Roman Army vs Medieval Army

[Steel Badger]

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]

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]

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]

Constitution class all the way!

 

[dglad]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Already forgotten.

 

[Remius]

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]

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

 

[Remius]

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.