Roman Legions vs Medieval Armies

[roman wargamer]

In a sense, this debate was actually tested at the Battle of Agincourt.

then why the English did not conquered the French and won the war

if long bow was enough to win war.

 

I believe thats the way a legion would have operated against a similar foe.

normally a legio will not attack a defensive and encamped enemy...

they will first build a circumvallatio before the seige.. to encircle with defensive ramp the enemy first.

 

long bow and knight

long bow was not enough technique to win battle... it was never proven to win a war.

even crusaders knights succumn to Islamic warriors... that Romans defeated their ancient army many times.

[Gaius Octavius]

You guys can talk about how great the knight was or the longbow,but what about the common soldier in the infantry,how were they armed,trained,deciplined.Were they just as well armed,trained,deciplined as the romans?Or as i think most medieval armies for the most part were peasants/consripts that were not well armed,deciplined or the motivation as the common roman infantry.

 

I believe that most medieval 'wars' were fought with relatively small parties. Mercenary 'Captains' were employed to do the dirty work, if any. Their men would be reasonably well trained and equipped. Most of the 'battles' (especially in Italy) were a sort of chess game. When one side saw that they were out-maneuvered, they simply packed up and went home, none the worse for their failing effort.

[Titus001]

Well i just dont think the common soldier in medieval times from 600AD to 1350AD were as deciplined,motivated,armed as the roman legions,But i do think the cavarly were better than romes along with the archers but i just dont see the infantry being superior to what of rome's.

[Kosmo]

Titus001 - Many medieval battles were fought only by cavalry. Even when infantry was on the field sometimes was employed just by one army. And I repeat, medieval armies had high quality, proffesional infantry.

 

Roman wargamer - Our opinions on roman infantry weapons of the principate are different. I do not believe that thay carried so many spears, just a pilum and that was for throwing. So, I see them rather defenceless against impact cavalry.

 

GO - Condotieri of late middle ages/early renaissance were not interested in fighting major battles because they losed man (what their power was based on) for a victory that brought little profits (they wanted war to continue to keep their jobs). Other battles were bitterly fought.

[Titus001]

kosmo,many battles were fought only by cav?,The point is in most medieval battles there were always more infantry then cavarly.You are funny kosmo by saying the romans did not use that much spears,any good commander if he seen the enemy with a lot of heavy cav would adapt by using more archers and spears which the romans were very good at.Some medieval armies were professional but not all,the professionals were the elite knights which got the armor,training,decipline which a lot of the common infantry lacked.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

I got a question,why did medieval armies for the most part adopt the long sword and small shield?It seems to me the infantry went backwards since the celts,german and other people's favored the long sword and the romans easily for the most part beat them most of the time,the gladius is not the best sword ever,but teamed with the big shield it was the best combo ever in war in my opinion,So why did the armies of the medieval time favored long swords?Did they go back to there roots which was warrior vs warrior,AKA long swords which did not favor formation fighting like the romans.

The answer to your question must be searched in the fear and more importantly lack of will to train of the later roman legionaries. From the mid of the second century AD onward the legionaries did not want to submit to the training required by the use of the gladius, which needed a higher level of skill to be used properly than the spatha of the cavalry or the germanic longer swords. Also they did not have to come as close to their enemies as with the gladius and that suited them well. Later ( 5th century ) the roman army went even further and dropped it's armor "to be more mobile" ( we are then at the time of the comitatenses units ). This was in fact a consequence of the large barbarisation of the empire's armies at the time.

 

This in turn led to the armies of the dark ages, then of the carolingian renaissance and middle ages. With time, in late middle ages, the infantry learned back the lessons learned by the romans and took heavy armor back on until firearms came and changed the face of the world of war.

[Titus001]

how much longer was the spartha compared to the gladius?

[roman wargamer]

Our opinions on roman infantry weapons of the principate are different.

I do not believe that thay carried so many spears, just a pilum and that was for throwing.

then it is your good opinion we will let stand.

 

as my workguess say's different story: on Julius Caesar era.

 

Hastati or Hastatus name was derived from the very weapon they use- the Hasta.

a long thrusting spear; hasta is not a javelin or pilum for throwing.

 

So, I see them rather defenceless against impact cavalry.

at the battle of Pharsalus, we see a different scenario;

 

a qoute from unrv battle of Pharsalus

 

With both armies set, it was Caesar and not Pompey who ordered the initial advance. Pompey hoped the long charge would tire Caesar's army, but the veterans understood the danger and stopped when they noticed that the enemy wasn't coming out to meet them. The battle slowly developed as an infantry skirmish in the center until Pompey finally unleashed Labienus and the cavalry. Pompey's horsemen hit Caesar's Germanic and Gallic cavalry hard, buckling their resistance. Pompey ordered his archers and slingers to fill in behind the cavalry to push the assault and provide a heavy blanket of covering fire. Just as Caesar's cavalry was beginning to retreat, and Labienus was starting to turn the right flank, Caesar ordered his reserve infantry to launch their surprise assault. Using their pila much like medieval pikes, Caesar's 3,000 infantry attacked the 7,000 Pompeian cavalry with ferocity, targeting the riders exposed faces. The effect was devastating, and Labienus was overwhelmed. The cavalry routed and turned towards its own lines, not only leaving their own vulnerable archer units completely exposed but likely trampling many as they went.

 

Romanus Legiones Infantry could defeat a superior enemy cavalry. as Caesar show us.

[Bryaxis Hecatee]

Spatha could be as long as one full meter, the shorter version being some 75cm, thus some 20cm longer than the common gladius.

[Gaius Octavius]

When cavalry met infantry in battle, the cavalry (both man and animal) was exposed to any thrusting weapon.

[Kosmo]

Spatha could be as long as one full meter, the shorter version being some 75cm, thus some 20cm longer than the common gladius.

 

To my surprise when seing in a museum a spatha and a gladius toghether the difference in lenght was not much. I guess that your 20 cm estimate it's correct. More important, spatha was a slashing weapon usefull in looser formations.

 

Hastatii and triarii had pikes but this were abandoned with the Marian reforms and the generalization of pilum. Pilum was 1,5 - 2 m long and this is too short for a pike because it cannot be held by the end. So, from the hand to the end it will be a maximum of 1-1,5 m. Some say it bent or break at impact and this means that it could not be used for repeated blows i hand-to-hand combat, this is a feature common to throwing weapons.

A lance could be between 3 - 4,5 m long. Some was also lost for balance, but still the lance would have been seriously longer. A sarissa carring phalanx would have been much better against lance cavalry.

 

The Pharsalus story it's strange because a large cavalry force fled when attacked at the face. But this does not combat my point as I claimed that roman cavalry was not similar to knights.

[Titus001]

I dont know why you are trying to fool people by saying the romans stoped using spears in battle,that seems to me a little off just a bit.

[Titus001]

Did any of us say roman cavarly and knights are the same or on the same level of war in battle?I know knights were better but im not sure about medieval infantry compared to the romans,knights got the armor,decipline and training but the common soldier aka the infantry for the most part did not get much armor,training and most important decipline,even in medieval times a deciplined infantry would not break against a charge,all the romans would need to do is use more spears and more archers to will a battle,they would need to use combined arms to win and i think in the infantry department the romans were supeior to the medieval times and as we know most battles it comes down to the infantry and decipline.

[Kosmo]

I dont know why you are trying to fool people by saying the romans stoped using spears in battle,that seems to me a little off just a bit.

 

I'm not trying to fool anyone. This is my image of the classical roman legion: each man with a pilum and with a gladius. I do not know enough about the weapon of the auxiliaries and I'm sure cavalry used spears.

 

I tried to be as clear as possible: what the roman cavalry of Pompey did at Pharsalus it's not relevant to knights. Apples and oranges.

 

I agree that combined arms it's the best way. Being too strict on one type of soldier means a difficult time against a new enemy. A army with many types of unites can find that many are useless in a particular type of terrain or enemy but still has something against anyone, everywhere.

[roman wargamer]

When cavalry met infantry in battle, the cavalry (both man and animal) was exposed to any thrusting weapon.

when stab at the face the horse will normally turn around and run berserk.