User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:16:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You'd be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:20:15 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not aiming at individual soldiers on a battlefield, you're firing volleys with everyone else into large formations. Muskets do that just as well, with less training, easier to manufacture weapons, and that can also double as spears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You'd be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:24:57 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you read my follow up post to the one you quoted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:31:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the actual lethality of muskets was higher than bows. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Did you read my follow up post to the one you quoted? Casualties inflicted per shot fired? Probably not overwhelmingly in the musket’s favor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:34:13 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Understood, but the comparison was musket vs bow, specifically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 1:41:22 PM EDT
[#6]
It's actually quite remarkable how much musket tactics resembled Roman tactics.
Rome: Throw two volleys of pilum, close to stabby range with sword. Support is long range artillery (ballistas, catapults). Napoleonic: Shoot a few volleys of musket, close to stabby range with bayonet. Support is long range artillery (cannon). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 2:07:39 PM EDT
[#7]
Massed bows were area weapons, too. The English at Agincourt weren’t sniping gendarmes with their longbows.
Lol at the people who think the Romans didn’t have iron weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 2:25:57 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Again, why are the Romans allowed to adapt in this scenario, while their opponents are not? Medieval Europeans certainly adapted in their various conflicts (including against those pesky Muslims). Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:12:10 PM EDT
[#9]
I like how the discussion has moved from a battle to a protracted campaign.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:34:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're making a false argument. Both are certainly able to adapt, but Rome demonstrated a consistent ability to adapt to military tactics and technologies that was unmatched until the United States. In a nutshell, Roman adaptiveness trumps that of the best medieval armies of Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:38:44 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you are stating opinion as fact, assuming that Romans would instantly assimilate 1500 years of technological and martial development. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:43:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're not aiming at individual soldiers on a battlefield, you're firing volleys with everyone else into large formations. Muskets do that just as well, with less training, easier to manufacture weapons, and that can also double as spears. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Have you ever shot a .75 musket? I have. You'd be lucky to get 2/10 on a pie plate at 50y. The training, ease of manufacture, and lower physical requirements are definitely higher on the list than accuracy. Firearms kind of sucked ass until rifling. English longbows went out of style because of overharvesting of yew, and the fact it takes years to properly train a long bowman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 3:57:40 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See as how we had regressed they wouldn’t have THAT much to learn... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 4:14:43 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
200 yard effective volley range vs 80 yards, and bows have a much higher Rof. English longbows went out of style because of overharvesting of yew, and the fact it takes years to properly train a long bowman. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 4:59:09 PM EDT
[#15]
Fascinating thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 5:35:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you are stating opinion as fact, assuming that Romans would instantly assimilate 1500 years of technological and martial development. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
After initial losses, the Roman legions stand a good chance of adapting and prevailing. Roman adaptability and ingenuity in warfare was unmatched until the United States. Reference Roman naval adaptation during the Punic Wars against Carthage, and Julius Caesar's innovation when defeating Vercingetorix and work backwards to Roman adoption of military tactics and weapons. Those inventive Romans certainly didn’t adapt to iron/steel and stirrups... 
ETA: Let's keep the reductio ad absurdum to a minimum, please. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 5:43:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look, more opinion disguised as fact.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 5:46:29 PM EDT
[#18]
Fully armored knights were only a small part of medieval armies. The majority of soldiers were only lightly or completely unarmored.
The Romans also had archers, peltasts, and slingers |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 5:59:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See as how we had regressed they wouldn’t have THAT much to learn...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 6:59:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the Romans get to maneuver however they want to and the English don't, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 7:04:46 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Comparing the Macedonians to the Swiss is almost laughable. Rome has its stuff pushed in by contemporary armies plenty of times. Put them up against armies with equipment 1000 years beyond them and it wouldn’t even be a contest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 7:15:47 PM EDT
[#22]
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: 10/24/2018 7:34:53 PM EDT
[#23]
Something that has always bothered me and I need an answer right now: Why didn’t the Romans have stirrups?
Or, for that matter, why didn’t Alexander? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 8:02:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bows also require half your infantry to be pikemen, effectively halving your number of missile troops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 8:49:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something that has always bothered me and I need an answer right now: Why didn’t the Romans have stirrups? Or, for that matter, why didn’t Alexander? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 9:40:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They hadn't been invented yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Something that has always bothered me and I need an answer right now: Why didn’t the Romans have stirrups? Or, for that matter, why didn’t Alexander?  .But Why? They invented a bunch of other, more complicated stuff: The roads, the aqueducts, public sanitation, public health, the wine..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 9:53:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: True, the Macedonians would have demolished the Swiss without effort. First of all, the Sarissa was longer than the Swiss pikes, the Swiss relied (exclusively, it was literally the only tactic that they ever used) on a frenzied rush that caused the opposing infantry to break- good luck with that against actual taxeis. And despite "1500 years of technological advancement" the Macedonians (much less the Romans) under Alexander fielded well over 30,000 men even before leaving Europe - what was the largest Swiss army raised before the Napoleonic wars, ~5,000? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 9:53:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Er, yeah. .But Why? They invented a bunch of other, more complicated stuff: The roads, the aqueducts, public sanitation, public health, the wine..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 10:49:01 PM EDT
[#29]
By the way. Dan Carlin said in one of his hardcore history podcasts. If you took the best the Romans had and put them up against the best Medieval times had, the Romans would mop the floor with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:25:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By the way. Dan Carlin said in one of his hardcore history podcasts. If you took the best the Romans had and put them up against the best Medieval times had, the Romans would mop the floor with them.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:33:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Thinking in terms of a campaign rather than a single battle, I think it depends on the where of the campaign. If the campaign happens anywhere close enough for the medieval army to march on Rome, the medieval army wins, hands down. Siege technology in the later middle ages was vastly improved, and with a trebuchet, a breach was just a matter of time. The Roman walls of Caesar's time were absolutely no match for medieval siege equipment. Much of the Empire was recent conquests in Caesar's time, and with Rome gone the rest of the Empire would have quickly fragmented and dissolved. However, if the medieval army was somewhere on the exterior, say in the east, Rome had the advantage. The Romans were masters of adapting foreign technology, and if the Romans could prolong the campaign for years as the medieval army pillaged the hinterlands, the Romans would quickly adopt enough medieval technology and tactics to allow their superior numbers to do the rest. The only real exception is if the medieval army threatened Egypt. Rome would probably be forced into settlement as they depended upon Egyptian grain. But even there, a period of peace giving the Romans time to adopt weapons and tactics would eventually result in a second war in Rome's favor.
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/24/2018 11:42:06 PM EDT
[#32]
The Romans would be slaughtered.
Not even close. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2018 6:39:55 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Er, yeah. .But Why? They invented a bunch of other, more complicated stuff: The roads, the aqueducts, public sanitation, public health, the wine..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Something that has always bothered me and I need an answer right now: Why didn’t the Romans have stirrups? Or, for that matter, why didn’t Alexander? .But Why? They invented a bunch of other, more complicated stuff: The roads, the aqueducts, public sanitation, public health, the wine..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2018 7:23:50 AM EDT
[#34]
European armies would win the first battles.
But, Rome would win the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2018 7:32:53 AM EDT
[#35]
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: 10/25/2018 7:48:40 AM EDT
[#36]
deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/25/2018 10:56:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: These are myths created by romanticist historians in the 18th/19th century. Longbows were across the board inferior to muskets and musket-armed units routinely defeating archers with ease. No matter how powerful the bow, the low velocity of arrows means they only have an effective range of 50 yards or so - against unarmored targets. Even simple leather or quilted armor will cut the lethal range of a bow down even further. This means that firearms had a decisive range advantage. Finally, arrows inflict slicing wounds that are less debilitating than those from ~.75 lead balls. Snip |
|
|
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.
