Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Was the Roman Army the most effective fighting force pre-gunpowder?
#1
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.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply
#2
well just short my 2 cents

probably you are right if you only look about West Europe,

Even only in the East Europe there was a difference at least regarding the number of people involved in conflicts.
But going further east you would have the ottoman Turks who were very good organized, the had extremely good weapons and strategy, you would have the Mongols under Genghis khan with their splendid conquests and or the empire of Timur Lenk, with nice siege capabilities.

I have no idea about China as well but I can imagine that in some periods they were not so bad.
-----------------
Gelu I.
www.terradacica.ro
www.porolissumsalaj.ro
Reply
#3
(12-07-2015, 02:25 AM)CNV2855 Wrote: 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.   
The equipment of a roman equites of the principate and a medieval knight (e.g in 955 or 1066) is pretty comparable. Medieval plate armor was introduced rather late. We should compare this late medieval knight with a roman cataphract. Again not that much of a difference regarding equipment. The difference is more about cavalry tactics. 
So with a comparable cavalry, superior heavy and light infantry, overall way more numbers and better logistics, the roman army at its height (100 BC - 200 AD) was most probably the most powerful and efficient western army pre-gun powder. But this is primarily based on numbers and military infrastructure.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#4
Don't make it so easy for yourself ;-)
You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't understand warfare without looking at the social, psychological and economical background. As a thought experiment it's nice to just imagine to let armies travel in time in meet each other. But both of them wouldn't have developed the way they had under the circumstances the other one had to face.
Just imagine a whole Roman legion dropped off somewhere in Norway during the Early Middle Ages. Before reaching a place to supply enough food for them or treasures to pay for several thousand men one part of the army would have deserted, one part would have starved to death and the rest would have fallen quickly to hit and run tactics of vikings eager for the loot and slaves the now ill disciplined and demoralised army presents.
Or are you suggesting the viking raiding parties should play by your rules and present themselves on an open ground to the far superior numbers and tactics the Roman legion presents. Me and my vikings don't think so.

Beyond that:

Medieval nobles didn't start training at the age of sixteen. Many would have seen several battles by then.

Roughly speaking plate armour was a thing of the Late Middle Ages and gunpowder played a certain role in this period of time. So plate armour doesn't matter.

Why is the Forth Crusade a good example for a lack of knightly discipline? As far as I know they even managed to conquer Constantinople :-P Or are you suggesting that plundering is a sign of a lack of restraint? Plundering a conquered city was common practice in the Middle Ages and Antiquity. Or do you want to say that the shift of strategy from Jerusalem to Constantinople is a sign of said lack of restraint? In this case we should start arguing about comparing medieval and ancient morality. I'm not sure if the Roman army would win this argument ;-)
Florian D.
Reply
#5
What, and no mention of Alexander's Macedonians?! Wink Interesting argument though. I think tactics would play much more a role than psychological factors. We are talking about large groups of men meeting one another to try and stab and or chop each other into bits - if we can imagine the meeting, I'm sure they would have been able to figure out the rest. That being said, the legions at the height of their prowess were always primarily best at shock infantry tactics, no? Depending on terrain and the enemy, that could be a boon for them, or a strike against them, ala Crassus at Carrhae.

I've heard of people making arguments like this, but primarily in favor of Alexander's Macedonian armies. Would have been interesting had Rome's armies been able to meet Alexander in his primer.
Alexander
Reply
#6
Alexander probably the Roman commander would be interesting, should we choose Caesar, Scipio or Trajan
-----------------
Gelu I.
www.terradacica.ro
www.porolissumsalaj.ro
Reply
#7
The Romans could barely deal with the opponents they had during their own time.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/defea...efeats.htm
http://listverse.com/2014/04/25/10-epic-...ks-forgot/

Most battles are determined by the ability of the commanders; it doesn't matter which culture or time period you are talking about. A medieval army will trounce a Roman army if it is better led.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#8
Dan it's easy to pick a dozen disasters in the 2,000 year history of the Roman military. For every Roman Cannae, there was a Zama. When you go through such a vast history, you're going to find ignominious debacles such as when the very inexperienced Crassus obtained control over a large Roman army. Those were the exceptions, not the norm. The Romans were able to avenge every disaster that you mention. They conquered the Germans after Teutoberg, the Jews after three bloody revolves, and even the Carthaginians led by the greatest military mind in history. I'd go so far as to say that Hannibal was superior to Alexander, because of what he was able to accomplish with his limited resources. Hannibal is credited with many historical achievements such as the largest known ambush in history, introduction to strategic and tactical warfare, and the strategic turning movement. He had a vast, sophisticated, and very effective logistical train in enemy territory for over ten years. Alexander did nothing of the kind. Alexander on the other hand had a massive war treasure, and a stretched, but simple, supply chain after the conquest of Babylon, and had never found himself outnumbered in enemy territory as he was always at the front.

Hannibal had no qualms about his genius, and had he not lost at Zama, he'd have placed himself before Alexander when asked by Scipio who he thought were the greatest generals of all time.

The Fourth Crusade was terrible crime, and the greatest example of Christian on Christian violence ever to take place. Due to treason and duplicity the Crusaders destroyed the Eastern Romans.
Medieval armies were full of backstabbing, politics, treason, and Hattin is a great example of the, "Let's fight!" mentality instead of looking at the overall strategic implications.

I don't have time, but there are dozens of examples of Medieval armies charging without orders and losing their cohesion due to impetuousness.

Quote:You are comparing apples and oranges. You can't understand warfare without looking at the social, psychological and economical background. As a thought experiment it's nice to just imagine to let armies travel in time in meet each other. But both of them wouldn't have developed the way they had under the circumstances the other one had to face.
Just imagine a whole Roman legion dropped off somewhere in Norway during the Early Middle Ages. Before reaching a place to supply enough food for them or treasures to pay for several thousand men one part of the army would have deserted, one part would have starved to death and the rest would have fallen quickly to hit and run tactics of vikings eager for the loot and slaves the now ill disciplined and demoralised army presents.

Drop Republican Rome with Julius Caesar 1,000 years into the future and have him invade Gaul (Europe) and you would still see the eventual conquest of Medieval Europe by the legions. In fact, there wouldn't be a time pre-firearms that Medieval Europe could have resisted the onslaught of the Romans. That's a 1,500 year gap. It would have taken much longer, but the Romans had the capability to besiege and destroy those castles. Caesar killed & enslaved nearly a million warlike Gauls, and that was no easy task.

One more thing Dan. In your lists, there aren't any disastrous battles between BC 200 and AD 200. That's a four hundred year gap when the Roman military machine was at it's height. Marian took an effective fighting force and made them nigh-unstoppable. Carrhae did happen, but it was due to the incompetence of Crassus who arranged his soldiers into a square, instead of a traditional battle formation. It had nothing to do with the inadequacy of the legions, and they went on to punish and sack Parthia several times, with smaller armies.

Hell, the Medieval leaders even used a De Ri Militari (a late Roman book) religiously as a foundation for their military.

Quote:Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus wrote De re militari (Concerning Military Matters) possibly in the late 4th century. Described by historian Walter Goffart as "the bible of warfare throughout the Middle Ages", De re militari was widely distributed through the Latin West. While Western Europe relied on a single text for the basis of its military knowledge, the Byzantine Empire in Southeastern Europe had a succession of military writers. Though Vegetius had no military experience, and De re militari was derived from the works of Cato and Frontinus, his books were the standard for military discourse in Western Europe from their production until the 16th century.

(12-07-2015, 11:23 AM)Alexand96 Wrote: What, and no mention of Alexander's Macedonians?! Wink

The Romans crushed Hannibal and Carthage. Make no mistake, they would've crushed Alexander prior to increasing his warchest from Babylon.  If Alexander had tried to go West and sack Rome, he'd be a footnote in history.  There's a very good reason he went East. Do you really think the Macedonians would have done well against 300,000 well equipped and led shock infantry, while in enemy territory?

Alexander took the path of least resistance. He knew going west into the Romans was not the wise decision, when there was a ripe and crumbling Empire to the East with a large amount of plunder. Alexander would've known what the Romans had done to Pyrrhus (another brilliant leader). Persia was the convenient victim.

The Romans won the Pyrrhic War, there is absolutely no reason to suggest Alexander would've been more successful. It isn't like the Greeks lacked a capable commander, Pyrrhus is rated one of the top three in Antiquity. The amount of men, equipment, and discipline a nation can pour into its endeavors will trump the brightest of generals. The Romans existed at the time of Alexander, and the reason you don't see any Macedonian vs Roman battles is because Alexander was bright enough to know which fights to pick, and which to avoid. He wanted nothing to do with the Roman military machine. Pick a fight with the weak enemy.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply
#9
Define most effective.
Mark - Legio Leonum Valentiniani
Reply
#10
effective - doing the right things
efficient - doing things right.

Just if I remember right.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas
Reply
#11
Romans lost at least as many battles as they won. The main difference between Romans and their opponents is their ability to raise another army and come back for another fight.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#12
(12-07-2015, 09:26 PM)Dan Howard Wrote: Romans lost at least as many battles as they won. The main difference between Romans and their opponents is their ability to raise another army and come back for another fight.

You're saying the Roman lost more battles than they won? Cmon!   Most victories were skirmishes, small battles, sieges, and engagements not worthy of note in history.  The Romans won most of those.  The contemporary population had the vision of Roman military might being nigh invincible around 200 AD and the sources we have say as much.

The Romans won some absolutely amazing battles, outnumbered against hopeless odds (Marius vs the Gauls).  The Romans won FAR more battles than they lost, it's just the disastrous defeats were more likely to shock the populace and be recorded by historians of the day.

Seriously no offense, but implying the Romans had less than .5 victory record is one of the most ridiculous things I have read. You've named ten disastrous battles in the span of 2,500 years. That's one every 250 years.
Christopher Vidrine, 30
Reply
#13
I'm glad that you're pro-Roman - so am I. However, I do thinking you're perhaps a bit too emphatic with your defense of the Romans in this "what if?" scenario. Obviously, I'm sure you're aware that simply swapping Pyrrhus with Alexander, or declaring that Alexander only went East to fight Persia because "he knew Rome was too strong" is beyond ridiculous. Alexander was destined to go after the Persians long before he was born. One honest question to settle the point - why did the Roman warrior class constantly honor and compare themselves to Alexander throughout the entire empire above all others?

And Hannibal was obviously no slouch either; personally I don't know who I think is the best commander of the big three in the Classical world (I'm including Caius Julius there). Rome defeated Carthage, but at great cost, and over generations of war. 

Getting back to the question at hand, I personally think it's worthwhile to choose a specific Roman commander and army before proceeding. Who do you think would crush Alexander or Hannibal? Who would crush Attila, Ghengis Khan, or Charlemagne? Even if we're just trying to have this discussion for fun, saying "Rome > everyone else" is too vague. Personally, I'd vote either Caesar or Scipio Africanus as the greatest Roman commanders/armies of all time.
Alexander
Reply
#14
(12-08-2015, 02:30 AM)Alexand96 Wrote: Getting back to the question at hand, I personally think it's worthwhile to choose a specific Roman commander and army before proceeding. Who do you think would crush Alexander or Hannibal? Who would crush Attila, Ghengis Khan, or Charlemagne? Even if we're just trying to have this discussion for fun, saying "Rome > everyone else" is too vague. Personally, I'd vote either Caesar or Scipio Africanus as the greatest Roman commanders/armies of all time.

Which brings us back to commanders. Whether you select a Roman army or a Medieval one is irrelevant. If you place someone like Caesar in command of a medieval army then it will beat a Roman army that is commanded by a less competent person.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#15
Frankly, I think Roman Army will mop the floor with pretty much any medieval army pre-gun powder era, maybe even early gunpowder era, when those guns where under powered, unreliable and had a short range.

As it was said, Romans had larger standing armies, with much better trained and even equipped soldiers (including mobile field "artillery", scorpions, balistae etc), have much better logistics and even more experience normally. They will won both on land and on naval battles I think (except against that nasty "greek fire" thing which they didn't had in ancient times). Commanders with armies from their height era, Scipio, Caius Marius, Caesar, Trajan, Germanicus, would have defeat any standing medieval army. Mongols would have better chances but with Roman empire resources and having some intelligent and experienced commanders I think Romans would eventually adapt to them as well and at least force them out if they invade, if not even clearly defeat them in standing battles.

Maybe Alex the Great could have won against them in his prime time, and do better then Pyrhus (debatable) but someone as Scipio Africanus with his Roman army that defeated Hannibal will probably beat Alex too.
I believe that if Scipio would have take the title of Dictator for life in Rome, after the defeat of Carthage, and he will rule as Caesar or further emperors, he would have conquered as much as Alex in east.
After the Romans won the war against Seleucid empire and beat them at Magnesia, and if Scipio would have been the supreme ruler at Rome, he could have push further and conquer all the Seleucos empire, having all the resources he needed back at Rome.
Instead his (and his family) enemies in the Senate managed to put him down at the end, a real shame for Rome. I consider that Scipio Africanus was the greatest Roman general, better then Caesar (not to mention better morally as well), and equal to Hannibal, and I consider Alex slightly under them, at Caesar level.
Razvan A.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How effective was Roman artillery in Field battle? Mrbsct 7 4,207 05-13-2013, 10:57 PM
Last Post: Valerian Pertinax
  How would Roman scouts number an opposing force? Marja 6 2,431 11-17-2012, 04:39 AM
Last Post: john m roberts
  When to use a knee to force someone back? Natuspardo 14 3,786 05-19-2007, 09:01 PM
Last Post: Mitra

Forum Jump: