User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:50:12 PM EST
[#1]
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 2:51:13 PM EST
[#2]
Roman's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:51:29 PM EST
[#3]
swiss foot and norman cavalry straight murder the romans.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:52:11 PM EST
[#4]
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 2:52:55 PM EST
[#5]
Medieval as in 1000 AD or early Renaissance 1450 era? Makes a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:54:56 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Medieval as in 1000 AD or early Renaissance 1450 era? Makes a huge difference. pike and shot stuff like spanish tercios would be too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:55:29 PM EST
[#7]
The Punic Armies of Carthage did rather well until Fabian refused them battle.
So did the Germanic tribes under Arminius (Herman the Germa) The Goths at Adrianople crushed the Legions and the Visigoths sacked Rome. Now, throw in those Asiatic horse archers (Scythian, Parthians) and the Romans were really disadvantaged. Don't even think of what the Mongols would do. Sic transit gloria mundi! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 2:55:45 PM EST
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:03:03 PM EST
[#9]
I vote Roman Army due to amount of manpower, discipline, leadership (as a rule, tho there were exceptions) plus logistics.
While many medieval armies had excellent equipment, morale & motivated leadership, as a rule those armies were stratified so that the average poor footsoldier would not have been a good match against a basic Legionnaire in equipment or discipline. Rome fielded genuine maneuver armies before anyone else penned the word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:17:12 PM EST
[#10]
In an open field Norman heavy cavalry would crush.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:18:33 PM EST
[#11]
Late medieval Heavy horse would destroy your stereotypical 1st Cent. AD legions with only pilum, scutum and gladius.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:25:08 PM EST
[#12]
First even the smallest of the Roman armies would be an order of magnitude larger. Try 3k vs 30k with another three Roman armies (I'm saying armies instead of legions as they were made up of multiple legions) behind them. Now we aren't talking about soyboy Romans of the third century AD or worse...barbarians. The legions of the first century BC were filed with Italians and Roman colonist who could stand their ground and continue to fight/maneuver after suffering enormous casualties. Middle Age armies were mobs. The Romans would crush them so badly it wouldn't even make the history books it was so easy.
Second the Romans had an organized military. Lines of subunits, reserves, flexibility. No medieval army could compare. *Mongols never made it past the E Europeans due to overexpansion and internal squabbles...had they I may change my tune. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:29:29 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Late medieval Heavy horse would destroy your stereotypical 1st Cent. AD legions with only pilum, scutum and gladius. Both Bannockburn & Agincourt show their vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:31:02 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First even the smallest of the Roman armies would be an order of magnitude larger. Try 3k vs 30k with another three Roman armies (I'm saying armies instead of legions as they were made up of multiple legions) behind them. Now we aren't talking about soyboy Romans of the third century AD or worse...barbarians. The legions of the first century BC were filed with Italians and Roman colonist who could stand their ground and continue to fight/maneuver after suffering enormous casualties. Middle Age armies were mobs. The Romans would crush them so badly it wouldn't even make the history books it was so easy. *Mongols never made it past the E Europeans due to overexpansion and internal squabbles...had they I may change my tune. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:31:53 PM EST
[#15]
Horse are vulnerable to caltrops as well, which the Romans either invented or first deployed in appreciable numbers (take your pick there, either way they negate cavalry easily).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:32:00 PM EST
[#16]
Heavy Cavalry would rule the day not to mention being backed up by long bowman.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:32:07 PM EST
[#17]
The Romans had logistics down. They had a professional army. They adapted. Even if you beat them they kept coming. If you did beat them they would take what they learned and apply it for next time. So a medieval army might win the first or maybe second battle with their advantages in armored knight's and heavy cavalry, but the Romans will win the war.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:32:28 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But how many of those existed? Expensive to maintain, train & equip, they would find themselves surrounded & unhorsed. Both Bannockburn & Agincourt show their vulnerability. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Late medieval Heavy horse would destroy your stereotypical 1st Cent. AD legions with only pilum, scutum and gladius. Both Bannockburn & Agincourt show their vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:33:17 PM EST
[#19]
English longbowmen attrit the Romans before legionnaires even get close enough to think about fighting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:34:26 PM EST
[#20]
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
First even the smallest of the Roman armies would be an order of magnitude larger. Try 3k vs 30k with another three Roman armies (I'm saying armies instead of legions as they were made up of multiple legions) behind them. Now we aren't talking about soyboy Romans of the third century AD or worse...barbarians. The legions of the first century BC were filed with Italians and Roman colonist who could stand their ground and continue to fight/maneuver after suffering enormous casualties. Middle Age armies were mobs. The Romans would crush them so badly it wouldn't even make the history books it was so easy. *Mongols never made it past the E Europeans due to overexpansion and internal squabbles...had they I may change my tune. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:34:47 PM EST
[#21]
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 3:36:35 PM EST
[#22]
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 3:37:07 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English longbowmen attrit the Romans before legionnaires even get close enough to think about fighting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:38:16 PM EST
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:43:29 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Late medieval Heavy horse would destroy your stereotypical 1st Cent. AD legions with only pilum, scutum and gladius. If you get a pan-European Force that includes longbowmen or crossbowmen, it’d be extra slaughtery. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:44:33 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many were there in those units? What was the total army size? How many behind that? No matter here are a few famous fights: Morgarten – 1315 The first major use of pole-arm infantry by the Swiss came at the Battle of Morgarten. An estimated 1,500 strong force of Swiss routed a 15,000 strong Austrian force. The Swiss’ weapon of choice was the halberd. Laupen – 1339 Much like the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Battle of Laupen is regarded as one in the chain of battles that proved the superiority of well-trained infantry over knights. An outnumbered Swiss force was able to rout a larger force of knights and infantry. Laupen was also the first time the Swiss used the pike in combination with the halberd. there are a lot of others-battles of Morat, Nancy and sempach....they were always outnumbered |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:45:16 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Name the Medieval army that could stand up to Caesar's at Pharsalus? That doesn't even touch some of the really major powers of the era like ANY of the combined crusading armies, which would mop the floor with Caesar's forces by the size of their cavalry force alone |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:47:08 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: are we talking even strength or being outnumbered now? No matter here are a few famous fights: Morgarten – 1315 The first major use of pole-arm infantry by the Swiss came at the Battle of Morgarten. An estimated 1,500 strong force of Swiss routed a 15,000 strong Austrian force. The Swiss’ weapon of choice was the halberd. Laupen – 1339 Much like the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the Battle of Laupen is regarded as one in the chain of battles that proved the superiority of well-trained infantry over knights. An outnumbered Swiss force was able to rout a larger force of knights and infantry. Laupen was also the first time the Swiss used the pike in combination with the halberd. there are a lot of others-battles of Morat, Nancy and sempach....they were always outnumbered |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:48:23 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most major nations in the medieval era could marshal at least as many, if not more, professional soldiers than Caesar had at that battle, with the benefits of longer ranged archery, improved armor, and far more widespread use of steel in their equipment. Frederick Barbarossa alone was able to muster an army that conservative modern sources place at equal size to Caesar's(contemporary accounts stated he had over 100,000 mounted knights), and Barbarossa was Holy Roman Emperor by title only, he was one of many princes and kings engaged in constant warfare. That doesn't even touch some of the really major powers of the era like ANY of the combined crusading armies, which would mop the floor with Caesar's forces by the size of their cavalry force alone |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:52:14 PM EST
[#30]
Assuming 1400’s European arms, armor and mounted knights, as well as same size armies, Europe hands down, their armor from that time was vastly superior.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:55:20 PM EST
[#31]
Europe and it wouldn’t be close.
Rome was the shit during its day, but they got beat by the ancestors of late medieval Europe. Medieval Europe had another 500 years of constant warfare and tactical developments to draw on beyond Rome. Medieval Europe also knocked out Byzantium, weakening it enough for the Turks to eventually take out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 3:58:27 PM EST
[#32]
Romans, definitely. Not so much because of the weaponry and tactics but because the Romans were experts and organization, from regulating the command structure of troops, to supplying and feeding whole armies while on the march, to their ability to build defensive fortifications in the middle of nowhere, to their outright viciousness.
Medieval knights on the other hand were lords who served essentially as a tax to a king, and no medieval king could supply and equip a force anywhere near the size and complexity of what the Romans could do. Plus it would be a horrible shock to the knights once they realized the Romans would just ought butcher them instead of capturing them and ransoming them as was the custom in medieval times. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:10:36 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Punic Armies of Carthage did rather well until Fabian refused them battle. So did the Germanic tribes under Arminius (Herman the Germa) The Goths at Adrianople crushed the Legions and the Visigoths sacked Rome. Now, throw in those Asiatic horse archers (Scythian, Parthians) and the Romans were really disadvantaged. Don't even think of what the Mongols would do. Sic transit gloria mundi! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:16:21 PM EST
[#34]
Military technology was the one thing that did advance during the Middle Ages. Roman Legions did not do good against cavalry. In fact, later Roman armies were basically medieval armies, but better organized, and focused on heavy cavalry (Cataphractii). A good medieval army with a lot of cavalry would overwhelm even the discipline of Caesar. Remember that his contemporary Crassus was crushed by a Parthian cavalry army in Syria.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:16:33 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably the same thing the Huns did, cause they were the same kind of people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Punic Armies of Carthage did rather well until Fabian refused them battle. So did the Germanic tribes under Arminius (Herman the Germa) The Goths at Adrianople crushed the Legions and the Visigoths sacked Rome. Now, throw in those Asiatic horse archers (Scythian, Parthians) and the Romans were really disadvantaged. Don't even think of what the Mongols would do. Sic transit gloria mundi! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:18:06 PM EST
[#36]
There were some European armies that could have put up one hell of a fight. Rome would win because they had the logistics to field huge number of people and move them rapidly for the time. Hitler took note of this fact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:18:13 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Military technology was the one thing that did advance during the Middle Ages. Roman Legions did not do good against cavalry. In fact, later Roman armies were basically medieval armies, but better organized, and focused on heavy cavalry (Cataphractii). A good medieval army with a lot of cavalry would overwhelm even the discipline of Caesar. Remember that his contemporary Crassus was crushed by a Parthian cavalry army in Syria. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:20:55 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And after that defeat you see a back and forth between Parthia and Rome for 400 years. Horse DID NOT overwhelm the Roman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:22:22 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Romans, definitely. Not so much because of the weaponry and tactics but because the Romans were experts and organization, from regulating the command structure of troops, to supplying and feeding whole armies while on the march, to their ability to build defensive fortifications in the middle of nowhere, to their outright viciousness. Medieval knights on the other hand were lords who served essentially as a tax to a king, and no medieval king could supply and equip a force anywhere near the size and complexity of what the Romans could do. Plus it would be a horrible shock to the knights once they realized the Romans would just ought butcher them instead of capturing them and ransoming them as was the custom in medieval times. Laughs in Louis IX |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:23:22 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most Roman generals were smart enough to bring local allies with cavalry armies along with them when campaigning in the east. One of Crassus' major mistakes was in rejecting aid from the very large Armenian army, because he wanted to be a glory hog. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And after that defeat you see a back and forth between Parthia and Rome for 400 years. Horse DID NOT overwhelm the Roman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:23:31 PM EST
[#41]
Also remember that by the Middle Ages you had the stirrup and the couched lance, which made heavy cavalry much more effective then it had been in Caesar's day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:23:51 PM EST
[#42]
Quoted:
Take the best European armies before the widespread use of gunpowder and pit them against the armies of Julius Caesar. Who wins and why? Poll incoming |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:25:13 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You come sit next to me! Currently reading Cicero's Murder Trials. Rome is my hobby. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:29:37 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Also remember that by the Middle Ages you had the stirrup and the couched lance, which made heavy cavalry much more effective then it had been in Caesar's day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:32:05 PM EST
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:33:10 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
swiss foot and norman cavalry straight murder the romans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:34:01 PM EST
[#47]
I'd say Roman. There are still places today that are F'd up because of the Romans. They had some serious ability to get rid of problems and problem people. Too strong to defeat militarily? They'll build an aqueduct and reservoir right up to your capital, dig tunnels to undermine a nearby mountain, then release the water into the tunnels creating a devastating land slide. They literally dropped mountains onto their enemies.
I was watching the nat geo and there was a program about the Romans = they could build a totally stable bridge with pilings across a deep and swift river in just a day, march their legions across, do their shit and then tear it back down in hours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:35:23 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wouldn't bet against Caesar unless the other side had a clear technological/numerical advantage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:41:41 PM EST
[#49]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2018 4:43:25 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Romans, definitely. Not so much because of the weaponry and tactics but because the Romans were experts and organization, from regulating the command structure of troops, to supplying and feeding whole armies while on the march, to their ability to build defensive fortifications in the middle of nowhere, to their outright viciousness. Medieval knights on the other hand were lords who served essentially as a tax to a king, and no medieval king could supply and equip a force anywhere near the size and complexity of what the Romans could do. Plus it would be a horrible shock to the knights once they realized the Romans would just ought butcher them instead of capturing them and ransoming them as was the custom in medieval times. There were hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers running around medieval Europe and they were every bit as good at their craft as the Roman Legions. They may not have had the single army organization and logistics train of the Roman Empire, but we aren't talking about an extended campaign in foreign lands, we're speculating about a single engagement. Knights may have indeed served out of a feudal duty, but they formed a heavy cavalry shock troop component, not the primary force of a medieval army, and they did not expect the ransom privilege of chivalry from non-Christian foreign enemies, nor did they extend it to the same. They weren't rich layabouts who got on horses and play fought each other, they were trained from young childhood in cavalry and dismounted warfare, and had extreme physical prowess, plus the benefits of wealth providing them with good nutrition throughout their life and exceptionally made armor and weapons. A group of mounted knights was the main battle tank of the day, not the core of the army. Look up some articles on famous large battles of the mid to late middle ages, such as Agincourt or Grunwald. The forces were both highly organized, and just as large as some of the largest Roman armies ever fielded in a single battle, with much better equipment, specifically ranged weapons. |
|
|
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.
