12-08-2015, 08:40 AM
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.
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.
