Roman and Medieval Art of War

[Exel]

I'm curious as to how advanced the classic Roman way of warfare was in comparison to later times. So for the sake of argument take a hypothetical scenario:

 

Take a legion, circa 1st century CE, put it under the command of any great Roman general, then teleport it into the Hundred Years War in the turn of the 15th century. Would the legion still wreak havoc amongst the Medieval armies, or would its first major engagement see it decimated by superior French or English forces as the obsolescent antiquity that it is?

 

Now allow the legions to take advantage of technological advances in armor and weapon materials of the time (but still sticking to the Roman style equipment with gladiuses, pilums and large shields as principal weapons of the legionary heavy infantry). How does the situation improve?

 

More specifically then, how sound was the concept of cohorts of heavy infantry as basic units of maneuver and 'firepower' when pitted against late Medieval feudal forces?

 

Would the equipment of the individual legionary still compare favorably?

 

What, if any, were the major improvements in the Medieval art of war, in general, over the Roman way of warfare?

 

Hope this is enough to arouse some discussion.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Exel

[jaro]

I'm curious as to how advanced the classic Roman way of warfare was in comparison to later times. So for the sake of argument take a hypothetical scenario:

 

Take a legion, circa 1st century CE, put it under the command of any great Roman general, then teleport it into the Hundred Years War in the turn of the 15th century. Would the legion still wreak havoc amongst the Medieval armies, or would its first major engagement see it decimated by superior French or English forces as the obsolescent antiquity that it is?

 

Now allow the legions to take advantage of technological advances in armor and weapon materials of the time (but still sticking to the Roman style equipment with gladiuses, pilums and large shields as principal weapons of the legionary heavy infantry). How does the situation improve?

 

More specifically then, how sound was the concept of cohorts of heavy infantry as basic units of maneuver and 'firepower' when pitted against late Medieval feudal forces?

 

Would the equipment of the individual legionary still compare favorably?

 

What, if any, were the major improvements in the Medieval art of war, in general, over the Roman way of warfare?

 

Hope this is enough to arouse some discussion.

 

 

Their armor and shields would be obsolete and their weapons inadequate against 15th century plate mail... but against early Era medieval units it would be a different story... their discipline would prevail...

[Yama]

I'm curious as to how advanced the classic Roman way of warfare was in comparison to later times. So for the sake of argument take a hypothetical scenario:

 

Take a legion, circa 1st century CE, put it under the command of any great Roman general, then teleport it into the Hundred Years War in the turn of the 15th century. Would the legion still wreak havoc amongst the Medieval armies, or would its first major engagement see it decimated by superior French or English forces as the obsolescent antiquity that it is?

 

Now allow the legions to take advantage of technological advances in armor and weapon materials of the time (but still sticking to the Roman style equipment with gladiuses, pilums and large shields as principal weapons of the legionary heavy infantry). How does the situation improve?

 

More specifically then, how sound was the concept of cohorts of heavy infantry as basic units of maneuver and 'firepower' when pitted against late Medieval feudal forces?

 

Would the equipment of the individual legionary still compare favorably?

 

What, if any, were the major improvements in the Medieval art of war, in general, over the Roman way of warfare?

 

Hmm. It is important to notice how very different social structures Ancient Roman and Medieval European armed forces had behind them. Medieval feudal armies consisted of large amounts of levied footmen and small number of regular forces. When two Medieval armies fought, it was the regular, trained and well equipped part of the army which usually was decisive.

 

By contrast, powerful states of the Antiquity had all-regular armies: citizen soldiers, mercenaries or professional forces - like Imperial Roman legions. So a Roman legion might actually have more regular soldiers than an entire Medieval army. It was not possible for a Medieval feudal state to wield a similar army; they simply could not afford it.

 

I'd expect a decent Roman legion win against equivalent Medieval force most of the time simply because they had uniform tactics and armament, and enemy has not. Feudal armies were cumbersome tools. There was never a guarantee that your subcommanders might not charge, desert or even switch sides by their own. Footmen had fickle morale and panic could spread quickly. Of course, late Medieval knight would be much more formidable opponent than horsemen met by Romans.

[Exel]

Their armor and shields would be obsolete and their weapons inadequate against 15th century plate mail...

 

How much would be remedied by manufacturing essentially Roman equipment from materials available in the 15th century? Or would the design itself pose the limitation in the case of swords and javelins?

 

Case in point the gladius. Ancient armies from the Greeks to Romans favored short swords and the Roman gladius, as I understand it, was the epitome of that development. The late medieval times favored - not counting maces and such that came about from the need to defeat armor - long, even two-handed swords. While infantry shields on the other hand often had shrunk in size. Now the huge, almost man-sized swords, are markedly unwieldy compared to the nimble gladius. Sure they have impressive reach and slashing power, but how well would the short sword and javelin combination work against medieval long-sword infantry when employed in the tight Roman cohorts? Would the individual in the Roman equipment be at a disadvantage, or would the situation be not much unlike the battles against Gauls and Germans?

[Guest Slorta]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't some of the latter Roman empire defeats attributed to their lack of horse mounted weapons, tactics and technology. By technology, I mean modern saddle, harness, stirups, spurs etc. Gothic heavy cavalry swept roman light cavalry and heavy infantry away and butchered them to the man in the battle of Adrianople, a major turning point for the western roman empire. I believe Romans in the west may have had cataphract cavalry from the eastern empire available in the western empire before its demise, but I feel that the western Roman empire relied too heavily on their heavy infantry. The much earlier battle of Carrhae too, was a defeat inflicted upon heavy infantry by much more mobile heavy cavalry. Heres an interesting read I found that covers this point http://www.roman-empire.net/army/adrianople.html. I don't think its much of a stretch to envisage the French Gendarme were the furthest development of armoured heavy cavalry. Horse evolution, tactics, years of cavalry warfare and the adoption of horse mounted elites trained from an early age in warfare - knights, would have been far more potent than the cavalry available to the barbarians who defeated the late roman empire.

 

Roman arms and armour were not steel either AFAIK. They were iron, mass produced and as some sources suggest, fairly low quality. This is a massive problem for this teleported legion. Medieval metalworking was by all accounts very advanced by the constant state of war between european powers. Iron swords would break against steel swords and be ineffective against steel plate. Most weapons used against knights were blunt weapons such as maces, mauls and hammers or blunt swords with only a piercing point such as the estoc, or polarms like spears and halberds. None of these are available to a first century legion. The 5000 shiny French heavy cavalry that approached at Agincourt would have decimated a Roman legion. The heavy lance and inenertia of armoured man and barded mount would have blazed a path through many ranks of legionares and this impossible meeting of two technological levels would surely be too much for the Roman soldiers to bear. Expect a rout.

 

Medieval armies too were quite a combined arms affair. Our perception of the mounted knight being the primary force of arms on the medieval battlefield is mythology. The large bulk of the forces available would have been armed peasants I imagine and of no match to a first century legion, but the core weapons of the medieval forces are are more advanced and overmatch the legion by some generations of warfare.

 

If we are suggesting that the first century legion is given steel lōrīca segmentāta and gladius, but no evolution of form, ie still lōrīca segmentāta and gladius then we need to ask the question why these were not adopted by medieval knights who could have easily had such equipment made for them by their armourers. Plate mail armour obviously covered the entire body with fluted plate on the large surfaces and mail of much higher quality than roman types in the armpits, behind knees, groin etc. This was a forced evolution of body armour to resist the ever increasing potency of bows, crossbows, hand weapons and later, firearms. This suit was not as heavy as people believe and was quite mobile. The cutting properties of the gladius are pointless, its stabbing power is going to be much less than an estoc or halberd and lōrīca segmentāta does not cover enough of the body to be effective against a dark sky of arrows. I'm not sure what upgrade you could have for a roman tower shield, but a wooden one would be a novelty, not an advantage and a steel one was extinct by latter medieval warfare with knights using smaller, more manouverable types.

 

The only advantage of the legion would be of course, the training and discipline. The average day of the legonnaire is believed to have been gruelling far beyond what we lazy modern people could even comprehend. They would have been far stronger and fitter than the modern man. Perhaps even moreso than the medieval man. Tactics of the legionnares from what I have read, (and re-read for the purposes of this post) were not of individual combat prowess, but of disciplined counter attacking from behind shield in formation. Barbarians of these times were likely extremely powerful savage people who excelled at individual fighting, but lacked the rigidity and resolve of the legion formation. I am not sure, but as far as I can tell, the middle ages brings back individual fighting once formations close together, but with more protection for the armoured soldier. European sword fighting schools were developed, with advanced training based on individual skills to be used on the battlefield. I'd imagine that veteran knights would have been very deadly in close quarters. Their fighting was much more nimble than hollywood would have us believe. I saw an armoured knight combat exhibition in the imperial war museum at Leeds between two chaps armoured to the hilt using hammers. I dare say a dismounted knight is too much for his roman counterpart.

[Exel]

Thanks for a very thorough reply. That covered pretty much everything I wanted to know. So it's fair to say that the classic Roman legion was simply outpaced by developments in technology and tactics rather than being 'forgotten' due to the demise of the Empire and the new feudal system of Medieval Europe and its new organization of war?

 

A question about pilums though. I don't recall any Medieval units using javelins as a pre-charge weapon, though I could be wrong there. Would they simply have been ineffective against Medieval armor to be worth it, or were there other reasons why such a tactic was not widely used after the Romans?

 

I am not sure, but as far as I can tell, the middle ages brings back individual fighting once formations close together, but with more protection for the armoured soldier. European sword fighting schools were developed, with advanced training based on individual skills to be used on the battlefield. I'd imagine that veteran knights would have been very deadly in close quarters. Their fighting was much more nimble than hollywood would have us believe. I saw an armoured knight combat exhibition in the imperial war museum at Leeds between two chaps armoured to the hilt using hammers. I dare say a dismounted knight is too much for his roman counterpart.

 

How much of an advantage would the tight formation of the centurias be against the supposedly much looser formation of the individually-fighting dismounted knights? Would the organization of centurias, maniples and cohorts still be a valid order of battle in late Medieval times, if the men were equipped with arms and armor of the day?

Edited February 2, 2008 by Exel

[Sardaukar]

Problem in this scenario is that it takes away one major advantage Principate/Early Empire legions had. That is numbers. Legion in Roman army was smallest entity in Roman army to be able to wage war by itself...and rarely did so. Late Roman armies...like from ca. 300 CE started to be very small in comparison.

 

100 Years War armies would have been hard pressed to bring even number of professional troops on battlefield to match even one legion in trained manpower. To put things in balance, in major battle, it'd be 4000-10 000 medieval troops vs. 50 000 legionary troops when thinking of major engagement. 10 legions in army was quite usual in late Republic, for example..and was considered maximum number the supply system could sustain in same area. In somewhat more "real" comparison, Medieval armies would be usually outnumbered from 5-1 to 10-1.

 

To add, most Medieval armies were woefully undisciplined, barring few exceptions. Their ability to maneuver in disciplined manner was severely restricted during battle. That alone might cause Medieval dismounted or foot units to get enveloped..and in such occasion, result was about always panic.

 

If you put Roman legion against same number of knights and men-at-arms, odds are latter will win, barring very bad luck etc. But to field 5000 knights and men-at-arms would be indeed very big medieval army, indicating major battle. So it'd be more useful to form the question like "Could 100 Years War army beat Roman army from ca. 100CE?" Because otherwise the question is like "Can Sherman beat a King Tiger"...

Edited February 2, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Exel]

If you put Roman legion against same number of knights and men-at-arms, obviously latter will win. But to field 5000 knights and met-at-arms would be indeed very big medieval army, indicating major battle. So it'd be more useful to form the question like "Could 100 Years War army beat Roman army from ca. 100AD?"

 

Assuming a parity in numbers between the Roman legion and the late Medieval army opposing it, how many in the latter army would really be 'heavy' troops, knights and men-at-arms, with heavy armor and arms, and possibly horses? How large proportion of that army would be poorly equipped levies? Assuming that numerical parity and a 'typical' force composition for the Medieval army, how much would the Romans' chances improve?

[Vuk]

With the exception of the obvious metallurgy shortcomings of the Romans I am not so sure that the Knights would simply ride down the Legion. At Carrhae and Adrianopel (at both instances under questionable leadership)the legions had serious defeats against Cavalry armies. the legions were still able to deal with Dacians, Sarmatians, Alans and the Sassanids. Another question is how the Medieval armies would react to the legions artillery.

[Sardaukar]

Assuming a parity in numbers between the Roman legion and the late Medieval army opposing it, how many in the latter army would really be 'heavy' troops, knights and men-at-arms, with heavy armor and arms, and possibly horses? How large proportion of that army would be poorly equipped levies? Assuming that numerical parity and a 'typical' force composition for the Medieval army, how much would the Romans' chances improve?

 

I use Wiki for quick overview, but sources and analyses are quite good:

 

If it would be for example English army from time of Agincourt, the muster roll for the English army to be embarked to France on July 1st show a total of 11,791 soldiers, with 2,316 men-at arms and 9,475 archers. So heavily armoured troops were quite small portion.

 

If French, meeting of the Royal Council on August 31 it was decided to levy 24,000 livres tournois in order to raise an army of 6,000 escuiers and 3,000 gens de trait. From the French retinues in which composition is given, unlike the English, some are composed totally by escuiers (the French equivalent of men-at-arms). As the English archers, the French gens de trait are a mixed group, including some archers (in the sense of bowmen), crossbowmen, but overall a large proportion of servants (valets) with a military role, they would serve as a sort of lightly armoured men-at-arms. The documentary sources show that the French army was then composed mainly of men-at-arms style soldiers, with a small provision of archers and crossbowmen, which fits with the very limited role they play in all the narrative accounts.

 

Analysis of the sources:

 

The numbers which the documentary sources provide for the size of the professional armies is very consistent, and some (Curry, also see Phillippe Contamine, La Guerre au moyen âge (Paris 1980)), have argued that they are more reliable than narrative accounts. For instance, the army of Henry V could be compared to that raised by Henry IV in 1400 against Scotland, that numbered 13,085 men. Equally, the army raised by Charles VI against Burgundy in 1414, that numbered 14,500, could be compared to the forces raised in 1415 (it should be noted here the financial difficulties the French experienced in 1415 as a result of the previous campaign that hindered their efforts to raise a new army).

 

So you can see, usual maximum number of troops fielded was about comparable to 3 legions...and that doesn't count Roman Auxilia and cavalry. Roman army with 10 legions often had 5000-10000 cavalry and same number of archers and slingers with them.

 

For example Pompeius Magnus brought approximately 60,000 legionaries, 4,200 Auxiliaries and Allies, and Allied Cavalry of 5,000-8,000 to Pharsalus.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Murph]

THE best source: Sir Charles Oman's massive tomes:

 

 

Greenhill Books

 

 

THE Book!

 

Amazon link

[Sardaukar]

With the exception of the obvious metallurgy shortcomings of the Romans I am not so sure that the Knights would simply ride down the Legion. At Carrhae and Adrianopel (at both instances under questionable leadership)the legions had serious defeats against Cavalry armies. the legions were still able to deal with Dacians, Sarmatians, Alans and the Sassanids. Another question is how the Medieval armies would react to the legions artillery.

 

Indeed.

 

Also, while Marcus Antonius' campaign vs. Parthians resulted in defeat (mainly because he lost his supply train and siege engines due to incompetence of subordinate), Parthians refused to engage his main forces at all due to it been supported by adequate numbers of cavalry and especially large number of slingers (whose weapons outranged Parthian bows). Also later Trajanus did not have much trouble in his campaigns in that area. Others, like Caius Cassius Longinus, one of the Caesar's assassins and junior officer of Crassus on his botched campaign, sent Parthians back in rout after they had invaded Syria little later.

 

So Carrhae is quite bad example of Roman ability vs. cavalry enemy to draw much conclusions. And when it comes to Adrianopole, that was period when classic legions were already gone, replaced by totally different infantry units, still called legions, tho.

Edited February 2, 2008 by Sardaukar

[Exel]

If French, meeting of the Royal Council on August 31 it was decided to levy 24,000 livres tournois in order to raise an army of 6,000 escuiers and 3,000 gens de trait.

 

Would the escuiers here all qualify as heavy troops with armor on par or better than with Roman legionaries, or does the number include levies of "armed peasants"? How many knights or equivalent heavy infantry would there be in such a force, and how many of those on horses?

[SCFalken]

Could a Mediaeval (say ~1200AD) Army have been organized using the same overall theory, training and tactics as the pre-Marian Legions, given an appropriate population base? Enhanced with (modified) contemporary cavalry forces, I imagine such a force would have dominated everything within logistical reach.

 

 

Falken

[Sardaukar]

Could a Mediaeval (say ~1200AD) Army have been organized using the same overall theory, training and tactics as the pre-Marian Legions, given an appropriate population base? Enhanced with (modified) contemporary cavalry forces, I imagine such a force would have dominated everything within logistical reach.

Falken

 

No, since Medieval political and economical system was totally different. Basicly, economic base was not there. Founding and running a legion was akin to modern F-22 squadron. Even from late republic, Crassus said that "man should not deem himself rich if not able to raise and equip a legion". Also, when Cicero raised 2 legions in his province, effort took 2/3 of tax revenues of that province.

[Colin Williams]

In theory, a Hundred Years War army should have little trouble with a Roman Legion. Advantages in armor, heavy cavalry and weapons have already been mentioned. There would also be a substantial advantage in missile fire, through use of either long bows or crossbows.

 

Medieval states could raise large armies, but these were typically unwieldy collections of multiple small armies that were not particularly successful when facing experienced forces like the Ottoman or Mongol armies. Medieval expertise was developed in small scale conflicts and sieges, and they would have mastered the Romans in those areas. At a larger scale it would have been more even.

 

One would expect less of an edge going back in time through the Middle Ages, with a cross-over point sometime around 1000AD, about the time of the rise of the Normans and the Crusades.

[Yama]

Thanks for a very thorough reply. That covered pretty much everything I wanted to know. So it's fair to say that the classic Roman legion was simply outpaced by developments in technology and tactics rather than being 'forgotten' due to the demise of the Empire and the new feudal system of Medieval Europe and its new organization of war?

 

It is dangerous to generalize much. Roman legion evolved considerably over about millenia which Western Rome existed, both to meet new threats and to adapt changed social conditions. First 'legion' was nothing but entire army of Rome, which was in fact not that different from European medieval armies: lightly armed footmen and small elite cavalry. Legions which fought against Carthage were much different to those used by Caesar, which in turn were different to legions used by Trajanus etc. Most of the enemies fought by Romans over that time period had strong infantry forces and that's what Romans mostly prepared to fight against. In my opinion, it is impossible to point out "classic" composition of Roman legion and its equipment, especially so since peak of the Empire's political power and population did not necessarily coincide with peak of its military excellence.

 

A question about pilums though. I don't recall any Medieval units using javelins as a pre-charge weapon, though I could be wrong there. Would they simply have been ineffective against Medieval armor to be worth it, or were there other reasons why such a tactic was not widely used after the Romans?

 

Roman javelin tactics were somewhat unique. Their point was to disrupt enemy formation just before charge of Roman infantry. I would imagine that they required much more discipline from infantry than most medieval armies were capable of. Javelins were used in Medieval times, for skirmishing, just like in Ancient times.

 

How much of an advantage would the tight formation of the centurias be against the supposedly much looser formation of the individually-fighting dismounted knights? Would the organization of centurias, maniples and cohorts still be a valid order of battle in late Medieval times, if the men were equipped with arms and armor of the day?

 

Effective tactical subdivision never gets obsolete. Medieval knights were rather helpless against well-disciplined pike formations. Now, of course, pike is longer than lance whilst pilum & gladius are shorter. I'm sure Romans would have easily adapted if necessary, as they adapted to many other types of exotic enemies. It's not like pike was not known and widely used in Ancient world.

[Yama]

In theory, a Hundred Years War army should have little trouble with a Roman Legion. Advantages in armor, heavy cavalry and weapons have already been mentioned. There would also be a substantial advantage in missile fire, through use of either long bows or crossbows.

 

Whilst well-equipped late Medieval knight had armour and weapon quality Romans could not even dream of, it is perhaps unwise to generalize too much here too. Only fraction of the army had superb weapons (in kinda same fashion that not every samurai had a katana made by master swordsmith). Vast majority of the footmen had simple spear, and perhaps axe or club. Some had bows (big advantage of English yeomanry system was that instead of standard spear fodder, it produced archers with relatively uniform skill & equipment). Few of them had decent armour - and many did not even want it, because it was uncomfortable. More back in time you go, less well equipped feudal armies become. It is theorized that if "Excalibur" ever existed, it was famous because it was one of the few, if not only, sword around...

[and it was probably Roman spatha if it was real]

 

Medieval states could raise large armies, but these were typically unwieldy collections of multiple small armies that were not particularly successful when facing experienced forces like the Ottoman or Mongol armies. Medieval expertise was developed in small scale conflicts and sieges, and they would have mastered the Romans in those areas. At a larger scale it would have been more even.

 

Ottoman armies were of course pretty much feudal armies, just like contemporary European armies. They usually won, because Ottoman Empire was far more powerful than any European state, and could wield larger armies, with more decisive regular troops than its European opponents. When European states began to have large regular (drafted or mercenary) armies, tables suddenly turned, even if the Ottoman armies were still larger on paper...

 

Mongols, of course, had uniformly trained & equipped regular citizen army. Which is why they were so wildly successful, despite many opponents having, in theory, better weapons & armour.

[Colin Williams]

Ottoman armies were of course pretty much feudal armies, just like contemporary European armies. They usually won, because Ottoman Empire was far more powerful than any European state, and could wield larger armies, with more decisive regular troops than its European opponents. When European states began to have large regular (drafted or mercenary) armies, tables suddenly turned, even if the Ottoman armies were still larger on paper...

 

I guess I should have been clearer. There is no question that most of the non-Janissary part of the Ottoman armies typically consisted of feudal levies, but the important difference between the Ottomans and the Europeans was one of experience. The Ottomans knew how to raise, supply, deploy and campaign with a large army because they did it with some frequency. For most medieval Europeans that opportunity might come along once in a generation.

[DougRichards]

No one has mentioned the legionary artillery, those scorpios / catapults (literally 'shield pierces') and onagers, both types of which were available to legion commanders to use at long range to break up enemy formations and at harry enemy cavalry into rash attacks. There were up to 60 scorpio per legion, each with a range of 400 metres and a rate of fire of three or four bolts per minute.

 

Whilst individual legionaries were not as well armoured as latter day knights, when compared with enemy infantry - the levy - they were extremely well armoured, and would have dealt with the vast mass of enemy infantry in the same way that they dealt with similary armed celts. Most medieval infantry were armed with the agricultural implements that they could bring from home, few even had the luxury of an axe. Very few had any form of armour or helmets.

 

Comparisons with Carrahae don't quite hold up, as few medieval armies had a force of mounted archers, or the supply system in place to provide them with more arrows.

 

Lastly, the Romans, when faced with assault were great diggers. For a medieval army to attempt to assault an emplaced Legion would be like cavalry against trenches in WW1. That legionary artillery would have harrassed the cavalry, which actually went in at the trot rather than the gallop, from around 400 metres out, or in other words around 800 aimed high velocity bolts being fired , and the Legion's own archers and slingers would have joined in at closer range, from around 200 metres, that is before the rain of pillum at close range. Onager would generally have not come into play, except in particular instances of the Roman legion really having time to dig in.

 

in checking some things I came acroos this lin:

 

http://www.netsword.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000304.html

 

the same topic discussed in another forum.

[Exel]

Only fraction of the army had superb weapons (in kinda same fashion that not every samurai had a katana made by master swordsmith). Vast majority of the footmen had simple spear, and perhaps axe or club. Some had bows (big advantage of English yeomanry system was that instead of standard spear fodder, it produced archers with relatively uniform skill & equipment). Few of them had decent armour - and many did not even want it, because it was uncomfortable.

 

Indeed. If we assume a force of some 5000-6000 men strong, how big of a proportion of those men, typically, would have little to no armor and only rudimentary weapons, as opposed to heavy plate armor and weapons superior to the legionaries? Is the number of well-trained, well-equipped troops in a Medieval army big enough to really dominate the "all-heavy" Romans, when the Romans in turn can decimate the lightly equipped levies of the Medieval army?

[DougRichards]

The 5000 shiny French heavy cavalry that approached at Agincourt would have decimated a Roman legion. The heavy lance and inenertia of armoured man and barded mount would have blazed a path through many ranks of legionares and this impossible meeting of two technological levels would surely be too much for the Roman soldiers to bear. Expect a rout.

 

Except Agincourt is a bad example. The knights were provoked into a premature attack across a narrow front on a muddy battlefield. Some histories have suggested that even if they were not actually facing an army of archers the close concentration and pressure would have caused mass casualties amongst the knights, akin to that in a stampeding soccer crowd.

 

Long bow arrows were not capable of penetrating French plate armour, but cut down the horses and caused some casualties through visors and joints in armour. Scorpio bolts would have had a similar affect, but at longer ranges, and due to their heavy weight an high velocity, even if they were softer than plate, would have acheived some penetrations. At closer ranges the auxilia archers would have put up quite a storm of arrows as well.

 

On an open field Roman centuries would have treated charging medieval cavalry like they treated elephants, that is, opening gaps that the cavalry would have ridden through, to be taken in the flank by pilia, arrows and scirmishing light infantry. The heavy pilum, whilst not ideal for the task, could have functioned as short lances, providing a wall that any smart horse would ride around rather than try to go through.

 

Roman shields should not be discounted either. Later medieval knights, being fully enclosed in armour, generally did not carry a shield, so as to have two hands available to handle weapons and the horse, whilst medieval infantry could either not afford one, or were in roles not equipped with one, for instance, archers. The Roman shield would make up for deficiences in comparison with medieval armour.

[Marek Tucan]

If I may draw a parallel here, Roman Legion vs. Medieval armies is like Hussite "Field community" (professional army) vs the same. The Hussites had generally inferior armament, armour etc. to even regular footmen (though they got better and better with increasing loot), but they managed to get three major edges, most important of them being strict organisation, that allowed for the second - tactics using walls of wagons that can be quickly assembled and disassembled. Somewhat helped also third one - effective employment of firearms and guns. Though real effect was not much (too few etc.), they were often able to seriously disrupt charge of armored knights only with the visual and sound effects.

 

Btw won't the legion be able to use against armored knights similar tactics as was used in Zama against elephants? IE make passages in the Legion, channel knights into them?

 

EDIT:Darn it, Doug beat me to it with the elephant analogy.

Edited February 3, 2008 by Tuccy

[vardulli]

given the original question

 

I wonder what the possible outcome would be to drop a Roman army c100AD into one of the battles of the Hundred Years War c1400, replacing one of the original armies, but retaining its numbers?

 

to tie down the troop types the Romans may have had available. perhaps Trajan, instead of holidaying in Dacia, ends up in medieval Europe?

[DougRichards]

given the original question

 

I wonder what the possible outcome would be to drop a Roman army c100AD into one of the battles of the Hundred Years War c1400, replacing one of the original armies, but retaining its numbers?

 

to tie down the troop types the Romans may have had available. perhaps Trajan, instead of holidaying in Dacia, ends up in medieval Europe?

Trajan had a number of his legionairies equipped as 'heavy infantry', with better helmets, greaves and arm protectors, they were not as well armoured (ie not as weighed down) as a medieval knight, but they still had their shields, a basic missile weapon in the pilum, and a good sword. Better balanced than a dismounted knight for foot combat.

 

Now to extend this a little further: how would a Roman Army have gone at Colloden on the British side? Scirpios instead of light artilley, archers and slingers at 200 yards, pilum instead of muskets at closer ranges(effective range against the charge wasn't all that different), and in hand to hand broadswords (at least amongst some highlanders) and targes against short swords and full length Roman shields? My money would have been on the Romans.

Edited February 3, 2008 by DougRichards