Roman Army vs Medieval Army

[vonGarvin]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[vonGarvin]

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]

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:

...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.
...
Against a scattered or disordered enemy on foot, or against other mounted opponents, a charge by mounted troops would be very effective.
...

...
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.
...
In spite of social bias in favour of the mounted aristocracy, it is clear that infantry continued to dominate the battlefield.
...

...
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)
Dismounting was without doubt the usual practise in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, although by then the whole nature of "feudal" warfare and military organisation had changed.

The true role of mounted troops in the medieval period must be understood in the light of the essential principles of war, principles which apply to all times and places. The single most important characteristic of the mounted arm is its mobility. The ability to undertake rapid and long-range movement gives cavalry a superiority in reconnaissance, deployment and pursuit. Mounted troops have always been employed on the flanks, as a reserve, and as a force available for rapid raids into enemy positions. This was how they were employed even in the medieval period.
...

 

[zanshin]

... 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]

It certainly gives them an edge.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
    May 10, 2012 |
    2:50 pm |
    Categories: Everything Else



My son had to build a trebuchet for a school science project. It turned into a case of trial and error—and error.

Amazing as it may seem, I’d never actually built a trebuchet. I know, I know, I’m not sure how it happened either. But it wasn’t like I was totally in the dark. A trebuchet is a relatively simple medieval projectile weapon. Basically, a weight swings an arm around and slings something outward. Except … I realized I’d never learned how a sling works. And that provided a unique opportunity for me and my son to do a little problem solving. I decided not to look it up. I told my son that we should just get building, and we’d figure it out together.

Working from drawings his teacher gave him (and inch-thick Trupan fiberboard from my workshop), my son put together the main structure in about an hour. Its arm, weighted with ball bearings, swung on a nice pivot. We cut a piece of leather into a cradle to hold the projectile. I figured that one end of the sling had to be attached to the swing arm while the other end had to come free as the arm reached the top of its arc. But how?

Drawing ideas at the whiteboard, my son had the same hunch I did: Attach one end of the sling to a hook that it could slide off of. We made a small wooden hook and attached it to the arm. One end of the sling got tied to the arm, and we tied a loop in the other end to go around the hook. Time to test-fire: We put a 1-inch ball bearing into the sling, lifted the weighted end of the swing arm, released it, and …

Total, hilarious failure. The sling neatly whipped that sucker straight down onto the table. Made a little dent. It was awesome—loud, and with a lot of force. So at my son’s suggestion, we gentled the angle of the hook from 90 degrees to 45. Again we loaded the sling, lifted the weight, and …

Again, failure. Instead of smacking the table, the sling released too early. But we were getting somewhere. The right solution occurred to us at exactly the same moment—the proper hook wasn’t a hook at all, but just a little stick jutting out from the end of the swing arm. Hang the looped end of the sling on it and the loop will slip off at the peak of the arc, launching the projectile. We set it up, lifted the weight, and … SUCCESS!