# Roman Army vs Medieval Army



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Ok, I've read an interesting thread on another site about this.

Take a Roman army from the Imperial Era (ie Trajan's time) and pit it against a similar army from medieval times (ie Edward III's time).  Who would you bet on and why?


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

Hmm... I'm interested.  Are you proposing to hook that legion up with the more modern weapons of their counterparts?  Lay out the details a bit more so we can run with this.  Also, if you're kitting them out, do they get some time to work on their TTP's to adapt to the newer kit?


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Oct 2006)

Well the Roman Army only started to develop the use of Cavalry near the end of their reign, where as the Medieval Military was well  versed in Cavalry tactics.

This being the major lynch pin, not to mention the development of larger swords, mainly intended for troops on horse back.

I would say Medieval.

dileas

tess


----------



## p_imbeault (13 Oct 2006)

Based on what I have learned in HS history class, I would think the roman army would win. A sword is a sword, the Romans had much more discipline and their leaders were greater tacticians. I could be way off base, but from what I have been taught thus far I'd have to say the Roman Army

Although now that I think about it the Romans really were only very succesful against barbarians.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

zanshin said:
			
		

> Hmm... I'm interested.  Are you proposing to hook that legion up with the more modern weapons of their counterparts?  Lay out the details a bit more so we can run with this.  Also, if you're kitting them out, do they get some time to work on their TTP's to adapt to the newer kit?



No, let's go with their contemporary equipment.


----------



## 3rd Herd (13 Oct 2006)

Medieval Armies had the nasty habit of falling over and drowning in mud, Battle of Againcourt and also the battle between the lobster backs and round heads. Being pulled off their horses and unable to get up. I would go with the Romans and their archers, discipline and tactics. Maybe on the serious side this should be moved out of this forum to Military history.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Well the Roman Army only started to develop the use of Cavalry near the end of their reign, where as the Medieval Military was well  versed in Cavalry tactics.
> 
> This being the major lynch pin, not to mention the development of larger swords, mainly intended for troops on horse back.
> 
> ...



Hmn, the romans certainly had their share of experience dealing with Cavalry (Parthians, Sarmatians etc etc) so I don't know if it is a lynchpin per se. Heavy cavalry would certainly be a problem but I doubt that a medieval army could field too many of them.   Also larger swords don't equate too much.  The gladius and scutum were much more effective for close quarter fighting.  The Gauls and Germans and celts certainly used much larger swords.


----------



## big_castor (13 Oct 2006)

It would depend on which type of Medieval army and of what period :  

If everyting "medieval" goes, my strategy would be to "soften" the Legions with British archers and then hit them with a full scale cavalry charge (I don't think pilums would be enought to stop knight in armour).  It would be even more fun I was allowed to have cannons !

But if we're strictly talking about foot soldier vs foot soldier, my money would be on the Romans : better training, better tactics.


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

Can you give us both ORBATs and a rough description of the battleground?


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Big Foot said:
			
		

> My vote goes for the Medieval army for a few main reasons. First off, Roman armour is vastly inferior when compared to Medieval armour. As such, Roman weaponry would have a much more difficult time piercing the armour of their opponents while the opposite would be true for the Medieval army. Metal working went through many revolutions between the time of the Romans and the rise of the knight in Europe. The second major issue, as tess brought up, is the issue of mobility. The Romans were primarily foot-borne infantry using short swords versus a mix of cavalry and infantry using lances, long swords and pikes/halberds. In other words, not only would the Romans get knocked around by the foot-borne soldiers, they'd also have cavalry riding all around them hacking them to pieces. In short, my money goes with the Medieval army.



Interesting.  The Pilum was designed as armour piercing.  it could go through shield and armour.  Chainmail is chainmail.  The romans were able to defeat that armour in a variety of battles thgrouout their history.  The romans of that time also wore the lorica segmentum.  Almost as good as plate mail.  And every soldier wore it.  A medieval force would have plate mail but probably only the lords.  As far as lances or halberds and such they are unwieldly.  The romans were able to defeat the Greek phalanx quite handily.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

Who has the initiative?
Who is attacking/defending?
Terrain?
Fortifications? Fixed, field, none?
Time?
Date?
Season?
Location?
Weather, leading up to an at the point of battle?
Quality and distance of logistic support?
Availability and make up of seige trains?
Are we confined to a specific battle incident, or are we talking about a campaign season?
Size of forces?
Balance of arms on each side?
Actions before battle?
Need a more precise determination of period and origin for each force.

Need info to assess the factors to do the estimate.


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

Yep, I agree.  That heavier armour was only worn by a select few.  I think when we get right down to it, the superior training, discipline, morale and cohesion of a Roman Legion would kick some major arse.

But, as I said a minute ago... let's get an ORBAT listing so we can really dissect this...


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Squadron CO said:
			
		

> It would depend on which type of Medieval army and of what period :
> 
> If everyting "medieval" goes, my strategy would be to "soften" the Legions with British archers and then hit them with a full scale cavalry charge (I don't think pilums would be enought to stop knight in armour).  It would be even more fun I was allowed to have cannons !
> 
> But if we're strictly talking about foot soldier vs foot soldier, my money would be on the Romans : better training, better tactics.



Good point.  British archers would outrange any Roman bow, composite or not.  generally though only 30% of arrows find their mark.  Also keep in mind that a legion would have several Ballistas and bolt throwers that could keep Roman archers at bay.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Who has the initiative?
> Who is attacking/defending?
> Terrain?
> Fortifications? Fixed, field, none?
> ...



Ok, when I get home I'll come up with  a suitable orbat and some background to update this.


----------



## dglad (13 Oct 2006)

I've been drawn into these sorts of things before, usually resulting in an interesting waste of time.  I mean, how can you answer something like this?  There are simply too many variables.  Not all "medieval" armour was superior to Roman armour, not all "medieval" armies were heavy in cavalry or archers, the Roman army itself varied hugely in quality throughout its history, one has to factor in leadership, effects of logistics, etc.


----------



## p_imbeault (13 Oct 2006)

I come here to waste time  ;D


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

So... are you drawn into this one too?   ;D

C'mawnn... you wanna see how it turns out?  doncha?


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Oct 2006)

My money would be firmy on an Imperial field force....say 1st cent AD to 3rd Cent AD

For the following reasons....

A) Command and Control......superior to that employed by medieval armies and extended down to the contubernia .... squad sized groupings.....
 Imperial Rome could boast a core of seasoned professional NCOs from Squad ( Contubernia) level up....and the commanders to get the best out of their men

B) Logistics....From rigidly enforced sanitary measures, health and hygiene to a professional logistics and medical corps....

C) Integration of all arms.....Sorry Tess...the idea that the Romans did not have a good cavalry arm is a fallacy...tho they did suffer from the usual Cav shortcomings......difficult to control once the charge went in etc...
The Cohors Equitatae....A unit with infantry centuries ( Companies) and Cavalry Turmae ( Troops ) were excellent examples of the close coordination possible to a Roman Field Force...

D)Cohesion and professionalism. Even a mediocre field force of Imperial Times would be more than a match for their relatively fragile ( in the sense of cohesion and staying power) medieval counterparts

We have to remember too that superior weapon systems do not always result in victory.....Equipping the French in 1940 with Panthers would not have allowed them to defeat our German friends.....







ROMA VICTA!!!!!


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Oct 2006)

Lets think about a face off between a French or English force circa Agincourt.......facing off against a Feild Force of say 2nd Cent Ad based around 1-2 Legio with the usual assortment of Auxhiliary units....


I'll do some digging


SB


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Who has the initiative?
> Who is attacking/defending?
> Terrain?
> Fortifications? Fixed, field, none?
> ...


And you only have 8 hours.  On your mark, get set.....


----------



## warrickdll (13 Oct 2006)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Integration of all arms.....Sorry Tess...the idea that the Romans did not have a good cavalry arm is a fallacy...tho they did suffer from the usual Cav shortcomings......difficult to control once the charge went in etc...



I would agree with Tess that the lynch pin would probably be cavalry. The size, power, endurance, and availability of warhorses were limiting factors to all levels of cavalry development that only improved over time. 

Other technical improvements in bows and crossbows would give many advantages to medieval forces over classical ones. As well trained as a legion might be - they were not invincible.

Not every medieval force was a complete rabble. War and campaigns were a constant of life.


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

von Grognard said:
			
		

> And you only have 8 hours.  On your mark, get set.....



I was wondering if this would draw you out of 'study mode'.  Now don't get your ORBATs confused before Monday.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Oct 2006)

My mind is a clean slate.  Come monday, I'll learn ORBATS anew, be they of Tyrs, Erebi or Fiznits.

I also have my second SDI to lead on Wednesday: Firepower, specifically, indirect fire support.
2 hours this time.

I told my DS that I would use the opportunity of the weekend to make an estimate and give him my outline plan Mon evening.  I just hope a FLOCARK works for SDIs!


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

von Grognard said:
			
		

> I just hope a FLOCARK works for SDIs!



Sure they do.  The vital ground is the pilot's comprehension.   ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

I would think that Edwards Welsh archers would make Swiss cheese of the Roman bronze armour well before they could get within pilum chucking distance.  And my money would be on a trebuchet like the Warwolf against a grotty little balista any day.  The wonderful Roman discipline wasn't much good against a rabble like Boudicca's revolt, and they came within a gnats pubie of losing Britania.  Ditto with those pesky Gauls under Vercengeterix.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I would think that Edwards Welsh archers would make Swiss cheese of the Roman bronze armour well before they could get within pilum chucking distance.  And my money would be on a trebuchet like the Warwolf against a grotty little balista any day.  The wonderful Roman discipline wasn't much good against a rabble like Boudicca's revolt, and they came within a gnats pubie of losing Britania.  Ditto with those pesky Gauls under Vercengeterix.



Bronze armour was worn in early republican times.  By the 1st Century AD they were wearing lorica segmentum.  Steel.  
Boudica never directly engaged a legion during the revolt.  She ambushed one and wiped it out while it was on the march.  Whe she did finally face the Romans in pitched battle, her 150 000 strong force was wiped out by 10 000 romans who used their dicipline to great effect. And I believe Ceasar took care of those Gauls.

Trebuchet's were siege weapons, not very accurate or good against troops.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

On both occasions a disorganized barbarian rabble put the wind up those oh so sexy Roman skirts.  Gaul was very nearly lost, and would have been if the Gauls had a little patience (the beginning of a stereotype?).  Yes, a treb is a siege machine, point to you.  Welsh arrows were shredding armour more advanced than Roman scale, and at considerable range, and were the dominant force on the battlefield til gunpowder.  Roman cavalry vs a hedgerow of 15' long English ash pikes?  Bring it.  Roman tactics, it seems, were to allow an enemy to expend itself in wave after wave up against their defensive line, then mop up ops.  A medieval English army would happily stand back and rain clothyard shafts down on their heads.... Agincourt, anyone?

  As for Boudicca, the Romans used geography, more than they used discipline, to funnel the Britons onto their spears.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Ok, here are some details and orbats

Who has the initiative?  The romans being more mobile would probably have the upper hand
Who is attacking/defending?  Depends on tactics.  typically the Romans would attack.  But seeing no Heavy cavalry the English might as well.  the Romans would adopt a defensive posture seeing the amount of Cavalry being employed.
Terrain? Level
Fortifications? Fixed, field, none?  the English employed stked positions to protect the archers.  Romans could build trenches and piked walls for defensive actions.  So field.
Time?  Mid morning
Date? N/A
Season?  Late spring
Location? Great Britain
Weather, leading up to an at the point of battle?  Weather is clear
Quality and distance of logistic support?  See orbats
Availability and make up of seige trains? See orbtats
Are we confined to a specific battle incident, or are we talking about a campaign season?  One battle incident (we can deal with campaign later)
Size of forces?  10000 Romans 12000 English
Balance of arms on each side?  See Orbats
Actions before battle? Mostly manoeuvering

OK so here is the scenario with some of the factors to take into account.  I am also including some pros and cons for each force.  The Romans represent a legionary force at the height of the military power.  Roughly 5000 Legionaries and an equivalent amount of auxilliaries.  For the British medieval forces it was difficult to come up with some standard so I picked the best I could find.  So loosely based on Edward III's forces from the 100 years war.  More specifically the Battle of Crecy.  Mid 1300s.

Now, keep this in mind.  I am using fictional leaders.  Edward was an amazing strategist, heads above his contemporaries.  Ceaser is also one of the best generals of all time.  Assume that the leaders are fairly competent and would more or less use the tactics of their time.

ROME

5000 Legionaries:  Equipped with two pilums (armour piercing, range is 20 yards), Gladius and Scutum (shield).  Lorica Segmentum (Steel segmented armour) ad to this 120 Heavier Cavalry armed with lance/spears
5000 Auxiliaries:  1000 Auxiliary light cavalry, 2000 archers range 200yards max, 2000 Heavy Infantry equipped as the Legionaries
59 Bolt Throwers (a few would have been repeating) Range 400-600yards
10 balistas 

Pros:  Discipline, equipment, leadership (including a strong NCO corp) training.  Army is made up of Professional soldiers serving for twenty years.  A roman legion could march 40 miles in day and effectively fight.  Flexible formations.  Excellent logistics.  

Cons: Vulnerable to mounted missile fire.  Vulnerable on the march.

English Forces

7000 Longbowmen Range 300 yards, no armour to speak of
2000 Cavalry of varying quality. 4 mounted Yeoman to every knight.  So 500 well equiped lance formed men and 1500 lighter cavalry.
3000 Men at arms.  Varying weapons and armour.  Padded Cloth armour and some chainmail would be the norm.

Pros: Archers were well trained and could rain down mass amounts of arrows.  Knights were well trained in fighting techniques and tended to wear heavier armour.  Logistics were crappy for expiditions but since this on English soil we'll say they are on par with the Romans.

Cons: men at arms tended to be peasant levies, the Nobles could be impulsive seeking personal glory in battle. 

There is more I could add but that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> On both occasions a disorganized barbarian rabble put the wind up those oh so sexy Roman skirts.  Gaul was very nearly lost, and would have been if the Gauls had a little patience (the beginning of a stereotype?).  Yes, a treb is a siege machine, point to you.  Welsh arrows were shredding armour more advanced than Roman scale, and at considerable range, and were the dominant force on the battlefield til gunpowder.  Roman cavalry vs a hedgerow of 15' long English ash pikes?  Bring it.  Roman tactics, it seems, were to allow an enemy to expend itself in wave after wave up against their defensive line, then mop up ops.  A medieval English army would happily stand back and rain clothyard shafts down on their heads.... Agincourt, anyone?
> 
> As for Boudicca, the Romans used geography, more than they used discipline, to funnel the Britons onto their spears.



I'd have to disagree on some of that.  Romans fought thousands of battles.  yes Boudica put up a serious revolt but got hammered for it.  She could not stand up to a fully arrayed legion, even with her numbers.  Geography did play a part.  But Boudica could not hold againt the wedge formations teh romans used.  Her charioteers and horsemen were decimated by roman pilums and ballistas.  Then as the romans advanced the Britons ran for it creating a stapede that killed many of them.  The two incidents you mention were when the romans were on the move.  Also the romans favoured tactics that allowed them to close with the enemy.  Roman cavalry was rarely used for shock action.  that Hedgerow of pikes would be easily defeated by the same tactics used to defeat teh greek phalanx.  

Keep in mind to that most of the knights at agincourt were killed by yeoman wielding knives.  the arrows mostly brought down the horses, then the heavier knights became bogged in the mud.  Easy pickings after that.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

Boudicca's charriots, and her infantry, were defeated by their sheer weight of numbers.  Their "Celtic Charge", while I'm sure was a magnificent sight, created a momentum that carried the forward ranks onto the Roman pikes, and hampered mobility, Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.  The troops at the rear were unable to see what was going on in front, and in their lust for Roman blood, continued pushing forward.  This happened because the Romans utilized a bottleneck  of deep forest on either side to commit relatively few men to the frontage, and more to the depth. Very Thermopylae-esque (if that's not a word, it bloody well should be).  In the open, a legion would have been rolled up like an old carpet.  If the pike wall, a defense against cav, was that easy to defeat, why did it persist for the better part of 300 years?  Surely at least one French, Teutonic, English, or Skandihoovian noble would have been somewhat of a student of history?


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Oct 2006)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> My money would be firmy on an Imperial field force....say 1st cent AD to 3rd Cent AD
> 
> For the following reasons....
> 
> ...



Yes,

Learning from their Gaul and barbaric Enemy, who employed heavy work horse to move towards the Romans.  The Romans learned from their mistakes and adapted horse, but like the Army of today, were weary of change.  It took them many years to even adopt such items as saddles and stirrups, military improvements that helped immensely.

As for the Long sword, that was developed for the simple idea of fighting on horse back, sure the Gladius was, and still to this day a phenomenal close quarter weapon, however the longsword (similar to the "Braveheart" type sword) was also a revolution, combining sword, axe, and spear in one weapon.

The medieval armies, all Utilized heavy work horses, to carry the overarmoured fighters, hence the fact that many fled battle feeling the very ground shake from this mass of human and equine earthmovers.

But again, it would be interesting to even split this, and field discussions on how both armies were in the defensive, and the offensive.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

"Keep in mind to that most of the knights at agincourt were killed by yeoman wielding knives.  the arrows mostly brought down the horses, then the heavier knights became bogged in the mud.  Easy pickings after that."

  Also to note, those French knights were clad from eyeball to breakfast in plate steel.  A stylin' Roman helmet, breastplate, shinguards, and that leather skirt wouldn't afford much protection from a sky full of arrows.  I would also like to think that the suprior range of the Welsh bow would be used to obliterate the lightly armoured Roman archers and cavalry, no shield= dead troopie.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Oct 2006)

Ahh yes Kat,

However, the Roman soldier was well versed in his shield, and had fought many an enemy wielding the bow in Africa and far eastern reaches of her empire.

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

Which is why I said the cavalry and the archers/artillery, lighter protected guys would have been the first to get thumped.  I would also think, in a one off engagement, that your average auxhilliary squaddie would crap his skirt and head for the high heather the first time heavy cavalry took a run at them.


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

:rofl:

I was chuckling at "Thermopylae-esque" but then the "head for the high heather" did me in...  ;D


----------



## zanshin (13 Oct 2006)

So, we've got a pile of pros and cons and tits and tats... (did I just sneak in a bad word?)

I still wanna go back to the professionalism of a roman legion.  When I say professionalism, I'm referring to all the different things we ascribe to these days; drill, trainingtrainingtraining, discipline, a professional NCO corps that wasn't seen again in the world for almost 2000 years...

When we're teaching recruits drill we don't say "Why are you learning this?!  Why!  Well, I'll tell you g#W$Rmit!!!  1000 years ago the peasant armies of medieval England milled around rather aimlessly before every battle!  The English Army conquered the known world and held sway over 200 million souls by milling around!  That's why!

Instead, of course, we use the "Roman Legions drilled blah blah blah..."


Mark


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

zanshin said:
			
		

> So, we've got a pile of pros and cons and tits and tats... (did I just sneak in a bad word?)
> 
> I still wanna go back to the professionalism of a roman legion.  When I say professionalism, I'm referring to all the different things we ascribe to these days; drill, trainingtrainingtraining, discipline, a professional NCO corps that wasn't seen again in the world for almost 2000 years...
> 
> ...



Coff*NewModelArmy*Coff*Cromwell*Coff, Coff


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2006)

Without getting too much into the "cool kit" discussion (i.e. my longbow is better than your short sword), I would say that under most circumstances a Legion has a huge edge over most armies of the middle ages. This would be due to the dicipline, organization and cohesion of a Legion, compared to the generally hastily thrown Medieval together "plug 'n play" force of several mercenary companies, the mounted nobility and the peasant levies.

The Legion was a combined arms unit, and would be able to use their cavalry, artillery and archery arms to great advantage, even though the equipment was quite different from the Medieval versions. Roman cavalry was employed in the scouting and persuit roles (stirrups not having been adopted by the Europeans at that time) rather than the "shock" role; and maniples of Infantry would be deployed in various formations to allow archers, light troops etc. to deploy and retreat as the need arose. At night, a Roman camp was built with a simple but effective fortification and organized layout, rather than flopping down on the ground or some locally impressed billet or barn.

Probably the most important advantage of a Legion, from the Res Publica to almost the end of the Empire was the built in logistics and attention to health and hygiene. Most armies of the Middle Ages perished due to disease rather than being destroyed on the battlefield, and a Legion could continue to function and even fight if required during the winter, while the Medieval army would be stood down and pretty much disbanded for the season.

Even if confronted by English longbows and heavy shock cavalry under a great commander like the Black Prince, the Legion would probably be able to retire in good order and the survivors adapt to changing tactics. The French used mostly the same tactics in Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, to disastrous effect, while the English became stuck in a tactical rut around the time of Jeanne d'Arc, to their great misfortune.

Of course, there are always "what ifs", and clever opponents could destroy the legion if the Legionary commanders were not paying attention, but this is true of any army in any time and place.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

You're talking a Roman campaign, Art.  The guideline is a pitched battle, not skirmishing, fortifying, and besieging.  In a single engagement, I'd back the English army because, well.... I'm English, dammitt!


edited for typo


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Oct 2006)

I'm wondering about, in relation to cavalry,...its my understanding and I might be wrong I admit, but didn't the use of stirrups come after the "fall" of Rome?  If that is in fact what happened then I think that the change in the way  the horsemans weapons(lance,spear,sword) would be used, due to the greater leverage offered by stirrups and the saddles of the time, might very well befuddle the Romans and give the mediaval cavalry a quite substantial advantage. Just food for thought.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Who has the initiative?  The Romans being more mobile would probably have the upper hand



The initiative may well be more dependent on who has the advantage to manoeuvre/attack, rather than a mere function of mobility.  As noted, mobility alone in the wrong terrain does not afford an advantage in itself.  Does the political/strategic situation demand that one force or the other must move on this day of battle, or is there an advantage to fixing or destroying the opponent's force in place?  




			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Who is attacking/defending?  Depends on tactics.  Typically the Romans would attack.  But seeing no Heavy cavalry the English might as well.  The Romans would adopt a defensive posture seeing the amount of Cavalry being employed.



"Depends on tactics" - exactly, and without a detailed tactical situation it's very difficult to assess a likely balance of combat power and outcome.  Either might attack if there was a tactical advantage to doing so, similarly, either may choose a defensive posture if that achieves the goal - is the objective to destroy one's enemy, or merely to fix them, perhaps to harry their supply lines to undermine their logistic advantages, or to keep them from pursuing other tactical aims.  Battle for the sake of battle is usually a poor choice for any general.




			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Terrain? Level



A chance encounter perhaps?   Or a planned battle beacuse both feel it is essential?  I do not belief that either force would entrench on open terrain and simply await their enemy.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Fortifications? Fixed, field, none?  the English employed stked positions to protect the archers.  Romans could build trenches and piked walls for defensive actions.  So field.



Field fortifications perhaps, but whose?  There wouldn't be two entrenched camps attempting to fight one another with sallies.




			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Time?  Mid morning



So, troops still relatively frsh, not having marched far since dawn (if mobile).  Heat of the day not yet at its peak.  Time for battle remains likely to include any pursuit before dusk.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Date? N/A



Is it a 'fortuitous' date in either the Roman or medieval Christian calendar?




			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Season?  Late spring



So, crops are not in yet.  Armies surviving on bread baked with the last of the last growing season's wheat.  Animals hunted for meat are still recovering from the winter, perhaps wary and not yet fat from eating the sumer's fodder.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Location? Great Britain



The English are defending a homeland - what mindset do they have after the Roman invasion? 
The Romans are far from home, and have probably wintered in England, among a hostile population.  How have their conditions been, how eager are they to put paid to the Christian foe?



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Weather, leading up to an at the point of battle?  Weather is clear



Equipment is dry. Horses should be relatively fit from being able to find fodder and not be suffereing from the recent damp and chills of spring rains.  Ground dry for good footborne or horse movement.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Quality and distance of logistic support?  See orbats
> Availability and make up of seige trains? See orbtats





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Are we confined to a specific battle incident, or are we talking about a campaign season?  One battle incident (we can deal with campaign later)



Ah, but the conditions of battle depend on so much more, making the state of the campaign critical for the estimate.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Size of forces?  10000 Romans 12000 English
> Balance of arms on each side?  See Orbats





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Actions before battle? Mostly manoeuvering



To what degree?  By which forces?  To achieve what objectives?  This contradicts the assumption of field fortifications for at least one force.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> OK so here is the scenario with some of the factors to take into account.  I am also including some pros and cons for each force.  The Romans represent a legionary force at the height of the military power.  Roughly 5000 Legionaries and an equivalent amount of auxilliaries.  For the British medieval forces it was difficult to come up with some standard so I picked the best I could find.  So loosely based on Edward III's forces from the 100 years war.  More specifically the Battle of Crecy.  Mid 1300s.
> 
> Now, keep this in mind.  I am using fictional leaders.  Edward was an amazing strategist, heads above his contemporaries.  Ceaser is also one of the best generals of all time.  Assume that the leaders are fairly competent and would more or less use the tactics of their time.
> 
> ...



Far from firm base(s).
Long lines of logistics, or dependent on an increasingly hostils local populace for foraged provisions.
What is the balance of experienced soldier to raw recruits and younger soldiers to impressed foreign levies?
What is the soldiers' views of the purpose of the campaign?
How long have they been away from Rome?
What is the time to get into ation for those ballistas and bolt throwers if the legion is manoeuvring?
How long is the immediate logistics and seige train, and can the legion manoeuvre and protect it simultaneously?




			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> English Forces
> 
> 7000 Longbowmen Range 300 yards, no armour to speak of
> 2000 Cavalry of varying quality. 4 mounted Yeoman to every knight.  So 500 well equiped lance formed men and 1500 lighter cavalry.
> ...




Medieval armies usually lived off the land and local populace. Difficult in late spring, crops not up yet, most habitants living on last of stored food.
Is the force unified, or are the King's 'captains' prone to independent action within his battel plan? (Could they be 'divided and conquered'?


So many factors leading up to and affecting the critical point of battle.


----------



## Zartan (13 Oct 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> The English are defending a homeland - what mindset do they have after the Roman invasion?
> The Romans are far from home, and have probably wintered in England, among a hostile population.  How have their conditions been, how eager are they to put paid to the Christian foe?



Thanks to the weird history of ancient Britain, in a way the Romans could be defending the homeland, after all, the Englisc are the Sassenachs (or Saesnaegs, or Sawznecks, whichever - it all means invader). It could be a Brittanic Roman Legion versus the people who live on the same land 1000 years later...


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

Zartan said:
			
		

> Thanks to the weird history of ancient Britain, in a way the Romans could be defending the homeland, after all, the Englisc are the Sassenachs (or Saesnaegs, or Sawznecks, whichever - it all means invader). It could be a Brittanic Roman Legion versus the people who live on the same land 1000 years later...



Regardless, it defines a factor requiring consideration of its effects on the combatants and their readiness to do battle.


----------



## Zartan (13 Oct 2006)

What I was meaning was that in an anachronistic way, the point would be moop (since a date was never established).


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Oct 2006)

The fact that we  the Romans Lived/occupied Britain for Close to 8 Hundred years, shows that their blood lines and teachings must have had some influence on the medieval warrior.  I believe the Medieval warriors, be it English, French, or Germanic unfortunately have derived from the teachings of the Roman Army.  

So technically it would be unfair to pit a matured or developed "Romanesque" military against the Might of Rome.

Would be fun to think about...ahh I am off to play a bit of games to test that ...

dileas

tess


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Oct 2006)

Zartan said:
			
		

> What I was meaning was that in an anachronistic way, the point would be moop (since a date was never established).



Presuming both forces in their respective 'homeland' may seem to make the point moot, but it also introduces an artificiality that starts to undermine the credibility of a realistic estimate.  How far do we go to balance things untl all we're measuring is the range of missile weapons and the strength of sword arms?


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

400 years tess, not 800.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Oct 2006)

Crikey,

Fat roman fingers, or freeudian slip...

Yes four hundred...

Since when were you Damn unwashed masses so observant?

dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Oct 2006)

Not nearly as thick as I are wide, matey....


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Boudicca's charriots, and her infantry, were defeated by their sheer weight of numbers.  Their "Celtic Charge", while I'm sure was a magnificent sight, created a momentum that carried the forward ranks onto the Roman pikes, and hampered mobility, Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.  The troops at the rear were unable to see what was going on in front, and in their lust for Roman blood, continued pushing forward.  This happened because the Romans utilized a bottleneck  of deep forest on either side to commit relatively few men to the frontage, and more to the depth. Very Thermopylae-esque (if that's not a word, it bloody well should be).  In the open, a legion would have been rolled up like an old carpet.  If the pike wall, a defense against cav, was that easy to defeat, why did it persist for the better part of 300 years?  Surely at least one French, Teutonic, English, or Skandihoovian noble would have been somewhat of a student of history?




Hey Kat, I've included a link with a brief description of the battle.  http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/defeat-of-boudicca.php more for interest sake

Roman discipline and grasp of tactics won the day.

About the pike wall.  Roman legions were Heavy Infantry oriented.  I'm sure the pike wall is very effective against Cavalry.  In fact the pike wall was a factor in the decline of the armoured knight.  But the Romans had an effective tactic againts that.  They were able to defeat the Macedonian (read Greek) phalanx, not that disimilar to pike walls.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_formation

They would close with the phalanx.  The first heavier pilum would be thrown at the Greeks shield rendering it useless.  The Pilum would embed itself in the shield and bend.  The weight would pretty much make it too awkward to be used.  Once the shield was down the second lighter pilum would be thrown at the hoplite.  Then the legionaries would brush the spears aside (in most cases the tight phalanx formation would be disrupted at this point) then the romans with shield and short sword would make swift work of their opponents.


And yes, one person was versed in roman history and was able to apply roman tactics to his advantage.  Edward III.  It is said that at Crecy he formed up his troops in the roman style, dismounted most of his cavalry to fight on foot.  Placed his archers on the flanks protected by defensive works.  He won several spectacular victories against the french while severly outnumbered.  His force was well trained and motivated and he was well liked by his own troops.

But you see Edward III did not use his army in the standard medieval way.  He used it like the romans did.  And won.  Unfortunately the Scenario does not include Edward. 

Also, we are talking about 1000years seperating each type of force but...the Dark ages came in between and many of the Roman and Greek tactics were lost. The technological advances were not that great.  Many of the units that appear in medieval times would have been similar to units that the romans would have faced.  Parthian archers (their composite bows outranged roman bows and could pierce armour) Cataphracts (heavily armoured cavalry) Macedonian Phallanx (Pike wall) etc etc.


----------



## p_imbeault (14 Oct 2006)

I must say, this has turned into a very interesting read


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Oct 2006)

Imbeault said:
			
		

> I must say, this has turned into a very interesting read



With a name liek your syou seam Frankish....Your people were part of some great shenanigans to the Great roman Isle of Britain, specifically in our leadership at londinium.....

Explain yourself, peasent......

_Gallo, another ale, pronto._dileas

tess


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hey Kat, I've included a link with a brief description of the battle.  http://www.unrv.com/early-empire/defeat-of-boudicca.php more for interest sake
> 
> Roman discipline and grasp of tactics won the day.
> 
> ...




All of the above are valid, and I will concede them. HOWEVER (you just KNEW that was coming),  I feel that the Roman supporters here are somewhat dazzled by the mystique of the mighty Roman Legions.  A review of the military history of Roman battles with all us dirty barbarians shows one thing: quite often, they were more lucky than good.  Time and again they came within a fleas peckerlength of losing the whole enchilada.


----------



## the 48th regulator (14 Oct 2006)

I am a fan of both,

Legacy of my forefathers returning from the Britannic lands back to home...

dileas

tess


----------



## p_imbeault (14 Oct 2006)

I have got some french in my blood, but for the most part I am a newfie  ;D, not really sure where my roots from Europe are though.

How about a mug of screech  >


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

We are dazzled by the Legion because it is really the ancestor of modern, Western armies. The rediscovery of Roman manuscripts and especially tactical manuals provided the focus for early modern armies to appear in the late 1400's early 1500's.

The Legion would have advantages against a loosly disciplined and organized Medieval army under almost any circumstance, either attacking, defending, under a meeting engagement or a deliberate battle. Even besieging the Medieval army or resisting a siege would not be terribly difficult for the Romans for all the factors noted before.

Once the Romans had encountered an arrow storm or a shock cavalry charge, they would have the ability to reform and at least perform a fighting retreat or withdrawl (and how would the English archers react to the maniples forming a "testudo" and _advancing_ into the arrow storm?). If these Romans had past experience with shock cavalry , longbows or both, you know they would have some counter ready (and indeed they already did. How would the longbowmen react to being mown down by a hail of "scorpion" and "onager" fire that outranged their bows?).

If you really want to see a blood-bath, put the Legion against one of its re-incarnations like a  Swiss pike square or a Spanish tercio. Edward III, Henry V or another superior commander would also be able to defeat the Legion with a typical Medieval formation, and of course once the Legion was very far out of its element such as caught in poor marching formation like the Teutenberg Forest, or far in the desert against the Parthians, or formed up in a single immovable mass by an incompetent commander like Caio Terenzio Varrone, then terrible defeat would be inevitable.


----------



## Long Sword (14 Oct 2006)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Being pulled off their horses and unable to get up.



This is actually a myth. Medieval armor was light enough to allow for very nimble close-quarter fighting, as seen here: 
http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2006)

You guys are all nuts.  Here's what would happen
The Romans are advancing and the Medieval Army _du jour _ would be deploying.  Then, the clouds above would open as a Wormhole is formed by NCC-1701.  That's right, Captain Kirk and the crew of the USS Enterprise!  Spock, Sulu, Uhura, even Chekov!  They (and Ensign Ricky with the Red Shirt) beam down.  A Roman scutum cuts Ricky clean from jib to yar (I have no idea what "jib" or "yar" are, but that doesn't matter).  Spock delivers a Vulcan pinch to the legionaire and Kirk jumps  up on a rock,and says 
"You.....Must...Live.....In.......PEACE!  Whatyou'redoingiswrong!"
Just then, Kirk notices a Druid woman, naked, and all painted in green.  He smirks, jumps off of his rock and walks over to her.  "I must teach you love!" he says
Sulu, meanwhile, approaches a young Roman and asks for directions to the nearest Roman Bathhouse.
Spock and Uhuru are left to clean up the mess, as Chekov asks a Roman Commander where the "Trireme Wessals" are...


----------



## zanshin (14 Oct 2006)

Don't forget Scotty!  He'd be back in the supply wagons fishing out the Romulan er... Roman Ale!


----------



## Steel Badger (14 Oct 2006)

Hmm perhaps we should start a seperate thread about the Ancient / Medieval Equipment

Tess, 

When we talk of a "longsword", that term usually refers to the "standard" side arm of the middle ages....say 3 foot blade, meant for cutting and thrusting.......the type that was common from Roman times to the advent of the Estoc or Panzer Schwert....similar in length but pointed ( the blade narrows from hilt to point"  and diamond shaped in cross section used for penetrating the weak points in full field harness  ( Full articulated plate armour)
The Roman Cavalry in Repulican times  (( And all Roman Troops by the early 2nd Cent AD) bore the Spathae as a weapon. This spathae is very similar to the blades carried by the Vikings, Normans etc. 

If by the "Braveheart" style sword you mean the Bastard or Hand and a half sword; remember that by the Second Century AD Roman had developed a wealth of experience dealing with opponents who carried such weapons.......the Dacian Falx for one.


----------



## Steel Badger (14 Oct 2006)

Hmmm the filter strikes again.......how does one turn it off?

Sorry, I meant to include images of the weapons I was discussing but apparently I failed in my intent.
Here is a link to the Ermine Street Guard (Princess Mary's Free Time Brigade) for those interested in Roman Matters...  http://www.esg.ndirect.co.uk/


----------



## dglad (14 Oct 2006)

von Grognard said:
			
		

> You guys are all nuts.  Here's what would happen
> The Romans are advancing and the Medieval Army _du jour _ would be deploying.  Then, the clouds above would open as a Wormhole is formed by NCC-1701.  That's right, Captain Kirk and the crew of the USS Enterprise!  Spock, Sulu, Uhura, even Chekov!



This is complete nonsense.  What a ridiculous thing to introduce into an earnest and thoughtful discussion like this.

I mean, everyone knows that Picard was way better than Kirk, so it would be the the Enterprise-D that arrived at the battle and beam down:

-Riker, who would stand in profile a lot and look so damned good
-Troi, who would look deeply concerned at thousands of brandished weapons around them and tell Riker, "I sense anger...great anger...."
-Worf, who would nod at both armies, leer, and say, "Yes, today IS a good day to die....:
-Data, who would find a reason to struggle with what it means to be human, and then save the day because everyone else had become somehow incapacitated

And Picard wouldn't even have to be there, because he'd be on the bridge of the Big D, listening to Geordie tell him how the phase inducers had undergone a polarization shift and become decoupled from the dilithium recrystallization compositor, but he would not only fix it in two hours but improve the whole darned system so it worked even better than the designers, who'd spent months on the problem in a fully-equipped starbase, had ever imagined.  And Picard would say, "Make it so", drink some tea, Earl Gray, hot, and just stand there, BEING better than Kirk the whole time.


----------



## zanshin (14 Oct 2006)

OK Dglad, 3 things:
1) Happy Birthday!  (It's cool that your profile shows a birthday cake),
2) Troi should be answering the door in a flimsy see through thing and,
3) What's that about Riker looking good?  You seemed to spend alot of time on that one...  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2006)

Constitution class all the way!


----------



## dglad (14 Oct 2006)

zanshin said:
			
		

> OK Dglad, 3 things:
> 1) Happy Birthday!  (It's cool that your profile shows a birthday cake),
> 2) Troi should be answering the door in a flimsy see through thing and,
> 3) What's that about Riker looking good?  You seemed to spend alot of time on that one...  ;D



Well, thank you.  And, yeah, that birthday cake thing is cool...well done to whoever among the site gurus thought that up.

Troi and a filmy thing...yeah.  As for Riker, well, I see nothing wrong with noting a good looking man.  It's the 21st century, you know, and besides, I'm secure in my masculinity...really, I am...seriously...!


----------



## onecat (14 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> "Keep in mind to that most of the knights at agincourt were killed by yeoman wielding knives.  the arrows mostly brought down the horses, then the heavier knights became bogged in the mud.  Easy pickings after that."
> 
> Also to note, those French knights were clad from eyeball to breakfast in plate steel.  A stylin' Roman helmet, breastplate, shinguards, and that leather skirt wouldn't afford much protection from a sky full of arrows.  I would also like to think that the suprior range of the Welsh bow would be used to obliterate the lightly armoured Roman archers and cavalry, no shield= dead troopie.




Actually Kat its a myth that that knight once unseated from his horse could not get back up.  A fully kitted up kight had about 80 pounds of armour less than a fully kiited out ruck.  and they could pick themselve back up, as the armour was form fitted and designed for this.  I can give you some website if disagree. 

The longbow was very powerful but it was only power on the battle field.  the crossbow was equally deadly.  at Agincourt it just happened that the Italian crossbowmen were not able to prepared and shield themselve from the English.. retreated and left the French with no fire support.  They why the English won at Agincourt, as they controled the air as were.


----------



## zanshin (14 Oct 2006)

Yeah, Riker was big into posing.  Remember the pilot episode when he was bounding through the holodeck jungle?  If I remember right, he stopped for a pose or two.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

radiohead said:
			
		

> Actually Kat its a myth that that knight once unseated from his horse could not get back up.  A fully kitted up kight had about 80 pounds of armour less than a fully kiited out ruck.  and they could pick themselve back up, as the armour was form fitted and designed for this.  I can give you some website if disagree.
> 
> The longbow was very powerful but it was only power on the battle field.  the crossbow was equally deadly.  at Agincourt it just happened that the Italian crossbowmen were not able to prepared and shield themselve from the English.. retreated and left the French with no fire support.  They why the English won at Agincourt, as they controled the air as were.



I was referring to the level of protection an armoured knight had vs a legionary. English archers shredded them at range, Roman armour would not be that difficult to cut up pretty badly.  My comment had nothing to do with the weight of the armour, or the turtle effect.

  A testudo would have zero effect on the archers, as they are mobile enough to evade such a clumsy formation, assuming it would ever get near them.  Again, the archers would hammer crap out of LIGHTER ARMOURED cavalry (no shields, vulnerable on horseback), and auxiliary troops.  Infantry wouldn't function for long on its own, and a heavy horse charge into the flank of a tortoise would be quite a sight.

  Crossbows fired 1-2 rounds a minute,  a fully competent Welsh poacher archer could get off up to 12 arrows a minute,  THAT'S why they dominated at Agincourt.

  Anyone else remember the SNL "What If" Sketch?  What If.... Napoleon had a B52 at waterloo?  Hilarious


----------



## onecat (14 Oct 2006)

"Crossbows fired 1-2 rounds a minute,  a fully competent Welsh poacher archer could get off up to 12 arrows a minute,  THAT'S why they dominated at Agincourt"

That is a myth.. the french were left without they firesupport (e.i. crossbowmen) because of the tactics employed by the English is choosing teh battlefield. The crossbowmen retreated from the field because they were not able set their shield defences.  The French on hearing this attacked them.. afte that they were left without the any firesupport to counter the English..... and  myth has been created ever since.

They also fire more than 1-2 bolts a minutes... unless of course your getting that inform from a D&D book.

here a few website that might help you.

http://www.aemma.org/

http://www.schooleofdefence.co.uk/  this guy had a great show on the history ch.. called the weapons that made britian.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

So, you're saying it's a myth that a longbow had a much higher rate of fire than a crossbow?  What's with the D&D crack, by the way?  Is it your intention to impugn me on here by insinuating that the only source of info I'm capable of finding is in a fantasy game handbook?  Are you then, by extension, implying that my position is based entirely on fantasy and myth?  If so, I will withdraw from these proceedings forthwith, and not burden you with my fantastic theories any longer.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

The same problem happened at Crecy.  The rain had also rendered the crossbows less effective as well.

And kat, i am enjoying the debate thus far, by all means please stay on.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2006)

Kat, you are making the assumption that the Legion would be moving blindly and without purpose. The main body of the legion could assume a protective posture like the testudo out of effective arrow range (the longbow only penetrated armour plating at @ 20m range, according to modern reconstruction), while the light Roman Cavalry could run rings around the heavy forces. Indeed, one tactic would be to use the cavalry to get behind the enemy force, while the Legion main body fixes them in place, either by a threatening presence or even a slow, deliberate advance. The Medieval heavy cavalry would be launching at an unbroken formation similar to a Swiss Pike phalanx or British Square, horses generally do not charge home into such a mass (the only reason charges work is most men in most armies do not have the dicipline to stand fast in the face of a charge, the Knights were hacking at a disintigrating mob of running men rather than bowling over a formed body like ten pins.) 

When the arrows ran out, the Legion would do far better in close quarter hand to hand fighting than the dismounted French knights, the Chevalier were attempting to fight duels or single combat against hordes of men at arms who were more prone to tackle the Knight as a mass and stab through the joints in the armour once he was down; Australian rules football with swords and knives.

The biggest problem for the Medieval army, unless led by an exceptional commander, would be to coordinate the movement of various elements (the Genoese crossbowmen are an excellent example; they really never had time to set up properly since the mass of French Chivalry was crowding behind them and pushing them forward, among other problems). The Legion would have less of a problem, fixing the enemy with fire from the Scorpions and other war engines; advancing and forcing the enemy to commit to a charge or defensive posture, probing the flanks and rear with light Cavalry, and generally spoiling the enemy commander's day.

BTW, a reconstruction of medieval weaponry had a trained crossbowman firing @ 4 rounds in a minute to the longbow's 12, but sustained fire would be much slower as the bowmen tired out.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

Here is a testudo, anyone else see a vulnerability in the flanks to oh, say, 500 heavy horse wielding 12' lances at a full gallop?
here are some Roman cav, anyone else see a vulnerability to oh, say, 6000 arrows a minute falling out of the sky?
Here are some medieval pikemen (I know, but Britton's lead soldiers rock!), anyone else see a problem with roman light cavalry or even a shield wall getting through this?  When it comes to pikes, size does matter.    
    Art, you are also under an assumption, that the English would automatically be a throw together rabble, not a somewhat seasoned campaign army, a la 100 years war.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

The Heavy infantry could deal with pikemen, as I stated before.  The Roman cavalry was used for harrassment, pursuit, scouting and screening.  It did have heavier stuff but rarely used it to win actions.  Only end them.  The romans won with their heavy infantry.

As far as repelling cavalry the romans had a technique to do it.  

  
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html

Now imagine 510 men arrayed in a 51 man frontage, 10 men deep in this formation.  It doesen't matter how well trained your horse is, it is not going to get through that.  Either missile fire or massing will stop cavalry charges.

As far as medieval forces are concerned, the armies use during the hundred years war were the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

It was a 100 year war(more or less), how long did it need to be for them to be the rule instead of the exception?  And to be fair, you're arguments are based on a well seasoned Imperial Roman campaign army.  So, where are we right now?  Clearly, at least to me, neither would have a clear advantage, as both had decent ranged weapons, fair to good anti cavalry tactics, and infantry tactics that hadn't changed much in 1000 years (blocks of men carrying long pointy things)?  So, a technical deadlock.  It then comes down to one thing: The capability of the field commander.  We have already been given the condition that they are more or less equal.  Stalemate.


----------



## onecat (14 Oct 2006)

Kat, sorry about the D&D comment. but to me jsut sounded like something out a a d&D game.  but I by no means did I mean it as a insult.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

Already forgotten.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

Well, 116 actually.  And not even that.  It was more of a series of smaller conflicts with France with moments of temporary peace between them.

The war was in fact a series of conflicts divided into three or four phases: the Edwardian War (1337-1360), the Caroline War (1369-1389), the Lancastrian War (1415-1429).

But yes you are right.  The Edwardian armies were well trained, which is why I picked it over a typical medieval force to face the romans.

My thoughts are that a typical medieval force would not be a match for a Roman force.  However, an army like the one Edward used at Crecy and Poitiers would be a match.  So yes, capable commanders, terrain, weather and of course luck would all be factors in determining the outcome.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

Soooo.... six pages to say "flip a coin"..... nice! ;D


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Soooo.... six pages to say "flip a coin"..... nice! ;D



Well to be honest, I certainly learned a lot more about Edward and his campaigns.  I had nominal knowledge of them, now I have more.  I was of the opinion that the Romans would beat them.  Some reading later I find them to be matched up pretty fairly.

Overall though I think that the Edwardian forces still need a capable commander to win, a normal leader would default to standard medieval tactics, which are inferior to Roman style tactics.  Whereas the Romans could make due with someone less capable but still come out on top due to it's strong NCO/Officer corp.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2006)

radiohead said:
			
		

> They also fire more than 1-2 bolts a minutes... unless of course your getting that inform from a D&D book.


Whoa: let's not confuse Grognards (those who play wargames) with fantasty players (30 somethings who still live in Mom's basement)


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

To be fair, the English armies of the middle ages were a very up and down affair.  After England's almost expulsion from the mainland in 1390(ish), they went into a decline.  However, by the time Henry V was on the throne, the fighting spirit was back with a vengeance, probably culminating at Agincourt only 25 years later.  All this to say, there is no "typical" medieval army, therefore a very interesting question to try and answer.  This was fun....more!


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2006)

OK, let us assume a Roman Legion of what: 250 AD or so?  Vs what, an English Army of similar size from Agincourt?  We need specifics, and assume that they are some 25 miles from one another, aware of the other's location and existance, and both have the mission to destroy the other.  We will need a map of some sort, and a way to game this out.  We will need a commander for the Romans, and one for the English.
We will need extensive ORBATS and some information.  What I could do (as a grognard) is try to find a game that would work to figure out this match up.  And I promise: no Constitution Class Starships, Borg, X Wings or anything else wonky!


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

Aware of each other, okay.  Aware of each others tactics through incidental contact, or a "first clash" scenario?


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Aware of each other, okay.  Aware of each others tactics through incidental contact, or a "first clash" scenario?


("First Clash" I loved that novel.)  
Aware of each others' tactics through incidental contact.  So, a basic understanding of how the opposing army maneouvres in the field, etc.


----------



## warrickdll (14 Oct 2006)

Found an interesting article here: http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/general/stirrup.html

Its purpose is to debunk theories regarding the medieval stirrup as _revolutionary_ to warfare. The article also voices similar opposition to _revolutionary_ theories regarding lances, armour, and horses. And is dismissive of my earlier assertion: 





			
				Iterator said:
			
		

> ...The size, power, endurance, and availability of warhorses were limiting factors to all levels of cavalry development that only improved over time....



I would summarize the article (for this discussion) as an argument that medieval knights would be no more effective than classical cavalry in a pitched battle against Roman Infantry. The article does state reasons for viewing medieval knights as superior in marauding and cavalry-cavalry engagements.

Here are some excerpts (still a bit lenghty, the actual website gives a much better point - counterpoint format):


> ...
> Contemporary manuscript illustrations always show mounted knights fighting other cavalry.
> ...
> It is only at the final stage, when the English line had broken, that the knights are shown fighting amongst the opposing infantry.
> ...






> ...
> It was the role of cavalry that became important in this period. In other words, it was mobility that mattered above all else. Cavalry action is in fact the only way in which enemy cavalry units can be engaged. Infantry may be able to defend territory, but they cannot force a mounted unit to fight in close combat.
> ...
> The increased emphasis on cavalry in the Roman army of the late Empire reflects this change in the nature of warfare and the increased importance of a mobile reaction force to counter a highly mobile enemy.
> ...






> ...
> Warfare in the medieval period is thus unlike our notion of war between nation states or large-scale societies. It is more in the nature of 'feuding' or guerre guerroyante. (Contamine,p 219) The armed forces of the Roman state, of the Byzantine empire, and of the nation states of Europe from c. 1500 until the present day are the opposite to a medieval host. They had (or have) a unified central command, paid regular units of all arms, a systematic program of training, and a hierarchical command staff. By comparison, a medieval army was an ad hoc gathering of warriors led by an hereditary aristocracy and lacking any notion of national loyalty. A gathering such as this was unsuitable for a protracted military campaign in the modern sense. The mounted warrior, however, was strategically superior to other arms in the skirmishing and raiding warfare of the period because of his ability to cover distance rapidly, and to pursue effectively.
> 
> Cavalry was not, however, inherently superior to infantry forces in all situations, despite the use of stirrup, lance and armour.
> ...






> ...
> There is abundant evidence that knights throughout the medieval period often dismounted to fight in a pitched battle. This is stated quite explicitly in a contemporary account of the battle of the Standard in 1138. According to Henry of Huntingdon, King Stephen and his knights dismounted and took up position in the centre of the line at the battle of Lincoln, 1141 (Hallam, p 172). John Beeler (1971), writing about the period AD700-1200, says:
> 
> "..to insist that the frontal cavalry charge was the sole tactical expedient of feudal generals is to ignore the evidence that can be found about literally scores of engagements" (p 251)
> ...


----------



## zanshin (14 Oct 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> ... So, a technical deadlock.  It then comes down to one thing: The capability of the field commander.  We have already been given the condition that they are more or less equal.  Stalemate.



This brings us back to my point.  The Romans had a social structure in their forces that the medieval forces lacked.  They had a strong, well-developed NCO cadre.  They were professional soldiers who fought year-round for a full career with a pension waiting for them at the end.  They had privates, NCO's and officers.  A well-balanced force that today all armies are based on.  Whereas, in medieval times there were ka-nig-its and peasants (who, when the season ended, went back to being peasants, right?)

If you're ending off that their weaponry and tactics were equal they you have to look at the combatents.  Ignatio Legionnaire vs. Jean Louis de Ha! Ha!

So, does that put the legion on top at the end?


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2006)

It certainly gives them an edge.


----------



## Michael OLeary (14 Oct 2006)

And each force would have a balance of experienced combatants, less exerienced soldiers and neophytes.  Without actually examining who had what experience at what levels within each force, it's not necessarily a definitive factor.

But, as this thread has brought to light at various points, generalizations seldom are.


----------



## warrickdll (14 Oct 2006)

I guess that is why it is an interesting question. How does the professionalism of the legion compare to the medieval advances (longbow, crossbow, stirrup, sword, pike, etc), especially if you could flatten out all other variables in a one-off battle?

Arguably, all we are really discussing is how effective the Roman model (basically a professional balanced force) was/is. In a pitched battle, if you flatten out all other variables except technology and professionalism, how much of a technological edge is required before professionalism is defeated?

How effective was the Roman model when fighting in non-pitched battles against forces that were both professionally and technologically inferior to themselves? How does that apply today? How about medieval forces in similar situations?

Have any historic forces been successful at asymmetric warfare while still managing to maintain professional and technological superiority against other conventional forces?


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Oct 2006)

zanshin said:
			
		

> This brings us back to my point.  The Romans had a social structure in their forces that the medieval forces lacked.  They had a strong, well-developed NCO cadre.  They were professional soldiers who fought year-round for a full career with a pension waiting for them at the end.  They had privates, NCO's and officers.  A well-balanced force that today all armies are based on.  Whereas, in medieval times there were ka-nig-its and peasants (who, when the season ended, went back to being peasants, right?)
> 
> If you're ending off that their weaponry and tactics were equal they you have to look at the combatents.  Ignatio Legionnaire vs. Jean Louis de Ha! Ha!
> 
> So, does that put the legion on top at the end?



English soldiers on the continent went over as teenagers, and some spent 10, 15, even 20 years fighting in France.  They did not go back to the farm in the off season, as they were supported by taxation at home.  They were in France, fighting to keep what they looked at as their kings rightful possession.  By the time of Agincourt, the English army was very good at what they were doing, not seasonal marauders.


----------



## zanshin (14 Oct 2006)

Well there.  See?  That's what this site is all about.  I just done lern-ed something!   ;D

That's what I get from trying to learn history from Monty Python...


----------



## dglad (14 Oct 2006)

Iterator said:
			
		

> Have any historic forces been successful at asymmetric warfare while still managing to maintain professional and technological superiority against other conventional forces?



The Mongols come to mind.  They were successful across the full spectrum of warfare, using clever strategy, adaptability, a huge investment in understanding their enemies, and remarkable mobility and flexibility at the operational and tactical levels.  Through much of the 13th century, they were unmatched and effectively never defeated.  However, 60 or 70 years of zenith isn't much compared to, say, Rome, so another question that comes to mind is, how long can such a force sustain its success?  To what extent is it dependant on individual personalities, which the Mongols of this period, under Genghis Khan, probably were.  Following his death, the unity of purpose that carried the Mongols to such great achievements decayed away.  One wonders if such success can be "institutionalized" and codified into a system, so it outlasts individual leaders.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2006)

I suspect the leader has a great deal to do with the effectiveness of the fighting force. Look at the CEF in the early part of WWI compared to the "Shock Troops of the Empire" Canadian Corps of 1918. General Sir Arthur Currie and Julian Byng had a great deal to do with converting the CEF from a brave but untrained rabble to one of the most dangerous forces in the Western Front.

We have noted that both the Legion and various Medieval armies could excel or suffer at the hands of capable and incapable leaders, even if the essential structure and weaponry was the same. The English armies which Jeanne D'Arc forced out of France were made up of long term "professional" soldiers using very much the same tactics and weapons as in Agincourt, but the very capable English leaders were a generation in the past. 

Even today, I would expect that a certain portion of the fighting spirit which animates the modern Canadian Forces can be traced back to the "boss", Gen Hillier with his blunt, straight talking style and drive for results. I could hardly imagine the much larger Canadian Forces of the 1980's or early 1990's achieving so much when lead by the bland, bureaucratic generals of the day.

If this is going to be "table topped", many wargame rules actually provide bonus points for having a capable and effective leader in play.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Oct 2006)

Agreed, Arthur re: table top games having the influence of leaders in the mix.  Squad Leader (naturally) comes to mind.  The leader rules in that game are both effective and actually quite simple.
Also, as I think of this scenario and the banter of the effectiveness of weapons, I think of the early part of the second world war (say 1939 to around late 1942).  The Germans had, generally, inferior tanks but it is the employment of those very tanks that made them famous.  The French Char B (I think that's its designation) was heavily armoured and carried a decent gun.  The Germans, on the other hand, had relatively light armour with miniscule guns.  Even a year (and a bit) later in Russia, the Mark III (the workhorse of the early German Army) and the Mark IV (workhorse from around 42 to the end of the war) paled in comparison to some of the best of the Russian Tanks such as the T 34 (in all its variants) and the KV series.
Once the Germans had decent tanks (Panthers and Tigers), they were strategically on the defensive and although there are cases where the very presence of these beasts handled by very capable commanders (for example, Michael Wittmann) "blew away" the competition.
Anyway, I do have a book here _somewhere _ in my house that I may have a look at later today to see what, if anything, I can come up with.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2012)

Bringing this post back from the dead, simply because I could not find anothr post for Trebuchets. You know you want to build one (modern replicas with telephone poles for throwing arms can fire Volkswagens and pianos across a football field or greater length, you could scale your model according to what you want to throw and how much distance you have on your range:

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/05/ff_trebuchet/



> *How to Build a Trebuchet*
> 
> By Adam Savage
> Email Author
> ...


----------

