Roman Legions vs Medieval Armies

Gaius Octavius · December 22, 2006

Walls were not an impediment to the Romans. Brute force via ladders and ramps; sappers, onagers, stealth. Think of Masada and Alesia. The Corona Muralis. Cavalry charges do not perforce result in victory. A Roman square or circle could handle such an occurrence. If a line were charged, the cavalry could easily be out flanked. Cavalry was mostly used for flanking purposes against infantry.

Hadrian's Wall and the Danube Wall were primarily for population control and customs duties. There were at least three Roman forts beyond Hadrian's Wall for defensive purposes.

The Romans had arrows and slingers. An arrow will easily pass through medieval armor. But, then there was Crassus. The 'Parthian' shot.

Nonetheless, in my opinion, the general who prepared best before the battle would win.

Edit: To the purposes for cavalry add scouting, guarding foragers and following up after a victory.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

Titus001 · December 23, 2006

What we need to decide is which infantry was better trained and better deciplined.

Bryaxis Hecatee · December 23, 2006

Now I think they are some assumptions here about roman infantry and medieval cavalry which seems a bit wrong to me.

Let me explain : roman infantry was trained to meet cavalry, even heavy cavalry, from the time of Augustus until the fall of Constantinople to the knights. They had formations designed to withstand heavy cavalry charges, as shown by the fightings in Dacia under Trajanus ( who had to fight armored cavalry where both men and horses wore armor ) and in Parthia ( Cataphractes and Clibanarii cavalry forces ) : a macedonian phalanx like front could be presented to the knights, behind which regularly armed legionaries would be able to throw their heavy pilum on the knights whose armor would be pierced. And a barrage of pilum is enough to halt any cavalry charge ( as shown by Caesar's defeat of the Pompeian cavalry led by Labienus ) What could be more of a threat would be British longbows and French or Italian crossbows. Those weapons could indeed get through armor and hurt the roman legionaries. Except that unlike medieval units the roman infantry did have good shields with the scutum as they had good formations ( the so called turtle formation ). Thus they could walk toward the enemy formation without sustaining too many losses especially if they own support units, mostly archers but also field artillery ( which was not used by medieval armies but could be quite deadly and mobile : think about Caesar's ballistae and Trajanus carroballistae ) which had a good rate of fire and as great if not greater a range than British longbows.

Thus in the end I think that between numbers, training, armor, equipment, formations and leadership the roman army would best most if not all the medieval armies.

As for siege craft the medieval fortifications would not have been such a problem to the roman army. When one sees what was done in Massada or in Dacia one understand the greatest advantage of the roman in siege operations : the existence of a specialized corp of engineer whose task in live was to build and destroy things, including walls and fortifications. Something which did not really exist until rather late in the M-A.

Titus001 · December 23, 2006

I got a question,why did medieval armies for the most part adopt the long sword and small shield?It seems to me the infantry went backwards since the celts,german and other people's favored the long sword and the romans easily for the most part beat them most of the time,the gladius is not the best sword ever,but teamed with the big shield it was the best combo ever in war in my opinion,So why did the armies of the medieval time favored long swords?Did they go back to there roots which was warrior vs warrior,AKA long swords which did not favor formation fighting like the romans.

Gaius Octavius · December 24, 2006

The medieval knights, who had the long swords, did not - generally - stab or duel with them. A little too heavy for that. They swung them around, with both hands, slashing at the enemy.

Edited December 24, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

roman wargamer · December 24, 2006

Cicero was a non-military man and so am I

my apology... i thought you are looking for a realistic ancient military battle game.

still why not try even only a little one playable on this trhread. a 3 square width X 9 square lenght.

it is exciting one as most pro players who tried it.

Kosmo · December 28, 2006

Romans could not have infantry formations to fight heavy cavalry as there was no heavy cavary at their time.

The armored cavalry used by sarmatians, parthians, persians and romans was still not build for head-on charge but firstly for missile fire and other missions. Alexander's Companions and Thessalians were a heavier type that could charge other horseman but not head-on a phalanx.

MA knights were trained and equiped only for charge against infantry and other cavalry units.

They had large, strong horses that could carry them with all the armor and that mass would break enemy lines. The high sadle and straight stirups gave them a god grip on the horse so they could take the impact and do not fly away. They had long weapons that allowed them to attack from some distance and shorter ones for close combat. Strong armor gave horse and man a lot of protection against missiles.

Pole weapons and powerful projectiles were the only things that infantry could use against them in favorable conditions (swiss crossbowmen, english longbowmen, halebardiers, pikeman, husite war chariots and fire weapons)

As I already told you, there is a big difference between the strenghts of Masada and Krak de Chevaliers.

Titus001 · December 28, 2006

kosmo?there was no heavy cavarly at that time?please explain why parthia and some germans had heavy armored cavarly,romans against heavy cavarly is a myth,all you need is a balanced attack to win,romans had more trouble against horsearchers over heavy cavarly.And knights are kind of overrated,these people were elites that got the armor,training,motivation,but how many knights can be on the field at 1 time?Most of medieval armies were made up by peasant,consripts that for the most part got no armor,little training and would flee at first glance of any deciplined army.

roman wargamer · December 29, 2006

Romans could not have infantry formations to fight heavy cavalry...

i beg your pardon... the Italian Romanus Legiones have one. the Battle Line Formation.

then try to imagine... if even the most heavy cavalry could penetrate...

a three segragated line and a contineous formation of long thrusting spear

this is the Roman Legiones standard military battle formation in Caesar era.

(only one cohortia is represented)

First Agmen or Battle Column

the Hastatus Battle Line Formation

______________________________________________________________________________

the prior in centurion line formation (first line)

basic weapon; scutum, hasta and gladius. amentata

[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...

the posterior in centurion line formation (second line)

basic weapon; scutum, hasta and gladius, amentata

[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...

the anteadstatus in supernumerary line (third line)could be move in front or rear of hastatus

basic weapon; koile, hastula and pugio, velitaris

O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...

________________________________________________________________________________

Secondus Agmen or Battle Column

the Prindeps Battle Line Formation

________________________________________________________________________________

the prior in centurion line formation (fourth line)

basic weapon; clipeus, hastae princeps and gladius. amentata

()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...

the posterior in centurion line formation (fifth line)

basic weapon; clipeus, hastae princeps and gladius. amentata

()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/..()/.()/.()/...

the anteprinceps in supernumerary line (sixth) could be move in front or rear of princeps

basic weapon; koile, hastula and pugio, velitaris

O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...

________________________________________________________________________________

seventh line

the Cohors Signeferi Centuria

________________________________________________________________________________

Third Agmen or Battle Column

the Triarii Battle Line Formation

________________________________________________________________________________

the prior in centurion line formation (eight line)

basic weapon; scutum, hastae triarius and gladius, martiobarbulus

[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...

the posterior in centurion line formation (ninth line)

basic weapon; scutum, hastae triarius and gladius, martiobarbulus

[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/..[]/.[]/.[]/...

the antetriarius in supernumerary line (tenth line) could be move in front or rear of triarii

basic weapon; koile, hastula and pugio, velitaris

O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...O/.O/.O/...

_________________________________________________________________________________

i claim copyright to this workguess on Roman Military Organizarional Structure and Formation.

Rad Adenir Dulay

Edited December 29, 2006 by roman wargamer

Kosmo · December 29, 2006

It depends on what you call heavy cavalry. I think that heavy cavalry has to be heavy meaning armor, large horses, ways to use effectively a lance while charging.

Regardless how we call it romans never had or met something similar with knights because those were the result of a long evolution.

Some medieval armies used low quality levies as infantry support. Other units of non nobles could be highly proffesional like town militias in Spain during Reconquista or english longbowmen.

In large battles no side used untreined soldiers : Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt, Varna, Los Navas de Tolosa etc.

Ottomans used succesfully untrained troops fighting only for loot - bashi bouzouk. They were used as skirmishers or as a human wave being usually the first to fight the enemy (Nicopole).

Northern Neil · December 29, 2006

In a sense, this debate was actually tested at the Battle of Agincourt. Henry V dismounted his knights. He then allowed the French to charge his position - during which time missile fire from the longbowmen whittled them down. By the time the remaining knights reached the English position, the dismounted English knights and men at arms cut them to pieces. I believe thats the way a legion would have operated against a similar foe. They would also have sown their frontage with caltrops and lillies.

Titus001 · December 30, 2006

kosmo make sense for the part by saying the romans did not fight cavarly like in the middle ages,we know this,well atleast i hope we do,but how many knights could be on the battle field at one time to win the battlle?I think most of us know the battle will for the most part like 90% of the time will come down to the infantry,ok we know medieval cavarly was superior to the romans,but what about the infantry kosmos?Were the medieval armies for the most part well armed,trained and deciplined like the romans? i think not........

Im talking about the common soldier no elite people who got the best of everything,was the common infantry of the medieval period from around 600AD to 1300AD better than romes infantry,we already know the cavarly was better but what about the infantry?Or do you think the elite knights would win the battle with there invincible charge that would run amouk the poor romans?

Gaius Octavius · December 30, 2006

In a sense, this debate was actually tested at the Battle of Agincourt. Henry V dismounted his knights. He then allowed the French to charge his position - during which time missile fire from the longbowmen whittled them down. By the time the remaining knights reached the English position, the dismounted English knights and men at arms cut them to pieces. I believe thats the way a legion would have operated against a similar foe. They would also have sown their frontage with caltrops and lillies.

In addition, a lot of mud helped the English. So did some very dumb French commanders.

Titus001 · December 30, 2006

You guys can talk about how great the knight was or the longbow,but what about the common soldier in the infantry,how were they armed,trained,deciplined.Were they just as well armed,trained,deciplined as the romans?Or as i think most medieval armies for the most part were peasants/consripts that were not well armed,deciplined or the motivation as the common roman infantry.

roman wargamer · December 30, 2006

I think that heavy cavalry has to be heavy , meaning armor, large horses,

even the best armour and the most thickest one will be penetrated by the metal spike of spear...

try to wear it and charge a wall of spear and you might possibly killed yourself in a test.

romans never had or met something similar with knights

wrong...in Trajan/Hadrian era; they already have conttarii and clibanarii-almost the same as knight armor.

J. Caesar have proven in Pharsalus that cavalry can be defeated in flank counter atatck.

cavalry or knight attack are deadly only as a second flanking counter attack while the

enemy front battle line are pin down.

Other units of non nobles could be highly proffesional like town militias

the Roman have an standing 300,000 militias that reach mostly 600,000 in Caesar era.

Poitiers, Crecy, Agincourt, Varna, Los Navas de Tolosa etc.

the English never conquered the French nor the French conquered the English.

but the Romans have conquered both the English and most of continental Europe.

speaking in military term for me... the Roman Organization will greatly help and an advantage.

but will never gurantee victory... as Hannibal have proven... military tactic and strategy will decides battles.

and if we are speaking about war... i am very sure the Italian Romanus Legiones will win the war.

Sign In

Roman Legions vs Medieval Armies

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation