Roman Army vs Medieval Army

[warrickdll]

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]

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]

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]

I just hope a FLOCARK works for SDIs!

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

 

[Kat Stevens]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

For the following reasons....

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...

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]

"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]

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]

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]

:rofl:

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

 

[zanshin]

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]

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

Coff*NewModelArmy*Coff*Cromwell*Coff, Coff

 

[a_majoor]

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]

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]

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