12-07-2015, 02:25 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/c...the_roman/
I love the "what if" and Dan Carlin seems to be arguing that there was no European army that could best the Romans at their height. It'd be interesting if you add in the large Chinese empires, but I can't really speculate in that area.
I completely agree with him.
Experience & Discipline:
Knights would begin training around the age of sixteen and may not have much of an edge over your average legionnaire who has been enlisted for 25 years. Medieval armies were much, much smaller, with large portions of them comprised of farmhands, peasants, and common folk with very poor equipment and almost no discipline. Knights themselves were known to lack discipline, and could often charge impetuously without orders. We only have to look at the Fourth Crusade to showcase the utter lack of restraint of Medieval soldiery.
Logistics:
Can this even be disputed? Romans were masters of logistics, especially after the Marian reforms. Medieval armies were hampered by "campaign seasons" and more often than not had to suspend fighting while most of their soldiers returned home to their farms. The Romans had no such delusions, and armies could stay in the field for years supported by legion camps, roads, trade networks, and a vast infrastructure that ensured those troops got what they needed.
Numbers:
The Romans were able to field tens of thousands of men, lose those men, and continue on pouring people into its meatgrinder. A Medieval army could lose a force of 8,000 and be incapacitated. The Roman empire (prior to the centuries of Plague that decimated the population) had an immense number of healthy, able bodied, men who could be sculpted into professional soldiers. There is Medieval army able to field the numbers Republican and Principate Rome had fielded. Armies of 80,000 were unheard of during the Middle Ages (mostly because of logistics).
Equipment:
You might be quick to point out that the Middle Age Europeans had the edge here, but did they really? Yes, they hate advanced plate, stirrups, and more weapons... but only a small portion of them were such equipped. A legionnaire wasn't terribly outclassed by a knight, but if you can't neglect the fact that the entirety of the Roman armies would be very well equipped while only ~10% of a Medieval force would be knights carrying armor. Most conscripted soldiers did not have metal armor of any type, and were given very crude weapons.
The fact that the Romans were able to equip such large forces with incredible amounts of equipment is amazing, and I'd say that the Romans win in this category as well. Crossbows could penetrate plate, but could they penetrate segmentata/hamata & the scutum? Doubtful. Longbows and stirrups would not be enough. Harold Hadrada's army got slaughtered because they had left their armor in their ships, and an unarmored army vs one fully equipped is fighting a losing battle.
So what advantages would a Medieval army have over the Romans? The incredibly overrated longbow (which, unless shot at point blank can't pierce most armors)? The effective crossbow? The frontal charge (which would be of dubious value vs disciplined legions)?
I think the Romans stomp ANY army pre-gunpowder, from any nation, in any era. I don't buy it that small cavalry armies (which are hard to supply in large numbers due to the land needed to graze) are superior to the large, centralized, professional, and extremely disciplined legions. If a nation was able to field, equip, and supply them... we'd have seen this type of fighting straight up to the advent of firearms. Simply put, the stirrups are probably the most over-rated combat invention of all time, behind the longbow.
I love the "what if" and Dan Carlin seems to be arguing that there was no European army that could best the Romans at their height. It'd be interesting if you add in the large Chinese empires, but I can't really speculate in that area.
I completely agree with him.
Experience & Discipline:
Knights would begin training around the age of sixteen and may not have much of an edge over your average legionnaire who has been enlisted for 25 years. Medieval armies were much, much smaller, with large portions of them comprised of farmhands, peasants, and common folk with very poor equipment and almost no discipline. Knights themselves were known to lack discipline, and could often charge impetuously without orders. We only have to look at the Fourth Crusade to showcase the utter lack of restraint of Medieval soldiery.
Logistics:
Can this even be disputed? Romans were masters of logistics, especially after the Marian reforms. Medieval armies were hampered by "campaign seasons" and more often than not had to suspend fighting while most of their soldiers returned home to their farms. The Romans had no such delusions, and armies could stay in the field for years supported by legion camps, roads, trade networks, and a vast infrastructure that ensured those troops got what they needed.
Numbers:
The Romans were able to field tens of thousands of men, lose those men, and continue on pouring people into its meatgrinder. A Medieval army could lose a force of 8,000 and be incapacitated. The Roman empire (prior to the centuries of Plague that decimated the population) had an immense number of healthy, able bodied, men who could be sculpted into professional soldiers. There is Medieval army able to field the numbers Republican and Principate Rome had fielded. Armies of 80,000 were unheard of during the Middle Ages (mostly because of logistics).
Equipment:
You might be quick to point out that the Middle Age Europeans had the edge here, but did they really? Yes, they hate advanced plate, stirrups, and more weapons... but only a small portion of them were such equipped. A legionnaire wasn't terribly outclassed by a knight, but if you can't neglect the fact that the entirety of the Roman armies would be very well equipped while only ~10% of a Medieval force would be knights carrying armor. Most conscripted soldiers did not have metal armor of any type, and were given very crude weapons.
The fact that the Romans were able to equip such large forces with incredible amounts of equipment is amazing, and I'd say that the Romans win in this category as well. Crossbows could penetrate plate, but could they penetrate segmentata/hamata & the scutum? Doubtful. Longbows and stirrups would not be enough. Harold Hadrada's army got slaughtered because they had left their armor in their ships, and an unarmored army vs one fully equipped is fighting a losing battle.
So what advantages would a Medieval army have over the Romans? The incredibly overrated longbow (which, unless shot at point blank can't pierce most armors)? The effective crossbow? The frontal charge (which would be of dubious value vs disciplined legions)?
I think the Romans stomp ANY army pre-gunpowder, from any nation, in any era. I don't buy it that small cavalry armies (which are hard to supply in large numbers due to the land needed to graze) are superior to the large, centralized, professional, and extremely disciplined legions. If a nation was able to field, equip, and supply them... we'd have seen this type of fighting straight up to the advent of firearms. Simply put, the stirrups are probably the most over-rated combat invention of all time, behind the longbow.