Primitive Medieval armies VS Glorius Roman Legions

[Burzum]

This is an old debate.

I post this here because here on this forum we have knowledgeable people who understand something of Roman culture and civilization and therefor we can have a civilized and accurate debate on this topic.

I do believe and expect to see a lot of Medieval bias-ts pitching up here like British barbarians hiding in the forest in defiance of Roman law.

So lets begin.


Let me be hard and take a well equipped 16th century "non-ranged" purely infantry and mounted knights in equal numbers against a a typical Roman legion in Lorica segmentata.

I will put my life with legion and so will any sensible person.

_______________________________________________________________

Firstly, my arguement begins with this, the Roman army will obliterate a Medieval army in open field with a shower of pilum. Then a the legionaries hurl a second shower of pilum against the front flanks of knights and man-at-arms.

The pilum was capable of then and in the times of Medieval era to penetrate oak, plate mail armour and virtually anything.

The needles flying in the air supported by the weight of the shaft suggests that it will be very deadly and very effective against heavily armoured knights.

I just don't see how you could deflect such a lethal assault.


Then finally the legionary draws the gladius and thrusts forward both scutum and gladius in motion as one unit of cohort legionaries a punch-stabbing machine.

I just don't see a 16th century Medieval infantry/knights coping.

And the Romans use the pilum as an anti cavalry spear in phalanx formation. Like they did against Parthia and Carthage to name a few.



Feel free to not only vote but also give accurate reasons why.

Thank you.

[MarcusNorwood]

AI would vote for the Legion in an open field battle, but it would be close. Mounted archers would give the legion trouble. Also heavy cavalry with long lances would give the legions difficulty. The legions would not have had the long lance to counter the heavy cavalry. It would also depend on the discipline of the troops and the quality of the commander.

[Burzum]

AI would vote for the Legion in an open field battle, but it would be close. Mounted archers would give the legion trouble. Also heavy cavalry with long lances would give the legions difficulty. The legions would not have had the long lance to counter the heavy cavalry. It would also depend on the discipline of the troops and the quality of the commander.

Indeed.

The quality of commander in chief is the backbone of any legion.

But even a bad Roman commander possess a much better quality grade than that of a Medieval one.

Medieval warfare seriously lacked tactical abilities and commanders that knew tactics.

But those long lances of the knights pose a serious danger.

I would mitigate their knights/cavalry with Roman axillary cavalry to flank them, get behind the knights and you have victory.

Alternatively, I would center archers in the middle of a legionary square formation to keep arrow fire at charging cavalry.
___________________________________

If I was facing just cavalry archers I would form testudo formations and rout the archers with Roman cavalry and auxiliary infantry.

[Thomas Aagaard]

"16th century "non-ranged" purely infantry and mounted knights "

That don't make any sense... that would be like saying "a roman legion that forgot to bring their pilums and helmets"

IF you remove the ranged weapons from one side you have to do it from both. And then you remove an importent component of the system.

And what size do we talk about? what country? A "italian" army would be diffeent form a frence or a english or a spanish

An army with a lot of heavy cav would be a problem to the romans...

If the infantry a peasan militia? town militia? Swiss pikemen? dismounted men-at-arms or?

How do the romans react when they are shot at by gunpowder weapons? shields are not much good against a gun.

Do each side know about the equipment and capabilities of the other?

In the end the two commanders would be pretty important.

"Medieval warfare seriously lacked tactical abilities and commanders that knew tactics."

That is a statement that is in no way supported by facts. It is a generalization that makes just as much sense as saying that ALL roman emperor where incompetent and crazy.

[M. Demetrius]

That is just stupid.

MODERATOR QUERY: Do you think you could find a nicer way to voice your disagreement?
Please click the RAT Posting Rules link below and read them.
Thank you.

[Thomas Aagaard]

Yes I changed it to what I mean

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I've seen arguments like this all the time on TWC, fact of the matter is it's like comparing apples to Oranges.

There were different armies in both Rome and the Renaissance - A Gallic Legion would be equipped differently than a Syrian Legion, because their equipment changed depending on where they were deployed.

If you deployed a Roman Legion against a Renaissance-Era unit, then the Legion would re-equip itself to deal with the circumstances.

This is exemplified by Arrius (I think his name was) and his Legions fighting the Sarmatians in the 2nd century, where he details his "Loadout" for his troops to deal with a different threat.

The medieval armies weren't primitive either, many of them were rather advanced. They had a different style of fighting to meet different needs in the battlefield. The Basileia toh Rhomaion still had an organized professional army up until the 12th Century.

I'm not saying the Romans would win, but I am saying the limited ability of Renaissance-Era Armies to adapt to different circumstances and different fighting styles would give the Romans a serious edge. Renaissance-Era Armies were conditioned to fight a certain way and that's all they knew because they never fought anyone outside their neighboring countries. The French never fought the Persians, the Germans never fought the Spanish, etc (Well they might have, I dunno and It's not common knowledge if they did.)

[Burzum]

"16th century "non-ranged" purely infantry and mounted knights "

That don't make any sense... that would be like saying "a roman legion that forgot to bring their pilums and helmets"

IF you remove the ranged weapons from one side you have to do it from both. And then you remove an importent component of the system.

And what size do we talk about? what country? A "italian" army would be diffeent form a frence or a english or a spanish

An army with a lot of heavy cav would be a problem to the romans...

If the infantry a peasan militia? town militia? Swiss pikemen? dismounted men-at-arms or?

How do the romans react when they are shot at by gunpowder weapons? shields are not much good against a gun.

Do each side know about the equipment and capabilities of the other?

In the end the two commanders would be pretty important.

"Medieval warfare seriously lacked tactical abilities and commanders that knew tactics."

That is a statement that is in no way supported by facts. It is a generalization that makes just as much sense as saying that ALL roman emperor where incompetent and crazy.

Firstly this is a Roman forum. Not a forum subject to pop-culture and to those that lack a basis in which to follow on an intelligent debate.


You won't get any feedback with childish statements that otherwise slander and show your lack of linguistic skills.

Go troll some place else.

[Thomas Aagaard]

The members of this forum have an impressive knowledge about the roman world. I mostly read since my knowledge about roman warfare is no where near the level of many members.

But Medieval (and later) warfare is an area i do know something about.

Removing ranged weapons from a 15th century army is removing one important component of an army that is a "combined arms system"

And then you already handicapped one side. And that is not "fair".

In most cased when somebody writes "roman legion" the next question is usually are we talking republic? early imperial, late.?

It is problematic to talk about one roman legion because it changed and you usually have to specify when and where.
You can't generalize about a medieval army. Even if you confine it to the 16th century there is a technological development from the start to the end of the century that also effect how you fight. For one thing the use of gunpowder gets more common.
And different kingdoms use different armies. And that would effect how it fights.

You write you self:

I do believe and expect to see a lot of Medieval bias-ts pitching up here like British barbarians hiding in the forest in defiance of Roman law.

But your own

"Medieval warfare seriously lacked tactical abilities and commanders that knew tactics."

That is exactly bias.

And Iam sorry about my spelling. English is not my first language and I could have used a few minuttes more on trekking the spelling.
-----

I do agree with Magister Militum Flavius Aetius. The roman "system" was properly better at adapting and if we change the question from "whowould win a battle" to "who would win a longer campaign"?

Then the Romans would likely be better at stuff like marching quickly from A to B, logistics, camp security, their standard of making a fortified camp and so one.

But in the end I believe that the commander and the experience of the men would be the deciding factor.


One other deciding factor would properly be exactly what the effect of pilums on Renaissance era plate armour.

[Marja]

I wouldn't call the 16th century medieval. or primitive.

Between the 3rd and the 16th century, technologies such as gunpowder, stirrups, the blast furnace, paper making, and perhaps most importantly the three-field system, have changed everything.

Everything depends on the situation. Are these Romans stranded in early modern times or early modern Europeans stranded in ancient times? And where, and in what numbers?

[Burzum]

since my knowledge about roman warfare is no where near the level of many members.

Then you don't have the capacity to engage in this discussion, and simulate a construction of a battlefield in order to define the outcome.

You cannot have knowledge of only one side and then try to express that sides strengths when you don't know what the other side is capable of.
That is being bias.

I highly suggest you read about Roman history to lay a foundation based on it's culture to broaden your spectrum of antiquity. But before you delve deep in Roman society and culture, start off by reading about the Greeks.

The Greeks and indeed the Egyptians, because they actually knew everything the Greeks did and probably more in the preservation of knowledge in the library of Alexandria, have projected the world down a trajectory of civil advancement that I think every society on planet earth has benefited from. It's because of the Greeks, Rome became great. It's because of the Greeks democracy got born, it's because of the Greeks we recorded ancient history in which to share with modernized cultures.

The fact you have a understanding on the Medieval era in my opinion greatly limits your spectrum and impedes you to fully engage in historical discussion (e.g. this one we having).

Removing ranged weapons from a 150th century army is removing one important component of an army that is a "combined arms system" .

Not true.

Ranged weapons in antiquity was centured around infantry and cavalry in most easten cultures.

Ranged weapons were "skirmishers" deployed for a specific reason, that reason is to assault and disturb the enemy to break up flanks, obstruct, or to support the main troops.
We see in Medieval armies as well. And seen as though you yourself said in quote on quote -

But Medieval (and later) warfare is an area i do know something about.

You should know this already. A vivid assumption.
The relied heavily on archers but that wasn't their army. Man-at-arms and knights still was the main force and in any culture in antiquity and beyond that into the Medieval era armies are cored around heavy infantry in western societies.

The Byzantines were a bit different they intended to core their force and construct their backbone out of heavy cavalry (i.e. Cataphracts).

But your own
[quote]"Medieval warfare seriously lacked tactical abilities and commanders that knew tactics."

That is right. They didn't.

That is exactly bias.

That is called a historical fact, as well as in comparison.
As a whole and genreally they were inferior to commanders of antiquity and I will even raise the Greek strategoi (i.e. the polititions elected as generals) ahead of Medieval commanders in rank.
These guys moved Alexandra's amies accross the east.

Then the Romans would likely be better at stuff like marching quickly from A to B, logistics, camp security, their standard of making a fortified camp and so one.

Not "likely" That's a historical fact that they were. Again this shows your lack of Roman knowledge.

The Romans weren't only good at logistics, they were the ultimate war machine that stamped civilization into barbaric societies.
The best military machine the world had ever seen.

One other deciding factor would properly be exactly what the effect of pilums on Renaissance era plate armour.

The pila would have a problem penetrating Renaissance armour.
And this underlining factor needs to be taken into consideration.
Firstly not every breast plate worn by a 16th century shoulder was of top quality.
The cost to deploy massive contingents of troops on the battlefield kings of the era could do without so the armour smiths actually diluted the steel to cut back on costs.
I myself have hurled pilum into 16th century breastplates and they go through like a hot knife through butter.

You really need to read more about the potency of such a weapon. And watch some videos of it being used in practice.

I've seen arguments like this all the time on TWC, fact of the matter is it's like comparing apples to Oranges.

There were different armies in both Rome and the Renaissance - A Gallic Legion would be equipped differently than a Syrian Legion, because their equipment changed depending on where they were deployed.

If you deployed a Roman Legion against a Renaissance-Era unit, then the Legion would re-equip itself to deal with the circumstances.

This is exemplified by Arrius (I think his name was) and his Legions fighting the Sarmatians in the 2nd century, where he details his "Loadout" for his troops to deal with a different threat.

The medieval armies weren't primitive either, many of them were rather advanced. They had a different style of fighting to meet different needs in the battlefield. The Basileia toh Rhomaion still had an organized professional army up until the 12th Century.

I'm not saying the Romans would win, but I am saying the limited ability of Renaissance-Era Armies to adapt to different circumstances and different fighting styles would give the Romans a serious edge. Renaissance-Era Armies were conditioned to fight a certain way and that's all they knew because they never fought anyone outside their neighboring countries. The French never fought the Persians, the Germans never fought the Spanish, etc (Well they might have, I dunno and It's not common knowledge if they did.)

Um, you 100% correct over the capacity for Roman armies to dynamically adapt to any situation on the battlefield. This was something that inferior commanders just have an answer too.

But yes such an argument such as this is completely irrelevant but it's very interesting to simulate.

And like you said and I have long believed this, that if a Roman army had to face a Renaissance army they of equipped and adapted to that circumstance. So this interchangeable element of dynamics the Romans possess further impedes on a accurate simulation.

I wouldn't call the 16th century medieval. or primitive.

Between the 3rd and the 16th century, technologies such as gunpowder, stirrups, the blast furnace, paper making, and perhaps most importantly the three-field system, have changed everything.

Everything depends on the situation. Are these Romans stranded in early modern times or early modern Europeans stranded in ancient times? And where, and in what numbers?

I think the definition I used needs to be defined in stating that whilst Renaissance period had technology such as blast furnaces etc, does not take them out of primitivity. This not a moral separation or definition of primitive. Roman society was actually fluid in literacy than the Medieval Europe was. And if I have to throw 2 cents into that topic I will throw a stone of religion as the biggest culprit for the degradation of advancement.

[Robert Vermaat]

since my knowledge about roman warfare is no where near the level of many members.

Then you don't have the capacity to engage in this discussion, and simulate a construction of a battlefield in order to define the outcome.

I think that many members here share the above qualification – some members here do know far more about Roman warfare than others. HOWEVER, that does not mean they can’t engage in any discussion. To the contrary, I would suggest that they do, in order to ask and learn, or prevent fresh views.

The Greeks and indeed the Egyptians, because they actually knew everything the Greeks did and probably more in the preservation of knowledge in the library of Alexandria, have projected the world down a trajectory of civil advancement that I think every society on planet earth has benefited from.

I’m not sure where you get all this from – you mean you have a bibliography of the Alexandrian library?

It's because of the Greeks, Rome became great. It's because of the Greeks democracy got born, it's because of the Greeks we recorded ancient history in which to share with modernized cultures.

I would never underestimate Greek culture, but I fear you are exaggerating. For instance: the Greeks did not invent writing down events from history.

The fact you have a understanding on the Medieval era in my opinion greatly limits your spectrum and impedes you to fully engage in historical discussion (e.g. this one we having).

I do not comprehend this opinion, nor do I endorse it. Knowledge about the Middle Ages do not impede engagement in historical discussion whatsoever.

I do not like the current tone or direction of this discussion. I urge all involved to check if their argument does not become personal or too heated up.

[caiusbeerquitius]

He, Burzum, forum rules say you need to put you name in your signature... ;-)

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The capacity to engage in discussion is not so much measured by one's intelligence, but as one's willingness to listen.

A few corrections to some of your statements:
1. The Byzantines changed their tactics over time, but the Basileia's core remained heavy Infantry or Mercenary Infantry until the sack of 1204. Cataphracts were a rather Unique element to this discipline.

2. Roman-Era Technology was on par with a lot of Renaissance era stuff, but in the end it would be rather difficult for the Romans to win. Renaissance-Era steel was of better quality than Roman steel and fully-armored Knights would be able to take down swaths of Romans before they even figured out where to penetrate the Armor to kill the Knight. A pilum would be limited in ability since shields were often phased out or very small bucklers at this time.

3. The Arquebus immediately becomes a deciding factor in the engagement, as the thing was known to cause entire armies to route if you had enough. The Romans didn't have gunpowder-based armaments, so Arquebus-based formations like the Tercio would overrun Roman Formations with the less-disciplined of men.

The deciding factor would be whether or not the Romans would be able to adapt to such a force, and particularly if it was fast enough.

[Burzum]

The capacity to engage in discussion is not so much measured by one's intelligence, but as one's willingness to listen.

Can't argue with that at all.

A few corrections to some of your statements:
1. The Byzantines changed their tactics over time, but the Basileia's core remained heavy Infantry or Mercenary Infantry until the sack of 1204. Cataphracts were a rather Unique element to this discipline.

1. It just depends on what time period of the Byzantium empire we talk about here. They also have a great evolution we see continuous through their dominion. But all in all the cavalry were actually the main core, the backbone of the Byzantine army. It was the most important and without which the Byzantine army wouldn't of had much success and Justinian knew this and layed the foundation of heavy emphasis for the empire to commission and deploy the cataphracts throughout the era of the empire.

2. Roman-Era Technology was on par with a lot of Renaissance era stuff, but in the end it would be rather difficult for the Romans to win. Renaissance-Era steel was of better quality than Roman steel and fully-armored Knights would be able to take down swaths of Romans before they even figured out where to penetrate the Armor to kill the Knight. A pilum would be limited in ability since shields were often phased out or very small bucklers at this time.

1. This just depends on what era of the Byzantine period we talk about that here.

The cataphract has always been the solid backbone of the Byzantine army. And it was for many years.

Without the Byzantine cataphract the Byzantine army as a whole would of been seriously degraded and handicapped. And the cataphract has been the spear head that actually forced the dominion of the Byzantine empire into other medieval territories and without which would of seen Byzantium as a small dwelling of eastern orthodoxy rather than a neo-resurrection of the old Roman empire. And that basically was the goal at the time. And Justinian knew this and enforced the empire to commission the continuity of the cataphracts and their deployment on Byzantine battlefields for the future of the empire as a type of military reassurance and insurance. That's how important they were.

2. 100% correct. That shows how great Rome is and was.

Regards to the pila, no.

The pila is more than capable of penetrating anything made in the Renaissance-era.

And I have proven it myself, as I do reinactments of Medieval warfare. I am a knight of a Medieval martial arts society and I created a Roman society of historical reinactments and a fighting club called Eqvestris.

Through our experience we have chucked pilum at breast plates and I can confidently say that steel is still vulnerable to a pila in full flight.

The Arquebus immediately becomes a deciding factor in the engagement, as the thing was known to cause entire armies to route if you had enough. The Romans didn't have gunpowder-based armaments, so Arquebus-based formations like the Tercio would overrun Roman Formations with the less-disciplined of men.

I did state above. "Non ranged units."

Primitive guns are classified as ranged weapons.

The deciding factor would be whether or not the Romans would be able to adapt to such a force, and particularly if it was fast enough.

Um, I should think so. They more than have the capacity to adapt and the sophistication to go along side that.