invention of the minie ball. The ball got its name from its inventor, Captain Claude Minie of the French Army. It was conical in shape and made of soft lead, with two or three grease grooves around its body. The cylinder-conical ball usually had a cavity in the base. It fitted loosely in the barrel, and so was easily rammed down. But upon firing, the hot gases produced by the burning black powder charge expanded into the hollow base of the ball, forcing the soft lead into the rifling grooves inside the barrel of the musket, making a tight fit to the rifling, which then imparted a spin to the ball, making its range an incredible 1500 yards, with extreme accuracy at 350 yards or less. At 600 yards, a .58 caliber Minie ball fired from a Springfield or Enfield rifled musket could penetrate six 1 inch pine boards. When it hit the human body, destruction of tissues, cartilage, vein, and bone was massive. The soft lead flattened and broke apart as it hit flesh. If a man was hit in the arm or leg, the bullet shattered the bone from 6 to 10 inches and necessity for amputation was certain. If hit in the torso, a man was usually left to die.

It was the accurate, rifled musket, which could be reloaded every bit as fast as the old smoothbores, which pretty much made the old tactics of tight infantry formations fighting in close order obsolete. It took the generals a while to realize this, and horrendous casualties resulted.

[Darth Gojira]

Historically when did military technology/capability recapture what was once lost and become able to fight on parity or beat the Roman legions of old?

What about at the renaissance when canons made castles obselete. And I'm guessing they must have had some fairly powerful guns, or shields wouldn't have become obsolete. One history teacher I had said that a civil war rifle couldn't hit the big world map 8 feet away, I don't think it could be THAT bad, if you pointed a gun at me and had a 85% chance of missing it might not be that threatening.

Guns AND professinonal armies. I really doubt that a nineteenth century rifle would be that inaccurate.

[Stormbringer]

Historically when did military technology/capability recapture what was once lost and become able to fight on parity or beat the Roman legions of old?

What about at the renaissance when canons made castles obselete. And I'm guessing they must have had some fairly powerful guns, or shields wouldn't have become obsolete. One history teacher I had said that a civil war rifle couldn't hit the big world map 8 feet away, I don't think it could be THAT bad, if you pointed a gun at me and had a 85% chance of missing it might not be that threatening.

Guns AND professinonal armies. I really doubt that a nineteenth century rifle would be that inaccurate.

Some of them really were that bad or even worse. That's why for the longest time it took massed ranks of soldiers firing a concentrated volley to inflict much damage on the enemy. It ensured you'd hit some one by sheer weight of fire.

[Perinquus]

What about at the renaissance when canons made castles obselete. And I'm guessing they must have had some fairly powerful guns, or shields wouldn't have become obsolete. One history teacher I had said that a civil war rifle couldn't hit the big world map 8 feet away, I don't think it could be THAT bad, if you pointed a gun at me and had a 85% chance of missing it might not be that threatening.

Guns AND professinonal armies. I really doubt that a nineteenth century rifle would be that inaccurate.

Some of them really were that bad or even worse. That's why for the longest time it took massed ranks of soldiers firing a concentrated volley to inflict much damage on the enemy. It ensured you'd hit some one by sheer weight of fire.

Did you even bother to read what I posted earlier? Guns were not that innacurate. Only the very earliest and crudest medieval "hand gonnes" may have been that bad. Otherwise, it is inconceivable that they ever would have replaced the crossbow (which would, in that case, have been both more accurate, and easier to manufacture). What I posted earlier is an accurate description of the capabilities of smoothbore and rifled muzzle-loading firearms. If you don't want to take my word for it, go find an authoritative work on the history of firearms, but for god's sake don't repeat that ignorant nonsense about muzzle loading arms being too inaccurate to hit a large target mere feet away. It's inexcusably absurd.

[Peregrin Toker]

Any image you have of traditionally armed, foot-marching legions being smashed by stirrup using heavy cavalry is a false one. No encounter like that ever took place. If you are thinking of Adrianople, the Gothic cavalry did not have stirrups.

And, for that matter, neither did the Huns. However - by the time Attila attacked the Roman Empire, were the Roman legions already replaced by mercenaries or did that take place much later??

[Perinquus]

Any image you have of traditionally armed, foot-marching legions being smashed by stirrup using heavy cavalry is a false one. No encounter like that ever took place. If you are thinking of Adrianople, the Gothic cavalry did not have stirrups.

And, for that matter, neither did the Huns. However - by the time Attila attacked the Roman Empire, were the Roman legions already replaced by mercenaries or did that take place much later??

They weren't completely replaced by mercenaries, however they were partly replaced by large numbers of barbarian foederati. And the native Roman troops tended to be both less well trained and less well equipped than formerly. Many, for example, did entirely without body armor, making do with nothing more than a shield and helmet. The infantry had, by this time, also abandoned the classical gladius hispaniensis for a longer slashing sword.

[Peregrin Toker]

Any image you have of traditionally armed, foot-marching legions being smashed by stirrup using heavy cavalry is a false one. No encounter like that ever took place. If you are thinking of Adrianople, the Gothic cavalry did not have stirrups.

And, for that matter, neither did the Huns. However - by the time Attila attacked the Roman Empire, were the Roman legions already replaced by mercenaries or did that take place much later??

They weren't completely replaced by mercenaries, however they were partly replaced by large numbers of barbarian foederati. And the native Roman troops tended to be both less well trained and less well equipped than formerly. Many, for example, did entirely without body armor, making do with nothing more than a shield and helmet. The infantry had, by this time, also abandoned the classical gladius hispaniensis for a longer slashing sword.

Hmm... exactly why did they switch from the gladii to longswords?

I assume that it might have been a result of the Germanic tribesmen joining the army - after all, the Germanics were probably more familiar with a longsword than a gladius hispaniensis.

BTW - I'm no expert on swordsmanship, so I'd like to know whether a longsword or a gladius is superior overall. The longsword is obviously better at slashing and can do potentially more damage that way, but the gladius is lighter and less cumbersome.

[Perinquus]

Hmm... exactly why did they switch from the gladii to longswords?

I assume that it might have been a result of the Germanic tribesmen joining the army - after all, the Germanics were probably more familiar with a longsword than a gladius hispaniensis.

BTW - I'm no expert on swordsmanship, so I'd like to know whether a longsword or a gladius is superior overall. The longsword is obviously better at slashing and can do potentially more damage that way, but the gladius is lighter and less cumbersome.

It was probably mostly because of the increasing numbers of Germanic barbarians in the army. The gladius is definitely superior for close order formations, and it was a broad bladed sword, so it still did a tremendous amount of damage.

[Pablo Sanchez]

BTW - I'm no expert on swordsmanship, so I'd like to know whether a longsword or a gladius is superior overall. The longsword is obviously better at slashing and can do potentially more damage that way, but the gladius is lighter and less cumbersome.

In order to get a proper blow in with a longsword you need space on either side, so it's a poor weapon for close formations. A gladius is better because it's designed for a short, sharp thrusting movement. It also cooperates better with a shield, especially in the classic Legionnaire's attack: smash with the shield boss, stab in the belly.

For more individualistic attack-oriented tactics like those used by the Germans the longsword is better, because it allows a man to put more momentum behind his blows and have longer reach. As Perinquus said, it is probably the Germans who popularized the long sword (around the same time the legions also adopted the practice of the warcry and charge, as opposed to the classical orderly advance to javelin range, then a quick shock with pilums and a rapid closure of the remaining few meters).

[Pablo Sanchez]

I just want to say that this army would obviously be defeated by the eighty-thousand man force of heavy-armoured cavalry Knights that served as the rearguard of Emperor Karl's army when he retired from campaigning in Spain, and was commanded by Count Roland and his faithful lieutenants, Olivier and the Archbishop Turpin! *cackles*

And who were most definitely defeated by infidel Moors and certainly never slaughtered by Christian Basques.

I'll trump you. You bring Charlemagne's army, and I'll bring the vastness of the Christian King Prester John, who ruled the entire extent of Asia and who commanded an army of millions.

[Sea Skimmer]

It was the accurate, rifled musket, which could be reloaded every bit as fast as the old smoothbores, which pretty much made the old tactics of tight infantry formations fighting in close order obsolete. It took the generals a while to realize this, and horrendous casualties resulted.

It was the further step up to breechloaders really that got things changed , The effectiveness of the breach loading Prussian needle gun at Sadowa got formations significantly dispersed in all armies. The fact that it fired six times as fast as well as making fighting lying down practical made a thick skirmish line far more effective then one with rifled muskets. Course when troops armed with it ran into Frenchmen with far superior Chassepot's who had been insufficiently knocked around by artillery fire it wasn't so great..

But by then troops where far better dispersed, except for both sides moronic calvary who where busy finish the process of converting away from such useful units as dragoons and light horse in favor of nothing but heavy saber armed cavalry.

[Sea Skimmer]

Some of them really were that bad or even worse. That's why for the longest time it took massed ranks of soldiers firing a concentrated volley to inflict much damage on the enemy. It ensured you'd hit some one by sheer weight of fire.

No as already noted basically no gun powder arms where that bad. Massed ranks where important not only for massing fire but also key to keeping men under command and control.

[Perinquus]

It was the further step up to breechloaders really that got things changed , The effectiveness of the breach loading Prussian needle gun at Sadowa got formations significantly dispersed in all armies. The fact that it fired six times as fast as well as making fighting lying down practical made a thick skirmish line far more effective then one with rifled muskets. Course when troops armed with it ran into Frenchmen with far superior Chassepot's who had been insufficiently knocked around by artillery fire it wasn't so great..

Breechloaders accelerated the change, but it started with muzzle loading rifled muskets. It was just suicidal to stand out in the open in close formation when the enemy no longer had to wait till you got within 100 to 150 yards to make volley fire effective, but could start picking you off at over 500. This was deadly, even when the rate of fire was only three shots per minute.

Then along came the breechloaders and made it even worse.

But by then troops where far better dispersed, except for both sides moronic calvary who where busy finish the process of converting away from such useful units as dragoons and light horse in favor of nothing but heavy saber armed cavalry.

You forgot lancers.

[Peregrin Toker]

I'll trump you. You bring Charlemagne's army, and I'll bring the vastness of the Christian King Prester John, who ruled the entire extent of Asia and who commanded an army of millions.

Isn't he called King Johannes Presbyter?? Oh - and by the way, that mythical king is so criminally obscure today that most people would be amazed by the fact that in medieval times he was almost as famous as King Arthur of Britain.

Some historians suggest that the legends of King Johannes Presbyter might originate in tales about the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia... or, for that matter, stories about the vast army of Genghis Khan Temujin defeating the Muslims. (Okay, Temujin was never a Christian. But it was possible that somewhere along the road, one storyteller decided to pretend that Temujin was a Christian and change his name to something European-sounding, in order to comfort despairful Christians back in the heartland of Christian Europe)

[Darth Gojira]

I'll trump you. You bring Charlemagne's army, and I'll bring the vastness of the Christian King Prester John, who ruled the entire extent of Asia and who commanded an army of millions.

Isn't he called King Johannes Presbyter?? Oh - and by the way, that mythical king is so criminally obscure despite the fact that in medieval times he was almost as famous as King Arthur of Britain.

Some historians suggest that the legends of King Johannes Presbyter might originate in tales about the Christian kingdom of Ethiopia... or, for that matter, stories about the vast army of Genghis Khan Temujin defeating the Muslims. (Okay, Temujin was never a Christian. But it was possible that somewhere along the road, one storyteller decided to pretend that Temujin was a Christian and change his name to something European-sounding, in order to comfort despairful Christians back in the heartland of Christian Europe)

Well, Nestorian missionaries did convert plenty of Mongols(Mongha Khan's mom for one), but Uighers were Muslim, and Genghis Khan Temujin was an animist. His favorite deity was the Great Blue Sky.

[Peregrin Toker]

Well, Nestorian missionaries did convert plenty of Mongols(Mongha Khan's mom for one), but Uighers were Muslim, and Genghis Khan Temujin was an animist. His favorite deity was the Great Blue Sky.

Interesting - it was said than King Johannes Presbyter was a Nestorian.

(then again, it was also said that the shock troops department of his army was entirely composed of tribal cannibalistic berzerkers)

[Darth Gojira]

Well, Nestorian missionaries did convert plenty of Mongols(Mongha Khan's mom for one), but Uighers were Muslim, and Genghis Khan Temujin was an animist. His favorite deity was the Great Blue Sky.

Interesting - it was said than King Johannes Presbyter was a Nestorian.

(then again, it was also said that the shock troops department of his army was entirely composed of tribal cannibalistic berzerkers)

Not to mention that Mongols were the spawn of Gog and Agog(Biblical giants that I've heard very little about)

[Pablo Sanchez]

Isn't he called King Johannes Presbyter?

In Germany. In England he was Prester John.