User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:05:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What Caesar did by putting his skirmishes by using the polymer as spears in with his cavalry is what won him that battle. That was brilliant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:06:22 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Alexander beat elephants on his first try. The Romans lost several armies before Scipio figured it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: This X10. Pyrrhus only did well against the legions due to his war elephants. Imo Pyrrhus was a good as of a commander as Alexander imo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Hydaspes 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:07:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English longbowmen attrit the Romans before legionnaires even get close enough to think about fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:15:36 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swiss infantry would smoke the legions. A combo of units armed with Pikes/ halberds and 2h swords and fight to the death morale-infused with philosophy of initiative-something no army at the time had, esp going back far to the roman times. Swiss infantry were unmatched in brutality, efficiency, morale and flexibility AND tactics. The Swiss never took prisoners as they did not believe in ransom and usually fought to the death. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:17:55 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Swiss infantry would smoke the legions. A combo of units armed with Pikes/ halberds and 2h swords and fight to the death morale-infused with philosophy of initiative-something no army at the time had, esp going back far to the roman times. Swiss infantry were unmatched in brutality, efficiency, morale and flexibility AND tactics. The Swiss never took prisoners as they did not believe in ransom and usually fought to the death. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:19:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people voting Rome > Medieval Europe are probably the same ones who think Bruce Lee could beat Mike Tyson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:21:39 PM EDT
[#7]
I asked my medieval history teacher at USNA this same question. He said that the Europeans would annihilate the Romans (and Greeks).
Who was he? No one important. Richard Abels |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:26:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked my medieval history teacher at USNA this same question. He said that the Europeans would annihilate the Romans (and Greeks). Who was he? No one important. Richard Abels |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:38:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a myth perpetuated by the same people who think medieval swords were essentially 20 pound dull edged sword shaped clubs that caused blunt trauma injuries. There were plenty of well organized and deadly medieval armies that would trounce Roman legions. Genoese crossbowmen, English longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, some of the crusading armies were absolutely huge and very well equipped, Medieval Europe had siege engines that made Roman technology look like tinker toys, let alone getting into the full steel plate armored cavalry of the 1400s. In any case |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:42:46 PM EDT
[#10]
A Roman legionary served for decades and as such, was a battle hardened, fully professional soldier led by a professional officer corps, whereas many of those serving in medieval armies were part timers who were mustered occasionally according to their obligations and the needs of those to whom, as vassals, they owed fealty.
Medieval knights were very well armed and schooled in the art of individual combat but IMO, they weren't "soldiers" nor were the leadership of medieval armies professional officers. The Roman formations would outmaneuver them and grind them down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:42:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Romans would lose. They were good, but also mostly fought against barbarian tribes. The tactics of one general were sometimes lucky enough to beat another (as shown in their civil war). They also got their asses kicked multiple times by the Carthaginians. Fast forward a thousand years to better materials and equipment, and it'd be like the Persians against the Athenians on Marathon Beach. But it's difficult to account for the generals. Especially things like Caesar's engineering feats. I'm assuming here that the number of troops are about even. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:43:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
swiss foot and norman cavalry straight murder the romans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:43:32 PM EDT
[#13]
Heavy horse would fuck over the romans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:44:27 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the Parthians, Seluecids, Macedonians, Jews etc are all just Barbarians? Also, as you noted, they got their asses kicked multiple times by the Carthaginians - and still went on to win the war and raze Carthage. Sheer bloody-mindedness counts for a lot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Romans would lose. They were good, but also mostly fought against barbarian tribes. The tactics of one general were sometimes lucky enough to beat another (as shown in their civil war). They also got their asses kicked multiple times by the Carthaginians. Fast forward a thousand years to better materials and equipment, and it'd be like the Persians against the Athenians on Marathon Beach. But it's difficult to account for the generals. Especially things like Caesar's engineering feats. I'm assuming here that the number of troops are about even. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:50:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Caesar's flank broke before the reinforcements arrived, but his army didn't panic. Pompey's cavalry lost to that maneuver and his army fled. While both had experienced troops, Pompey's men had been disbanded for a long time while Caesar's had just returned from constant warfare in Gaul. Also damn auto correct on my cellphone is atrocious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:53:42 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Roman horsemen didn't even have stirrups and only had limited use of more primitive steel. European heavy cavalry would slaughter them. Romans were the bomb in their day, but they were 1000 years behind 13th/14th century Europe in technology. If it's in Europe over a long period of time with both sides' peak numbers, I'd say the medieval Europeans win because Roman supply lines would be even more vulnerable to medieval Europeans than they were in Roman times. If it's in the Roman peninsula with both sides' peak numbers, I might give the edge to Rome given the numbers they could muster and their being closer to their support base. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:54:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not won the war won all three wars against Carthage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:56:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Roman Space marines circa 200-300 AD
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:57:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Romans didn't take over most of Europe, Asia, Africa, etc for no reason. After Theodosius, or better yet, the battle of Adrianople started the downfall of the Roman empire. There were a multitude of issues that brought down the Romans. It is what it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not won the war won all three wars against Carthage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:57:47 PM EDT
[#20]
16th century militaries would crush roman legions. They're behind by one and a half millennia of tech and metallurgy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 7:59:04 PM EDT
[#21]
Uh that's well into the GP era so outside of our comparison. Romans could defeat that though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:04:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the similarities with our society are to many to ignore. Much much to learn there. Watching their social struggle mid/late republic tells you exactly how ours is going to end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:05:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/hb/hb_32.69.jpg 16th century militaries would crush roman legions. They're behind by one and a half millennia of tech and metallurgy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:08:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English longbowmen attrit the Romans before legionnaires even get close enough to think about fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:09:10 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pre gunpowder Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You do realize the "Middle Ages" covers 1000 years right? Im still trying to figure out what you point is though. I'm not saying the Romans are shit. I just dont fetishize them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:11:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Also I don't think you barbarians comprehend the maneuverability of small units of Roman infantry during the heat of battle. You don't see it again until the German storm troops of 1917. Absolute control of their units. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For those who enjoy reading of the Roman civil wars of Marius and Sulla and Caesar's Gaul campaign, the scale of violence the Roman's were willing to inflict and receive is mind boggling. Armies of this size were not seen again until Napoleon and then only briefly. World War I type logistics and planning and relentlessness. Quantity has a quality all its own. It would not have even been close. Also I don't think you barbarians comprehend the maneuverability of small units of Roman infantry during the heat of battle. You don't see it again until the German storm troops of 1917. Absolute control of their units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:13:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well nobody ever said the Swiss were stupid. 
Except for obtaining better quality steel the Romans would be a very quick study and catch-up quickly. Things had not advanced really all that much as far as weaponry went between the two eras. I suspect the Romans would fight at a disadvantage till winter and when the next fighting season started they would quickly gain the upper hand with improved weapons and tactics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pikes, Halberds, and crossbows would be fine till the Romans looked them over, viewed the tactics of their deployment, and figured out how to defeat them. I don't suspect it would take them long, even in the field. Till then they would counter maneuver those pointy stick cumbersome formations into wooded or hilly areas where they would have more of a advantage instead of fighting on more level ground that would favor medieval weapons. I figure once they saw a halberd they would figure out in a hurry that it's main advantage was hooking and unhorsing cavalrymen. Long pointy poles cut from the countryside with a simple iron hook attached would accomplish the same thing in the short term. Hell a hook of fire hardened wood fitted to a pointy pole would suffice. As someone else mentioned.....The Romans killing everyone would be a huge confidence shaker for the knight/king class. "Enlightenment" comes with a price when your opponent just wants you and everyone you brought with you dead.
Except for obtaining better quality steel the Romans would be a very quick study and catch-up quickly. Things had not advanced really all that much as far as weaponry went between the two eras. I suspect the Romans would fight at a disadvantage till winter and when the next fighting season started they would quickly gain the upper hand with improved weapons and tactics. Go read about the Swiss pick formation. It wasn't just pikes. Standing in a line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:13:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pikes, Halberds, and crossbows would be fine till the Romans looked them over, viewed the tactics of their deployment, and figured out how to defeat them. I don't suspect it would take them long, even in the field. Till then they would counter maneuver those pointy stick cumbersome formations into wooded or hilly areas where they would have more of a advantage instead of fighting on more level ground that would favor medieval weapons. I figure once they saw a halberd they would figure out in a hurry that it's main advantage was hooking and unhorsing cavalrymen. Long pointy poles cut from the countryside with a simple iron hook attached would accomplish the same thing in the short term. Hell a hook of fire hardened wood fitted to a pointy pole would suffice. As someone else mentioned.....The Romans killing everyone would be a huge confidence shaker for the knight/king class. "Enlightenment" comes with a price when your opponent just wants you and everyone you brought with you dead. Well, it's guess it's easy to envision a Roman victory when you only permit the Romans the luxury of learning from their encounters with their enemies and counter-maneuvering. Adapt to tactics, assimilate new technology and always choose a field of battle that's advantageous to you. Obviously uniquely Roman. Neva ben dun befo or since by anyone other than Romans. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:14:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
swiss foot and norman cavalry straight murder the romans. Just the improvements in armor and steel doom the Romans. The Swiss murder them |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:16:15 PM EDT
[#30]
an army of heavy cav/heavy infantry templars/hospitaller? I'd have to go medieval...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:27:48 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people voting Rome > Medieval Europe are probably the same ones who think Bruce Lee could beat Mike Tyson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:27:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK. Specifically. Which European Army and which year? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I asked my medieval history teacher at USNA this same question. He said that the Europeans would annihilate the Romans (and Greeks). Who was he? No one important. Richard Abels |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:32:05 PM EDT
[#33]
The problem with comparing armies from different time periods is technology as far as weapons and tactics had evolved so much. A lot of which can undoubtedly be attributed to the Romans. I think a more modern force would win.
With that said the Roman's likely had one of the largest impacts when it came to shaping the known world and driving technological advancement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:47:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This X10. Pyrrhus only did well against the legions due to his war elephants. Imo Pyrrhus was a good as of a commander as Alexander imo. That's crazy. You act almost as if there was a genetic component to it. Someone points out a weakness in the Romans and you throw down your "Romans learn and adapt" trump card as if the other side never learns or adapts. It's like you're playing some made up game with arbitrary rules and limitations where playing the Roman side grants you a extra special move or some special superhero ability card that your opponent lacks. The history of warfare is that if you survive the first encounter, especially if you lose, you take your ass kickin' to heart and try to counter your opponent's strengths. That is not uniquely Roman. It's pretty damn universal. Size helps, because it leaves you resources in reserve with which to rebuild and adapt. But that simply underlines the value in survival versus annihilation. So here's the thing, a Roman legion that learned to fight like Medieval Europeans with M.E. weapons and tactics wouldn't make it a Roman Legion versus a Medieval European army anymore, now would it? In fact, it would then be one M.E. army versus another M.E. army. Technological superiority is pretty much universally going to be a major difference maker in a first/single encounter scenario, assuming most other things are roughly equal. Similarly with tactics, more recent in time is usually built on the lessons learned from the past. Hence, the advantage to the more modern and technologically advanced side of the struggle. When the obsolete side survives and adapts, they cease to be what they previously were (obsolete) and are now something new (modern). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:48:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I’m no expert in Medievel strategy but I do know that the Romans conquered a lot of territory. I’m voting Romans out of ignorance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:53:22 PM EDT
[#36]
The pre-gunpowder medieval armies would beat any ancient army, because their tactics were more sophisticated, and they had much, much better cavalry.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:56:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess the Parthians, Seluecids, Macedonians, Jews etc are all just Barbarians? Also, as you noted, they got their asses kicked multiple times by the Carthaginians - and still went on to win the war and raze Carthage. Sheer bloody-mindedness counts for a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:58:19 PM EDT
[#38]
European armies.
More advanced tactics. Better armor. Better weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:59:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The longbowmen have been mentioned aplenty. If they don't prevent the lines from clashing then they aren't a game changer. I say again. The bayonet charge didn't become obsolete until mid 19th century. Are you suggesting a unit of longbowman is more lethal than a battalion of Musket armed professional infantry? Because musket armed battalions cannot stop melee from occurring when faced with an oncoming unit determined to engage. Sure, if enough bowman take out enough of the opponents, then the lines won't clash. It could be because they eliminate enough opposition with enough surprise so as to cause confusion and panic. It could be that they simply drop enough of the opposition that the charge falters. Or maybe they so deplete it that even when the lines do clash, the outcome of that micro-conflict is already decided. To make such a generalized implication that lines clashing means the bowmen failed is patently absurd on it's face when it's made in the absence of any qualifying details. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 8:59:10 PM EDT
[#40]
There are a whole lot of people talking about individual infantry weapons when CAVALRY was the most importing part of medieval armies...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:00:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If they stood still in a muddy field without their shields all day perhaps. They wouldn't. They would either withdraw or (much more likely) advance quickly across the mud, pass through the anti cavalry stakes and crush the English army in close combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:02:53 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Musketry during the Napoleonic wars shows weapons much more powerful incapable of doing this. Agincourt was unique. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:03:34 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol, was just about to post the exact same thing. "No wait, English, you aren't allowed to move. It's my turn to move now. You have to stand still until it's your turn again after I move." |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:05:34 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For those who enjoy reading of the Roman civil wars of Marius and Sulla and Caesar's Gaul campaign, the scale of violence the Roman's were willing to inflict and receive is mind boggling. Armies of this size were not seen again until Napoleon and then only briefly. World War I type logistics and planning and relentlessness. Quantity has a quality all its own. It would not have even been close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:06:37 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the Romans get to maneuver however they want to and the English don't, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If they stood still in a muddy field without their shields all day perhaps. They wouldn't. They would either withdraw or (much more likely) advance quickly across the mud, pass through the anti cavalry stakes and crush the English army in close combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:09:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone points out a weakness in the Romans and you throw down your "Romans learn and adapt" trump card as if the other side never learns or adapts. It's like you're playing some made up game with arbitrary rules and limitations where playing the Roman side grants you a extra special move or some special superhero ability card that your opponent lacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:11:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Medieval armies were certainly better than the myth, but also impossibly small compared to actual Roman 1st Century BC armies (even allowing for exaggeration, a normal early Empire Consular army was 15,000+ and usually much larger). The Romans raised armies of over 100,000 on several occasions. Also, the scutum laughs at longbowmen, and crossbowmen past 100 paces or so. And Roman torsion siege engines were actually more advanced than medieval engines except the trebuchet, with was totally unsuitable for field use. Now, fully plated gothic knights would be a challenge, but fortunately no medieval power was ever able to effectively coordinate true heavy cavalry with disciplined missile troops before the advent of gunpowder. By the time of "full steel plate" armor in the 1430s, gunpowder was already not unusual on the battlefield. The Parthians however had done so as early as the first century BC - and still lost to the Romans as often as not. In any case No, wait, I was wrong. In this thread we only allow the Romans to supernaturally adapt tactics beforehand as may be necessary to defeat previously unknown enemies...'cause reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:11:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not to mention the thousands of men-at-arms protecting the bowman, with superior armor and weapons. Crazy mother fuckers back in the day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:15:37 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, wait, you see, in our fantasy matchup, you're side gets to learn new tactics it wouldn't know were needed until after it faces the opponent BEFORE it faces the opponent. So the M.E. army gets to figure out that whole coordination of heavy armor and missiles because that's what's needed to be victorious over the Romans. No, wait, I was wrong. In this thread we only allow the Romans to supernaturally adapt tactics beforehand as may be necessary to defeat previously unknown enemies...'cause reasons. Caesar had a month named after him. Charlemagne banged his sister and dead people. Just sayin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 9:15:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was reading a book from Douche Nozzle Dan Jones on the Plantagenets the other day. Their battle tactics were just retarded. Richard the Lionheart died seiging a castle held by two soldiers. Two. Soldiers. Don't get me started on King Edward III getting the 100 year war started because he said "Fuck it, Let's go start us a war with France! Yee haw!" Crazy mother fuckers back in the day. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not to mention the thousands of men-at-arms protecting the bowman, with superior armor and weapons. Crazy mother fuckers back in the day.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
