Roman Legions vs Medieval Armies

[roman wargamer]

I tried to be as clear as possible: what the roman cavalry of Pompey did at Pharsalus it's not relevant to knights. Apples and oranges.

i am not comparing Roman cavalry to knights.

 

pointing only to facts that Romanus Legiones Infantry could defeat a superior enemy cavalry.

while their is no recorded fact the medieval infantry ever defeated a thousand cavalry in battle.

[M. Scaevola]

Right off the top of my head, I'd say the Battles of Morgarten - Swiss vs Austrians (1315) and Laupen- Swiss vs Burgundians (1339) were high medieval battles with no gun use and definite infantry defeating 1000+ cavalry.

 

Mortgarten, about 1,000 to 1,500 cavalry...Laupen, about 3,000-4,000 cavalry.

[roman wargamer]

Mortgarten, about 1,000 to 1,500 cavalry...Laupen, about 3,000-4,000 cavalry.

 

then i concedes i was wrong and never know that facts.

 

and it more pointed that infantry can really defeat cavalry.

[caldrail]

Hypothetically would a Roman Army's internal cohesion be able to beat heavily armored knights? would the superior fortifications of castles confound legionary siegecraft?

(to be perfectly clear I'm assuming proffessional Augustan era legions against a Western European High Middle Ages pre-gunpowder army)

 

Fellow nerds chime in!

 

In a moment of complete nerd-dom I put this to the test. A typical principate army vs the english of the hundred years war.

 

Well now... The roman cavalry were scattered like leaves in the wind! Disaster for the romans as the medieval knights make short work of the roman horsemens outflanking moves, leaving the english in command of the right wing completely. English longbows prove effective unless the testudo is employed and even so, the romans lose a good few men in the advance. Infantry on infantry belongs to the roman legionaries. Their heavy infantry goes toe-to-toe with men-at-arms until morale makes a difference, at which point the romans have it. Peasants? Gladius fodder basically. The returning medieval knights have the field to themselves and only their lack of numbers prevented a roman defeat. Being so heavily protected and confident they make severe inroads into the roman formations who simply didn't have the equipment to deal with them.

 

In actual fact, the romans would have won but for heavily armoured knights making hell for them. The losses were mounting up and a somewhat less than daring commander meant they split into two groups. The right were set to flight by horsemen and left the field. The left advance pushed the english back.

 

What I discovered was that the mix of troop types influenced the outcome of this fictional encounter. The romans had a very uniform capability, but the medieval troops varied enormously and some were better protected.

[Viggen]

I think people forget a very important thing about the (at least earlier romans), if they would encounter a mediavel type army for the first time, they maybe would have lost or maybe would have won, who knows, but i am certain of one thing, they would have definitely learned from it, probably even perfecting the knight strategy/armory and creating their own style mediavel Legionnaires and would have won afterwards pretty easily, because they had discipline and practice the medieval armies could only dream of...

 

m2cent...

cheers

viggen

[Kosmo]

Caldrail, how did you made the test?

[caldrail]

Caldrail, how did you made the test?

Nothing grand I'm afraid. Anyone expecting yards of green baize and thousands of brightly painted lead figures is going to be disappointed! No, the game was played on a cofee table with coloured carboard as military units. The battle took nearly one and a half hours to play, and about twice that to set it up. Rules were... oh gawd this is going to ruin my credibility.... Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, with units and casualties instead of characters and hit points. The reason I did that is because I was familiar with the rules, and these rules cover both periods... sort of. Not historically accurate to the nth degree by any means but it produces a passable result.I used to do things like that a lot back in my wargaming days, but I suppose you shouldn't take the result too seriously. After all, I only recorded it for a talking point to expand the discussion.

[Kosmo]

I was expecting a cross between Rome Total War and Medieval II

The result makes sense as the best medieval units (cavalry, longbowman) made a serious impact while roman heavy infantry cold take a lot of punishment and still drive away weak enemy infantry. The superiority of medieval cavalry meant that they could outmanouver the romans and hold the initiative.

In antiquity there was nothing similar to the massed, rapid volleys of the english longbows. Archers were disregarded and probably uneffective as Procopius points. A roman general will have had a nasty surprise despite the armour of his troops when trying to rush the longbowman line with his slow infantry.

Of course, if the romans are 80.000 like at Cannae and the english 7-10.000 like at Agincourt it does not matter.

Edited May 25, 2007 by Kosmo

[caldrail]

Computer games are fine but they're intended as entertainment, not simulators. The Total War series are great fun but if you look closely they play around with physics and tactics for visual impact. Thats understandable - its a commercial enterprise. However, there are circumstances where computer games spawn real-world applications. The Doom engine was used for a US Army training aid, Operation Flashpoint spawned a military simulator for the same purpose, and if you ask nicely the creators of the IL2 series will present you with a sim version of their new Battle of Britain engine, for documentaries or such like. None of these are cheap because it represents a lot of work for few customers.

 

Ancient bows for the most part were small lightweight affairs, although suprisingly sophisticated using compound construction rather than simply using a carved wooden stick. These bows were designed to attack the people the archers encountered in battle. Only in the medieval period with a serious need for penetration were larger, more powerful bows derived.

 

I seem to remember a mention of longbows from the ancient world (not as powerful as the the english I must add) but I'll have to dig around to find a reference to those.

[Kosmo]

A composite bow can be as powerfull as a long bow, but it is more expansive and more fragile. What type of bows the romans used?

[longbow]

English longbows prove effective unless the testudo is employed

 

Its WarBow not LongBow (There is a difference),a livery arrow loosed out of a military spec Bow (120-170lb) will penetrate Scutoms and go through Roman Chain like butter .If you have a scutom your willing to donate i will happily have this tested but the tests been done recently have penetrated Brigandine and riveted mail with all the undergarments from a shorter distance but i'm will to guess the single board of the Roman shield wouldnt stand up to the missile,curved or not.You have to remember the arrow is designed to penetrate,its not just a straight shaft with a armour piercing head,the shafts were barraled so all the weight is at the front behind the Point,which is shaped to pierce metal.

This weekend saw the John Holder challenge competition at Batsford,the challenge is a clout shoot with military spec arrows which weigh 2,100grains a normal Longbow arrow weighs around 800-1000grains.I have a 90lb Bow what is capable of shooting arrows weighing around 1,700grains 200yds,i loosed a livery arrow out of it and it was flat as a fart,miliatry arrows need military Bows to be effective.I make my own arrows out of 3/8s shafts,the 1/2" shafts look like spears next to them .

3/8s

1/2" and a 3/8"

 

 

 

The Livery arrow specs are

32-36" Bobtailed or barrleled Shaft (Ash,Poplar anything heavy)

2" horn insert in the nock

Whipped in red silk thread

8" fletch of Goose,Peackock or Swan

hand forged head weighing no less than 600grains

Livery arrows

 

Peasants? Gladius fodder basically

 

Englands Army's from the HYW's were professional,there was peasants in the ranks but they were all well trained and very well paid soldiers,same as in our army Today .

Link with more info on Livery arrows

Edited May 28, 2007 by longbow

[Northern Neil]

Re-joining this thread somewhat belatedly, here are some points to consider:

In a sense, this debate was actually tested at the Battle of Agincourt.

then why the English did not conquered the French and won the war

if long bow was enough to win war.

 

The tactical process of winning a battle is a different matter to the strategy of winning a campaign - especially when the campaign drags on for over 100 years! Pyrrhus almost always won his battles, but derived almost no strategic advantage from his victories. In addition, the longbow alone did not win these battles, the decision to dismount men at arms and remain on the defensive were factors too.

 

I believe thats the way a legion would have operated against a similar foe.

normally a legio will not attack a defensive and encamped enemy...

Quite. My point being, the English remained on the defensive and let the impetuosity of the French bring about their own downfall. Just like the brave but impotent charges of Celtic warriors against formed legions.

 

Regarding fortifications, great castles such as Krak des Chevalliers , Chateau Gaillard and Caerphilly were exceptions rather than the rule. A Roman Legion would have no difficulty in sacking castles such as Berkhampstead, Restormel and Pickering, which were Motte and Baileys reconstructed in stone. Likewise they would be in their element attacking Portchester, Pevensey, Brough and Cardiff, all Roman forts with keeps added. York, one of the most well known of Mediaeval walled cities, would easily capitulate, given that said walls are in places only 8 feet high, and lacking flanking towers on such weak stretches.

 

The alleged low effectiveness of archers in the Roman period could have more to do with perceived lowly status of archers compared to line infantry / cavalry, rather than having a basis in fact. Regarding bows used by some people in the Roman era itself, Robert Hardy, in his well known book 'Longbow', has this to say:

 

A very rich series of finds in Denmark and Schleswig Holstein give some idea of the bows of Northern Europe during the Roman Iron Age.... They all date from between AD100 and 350; they are all made either of Yew or Fir wood and they are recognisable longbows of deep stacked, generous 'D' section... no Tudor archer would have found these bows anything but familiar.

 

In other words, during the Roman period, we have bows with the penetrating power to pierce plate armour. Schleswig Holstein is a short trek from the Rhine frontier; I suggest that Auxillia from the lower Rhine probably had such bows also.

 

One last reference to Roman archers: A unit of Hamian (middle eastern) archers was present at Greatchesters , on one of the bleakest sections of Hadrian's Wall. It seems strange indeed to trust an entire frontier fort to a unit of troops generally considered ineffective.

 

Regarding military techniques in general, one must also consider that sometimes economics dictates the obsolescence of weapons and techniques, not efficacy. Up to the American Civil War, when widespread use of rifled smallarms broke the 400 year status quo vis a vis hand gunnery, generals often discussed in private the superiority of a group of archers over a group of musketeers. More aimed shots per minute, greater accurate range, ability to shoot in wind and rain, reusable spent ammo. A 'wedge' of 15th century longbowmen would stop dead a Napoleonic, or Crimean war, cavalry charge, whereas a hastily conscripted regiment of musketeers probably wouldn't. Problem is, it takes years and a lot of money to train a longbowman, but a few weeks to train a napoleonic line infantryman. Translate this to the Roman Army: In Medieval times very few states apart from Byzantium could afford a standing army, uniformly trained, capable of disciplined attack/defence. Just as a wedge of longbowmen would be more effective than a line of musketeers, a Roman Army would probably win out against a medieval one prior to AD 1325.

Edited May 29, 2007 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

One last reference to Roman archers: A unit of Hamian (middle eastern) archers was present at Greatchesters , on one of the bleakest sections of Hadrian's Wall. It seems strange indeed to trust an entire frontier fort to a unit of troops generally considered ineffective.

Not necessarily. It depended on perceived threat and as we know, hadrians Wall was an economic barrier rather than military. Why waste good men on border patrols when they would be better employed as reserves in case the poorer troops made a mess of things in an emergency. The cautious nature of roman military leadership would do little else I think.

 

Problem is, it takes years and a lot of money to train a longbowman, but a few weeks to train a napoleonic line infantryman. Translate this to the Roman Army: In Medieval times very few states apart from Byzantium could afford a standing army, uniformly trained, capable of disciplined attack/defence. Just as a wedge of longbowmen would be more effective than a line of musketeers, a Roman Army would probably win out against a medieval one prior to AD 1325.

 

Quite! The english were required by law to practise archery and football was banned for that very reason in the middle ages! I take the point about military development though I have to stress in my own re-enactment it was the heavy cavalry that swayed the course of battle, something the roman legions were ill-equipped to face (Obviously). Also, the almost religious zeal for combat displayed by many medieval men is not to be underestimated. Their whole culture was based on fighting. The romans were more organised in their approach to conflict and a sustained campaign would go their way I think. A one-off confrontation is another matter.

[Guest Iulis Mascellus]

Well...in a single battle or a prolonged war?

 

I see perhaps a single battle between Roman legions and Medieval Armies a chance for the knights to gain victory. If it were only against, say a legion, the entire military might of the medieval nation could be victorious. But let's not forget Hannibal's campaign in Italy. I think the largest Roman force levied was somewhere around 100,000. Reports of an initial loss to the knights would go something like this.

 

"7,500 legionaries dead on the battle field...the entire 17th wiped away...some 5,000 enemy knights dead...well these guys must know what they're doing, let's send the 5th, the 8th, the 13th and the 10th into their territory!"

 

(((The next day)))

 

"Wait...what do you mean you won already? What do you mean 'no resistance'? Two squires and a donkey? Are you serious?"

 

I remember watching in 8th grade a video regarding medieval fiefdoms and general politics...they described a battle and reported the loss of 100 mounted knights as a 'staggering loss'...I thought it so funny in comparison to the impact similar losses would have had on the Roman mentality.

[caldrail]

Its a case of differing military philosophies. Roman generals were happy to accept high casualty rates if it secured the victory they were after. After all, there were plenty potential recruits to be had back home (usually, anyway, apart from the punic wars and a slight case of panic by Augustus)

 

For the medieval nobility however, there were only so many men in high places, all of whom were expected to be warriors. Its noticeable that during the period there were men being knighted after the battle, to maintain numbers. As for the staggering loss, how about this? - After the crusaders had finally assaulted and taken Antioch (1098?), they found themselves trapped in the city without any food and water by a turkish army. One young crusader (Peter Bartholemew) produced a spear and claimed it was the very spear that had pierced the breast of Jesus. Suitably inspired, the half delirious knights sallied forth in small numbers and charged the turkish army, routing them completely without loss. Does that put the medieval armoured horseman in perspective? Ok, its an eye-opener, but they didn't always have it their own way. During the march toward Antioch a great many of these men discarded or sold armour, possessions, and animals in order to survive. Some were riding donkeys by the time they got to the holy lands. Or perhaps during the Agincourt campaign when french knights were entangled in mud by virtue of fashionable cloth adornments to their armour, and easily dispatched by the opportunist english commonry.

Edited December 16, 2007 by caldrail