Roman Army vs Medieval Army

[Michael OLeary]

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? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Date? N/A

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

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.

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?

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.

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)

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[the 48th regulator]

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]

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]

400 years tess, not 800.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Crikey,

Fat roman fingers, or freeudian slip...

Yes four hundred...

Since when were you Damn unwashed masses so observant?

dileas

tess

 

[Kat Stevens]

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

 

[Remius]

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]

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

 

[the 48th regulator]

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]

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.

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]

I am a fan of both,

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

dileas

tess

 

[p_imbeault]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Steel Badger]

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.