Roman and Medieval Art of War

[Olof Larsson]

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.

 

That would certainly differ grately depending of what state and what time we talk about.

We are after all talking about a timeframe of 1000 years,

from Italy to Scandinavia, from Spain to Russia

and from Iceland to Constantinopel.

 

The same is obviously true for the roman army.

 

For instance a soldier in the swedish levy (late medeval era) would (by law) be equiped

with a sword or an axe, helmet, body armour and a crossbow.

In some areas, the law stipulated a shield and/or a speer/speers as well.

 

Now, places like Sweden (including modern Finland), Norway and Switzerland

were special as selfdom was never practiced there, and because the farmers

was always a political power to be reconned with,

so in these areas the farmers maintained a military tradition.

[Sardaukar]

Also, not all knights and met-at-arms were equipped with plate armour because they could not afford it. I'd even say that only 1/3 of them were armoured better than legionary, rest only about same with chanmail and partial plate. Their infantry would have been inferior to legionary in that area too because if sheer cost. There just was not economy to support it, since medieval forces had usually provide their arms and armour themselves, as opposite to central goverment tax-system support.

[T19]

Well I think the Romans would have adapted to the changes in technology... just look at how well they did against Kirk and the Enterprise Crew

 

Seriously, I think the old time Romans would kick Medieval butt

[Degenerate]

Romans win every time due to tight discipline and superlative fitness and training. When the Roman empire collapsed virtually everything including the military went quite literally backwards a long way. For example in Britain we did not achieve the level of agricultural production we had under Roman rule again until 1750, a good 1300 years after the Romans buggered off. The medieval period was basically civilisation stuck in a rut for a long time. It wasnt until the Protestant Reformations in Europe that civilisation, organisation and technology really began to take forward strides again.

[KingSargent]

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?

The thing was, the Romans did not fight as individuals, they fought as closely-knit teams. Against a German tribesman with a big long sword he would need so much room to swing it that one German warrior would be facing two or more Legionnaires. Same with the example of the plate armored knights with hammers. The hammers would be pounding on a shield wall and the knights would be trying to fend off multiple attackers thrusting sharp pointy things at them.

 

Also, I sincerely doubt that you would find Romans getting impatient and charging over their own missile troops like the French did at Crecy.

 

The Romans knew how to conduct reconnaisance, Medieval armies often had trouble finding each other.

 

Roman formations knew how to work togther and carry out complicated movements coordinating with other formations. Their organization would be very viable.

 

I think it is safe to say that the health and hygiene practices of a Roman army would be much superior to Medieval forces. Henry V lost about 2/3 of his army to dysentery before Agincourt.

 

The Romans were professionals at war, medieval armies were collections of amateurs. The knights may have had experience in individual fighting, but would be amateurs at large battles.

 

 

BTW, I would take some modern "demonstrations" with a large grain of salt. I recently saw a show with 'experts' showing 'real battle moves.' These numnuts were using their swords to block like a quarterstaff while holding onto the blade. Now most modern-manufactured swords are pretty dull, but I guarantee that if those idiots tried their 'real' moves with one of MY swords they'd have to get somebody to pick up their fingers for them. Kids, it looks flashy on the screen, but Don't Try This At Home.

[SCFalken]

Didn't the Roman Army (Republican period?) encounter an opponent who used heavily(plated) armored infantry, at one point? If memory serves (from my Classics degree), they knocked them over with poles and then hammered/stabbed them to death.

 

Have to look it up.

 

They also had experience fighting the heavily-armored Persian cavalry (clibarnii). No stirrups, so weaker lance charges, but the same general principle of the european knight of the High Middle Ages. Also, unlike the Europeans of the Mediaeval period, the Persians had integrated mounted archers (which were then copied by the Eastern Empire to produce Cataphracts).

 

Falken

Edited February 4, 2008 by SCFalken

[DesertFox]

I think it is safe to say that the health and hygiene practices of a Roman army would be much superior to Medieval forces. Henry V lost about 2/3 of his army to dysentery before Agincourt.

 

Could see medieval armies losing just because of this

 

BTW, I would take some modern "demonstrations" with a large grain of salt. I recently saw a show with 'experts' showing 'real battle moves.' These numnuts were using their swords to block like a quarterstaff while holding onto the blade. Now most modern-manufactured swords are pretty dull, but I guarantee that if those idiots tried their 'real' moves with one of MY swords they'd have to get somebody to pick up their fingers for them. Kids, it looks flashy on the screen, but Don't Try This At Home.

 

Would your own chainmail protect you from cutting off your hands / fingers?

[KingSargent]

Would your own chainmail protect you from cutting off your hands / fingers?

Possibly, but the 'demonstrators' were not wearing any gloves or even very extensive armor. Armor would interfere with their flashy acrobatics, y'see. TWITS!!

[Yama]

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.

 

Medieval Europe did have some professional heavy infantry - most notably Scandinavian style Housecarls. They seem to have been formidable in battle, but not very numerous: entire nation of England could maintain only around 3000 Housecarls. Obviously, this only serves to reinforce your point.

 

Hastings is of course where they are best known of, lets look at it bit more closely. Of size of Norman army I've seen estimates between 5000 and 8400: it seems to have been fairly high-quality and well-equipped for its time, with knights and mercenary infantry, since William was invading over the Channel and could not afford to keep rabble on rations.

 

If we look at composition of Saxon army, it seems pretty much total opposite to what coffee table discussions would recommend against Medieval knightly army. No cavalry to speak of, few archers, bulk of the infantry poorly armed & armored, professional core (Housecarls) can do a shield wall but is armed with axes and swords, not pikes! They don't even have any kind of meaningful numerical superiority. Surely any battle would result to quick destruction and complete massacre of Saxon army. Normans could outflank them with their cavalry, or shoot them from afar with their archers, or simply charge them and massacre helpless Saxon infantry with lances. Right?

 

Yet, by all accounts, battle was very close, and though Normans won and got to write their version on the history books, er tapestries, it seems to have been largely down to luck and they suffered heavy casualties in the process.

 

Of course, 1066 is quite far removed from 1346. There were no English longbowmen yet, and French knights of Hundred Years War with their plate armour were much more formidable than High Middle Ages Norman knights. Nevertheless, I think the battle shows us how limited tools Medieval commanders had in their disposal compared to Empires such Romans and Mongols with regular, uniformly trained armies and how things like unit cohesion and discipline play much greater role in real life than pike length, bow draw weight or plate steel tension strength we armchair strategists often get bogged at these discussions.

Edited February 4, 2008 by Yama

[DougRichards]

Medieval Europe did have some professional heavy infantry - most notably Scandinavian style Housecarls. They seem to have been formidable in battle, but not very numerous: entire nation of England could maintain only around 3000 Housecarls. Obviously, this only serves to reinforce your point.

 

Hastings is of course where they are best known of, lets look at it bit more closely. Of size of Norman army I've seen estimates between 5000 and 8400: it seems to have been fairly high-quality and well-equipped for its time, with knights and mercenary infantry, since William was invading over the Channel and could not afford to keep rabble on rations.

 

If we look at composition of Saxon army, it seems pretty much total opposite to what coffee table discussions would recommend against Medieval knightly army. No cavalry to speak of, few archers, bulk of the infantry poorly armed & armored, professional core (Housecarls) can do a shield wall but is armed with axes and swords, not pikes! They don't even have any kind of meaningful numerical superiority. Surely any battle would result to quick destruction and complete massacre of Saxon army. Normans could outflank them with their cavalry, or shoot them from afar with their archers, or simply charge them and massacre helpless Saxon infantry with lances. Right?

 

Yet, by all accounts, battle was very close, and though Normans won and got to write their version on the history books, er tapestries, it seems to have been largely down to luck and they suffered heavy casualties in the process.

 

Of course, 1066 is quite far removed from 1346. There were no English longbowmen yet, and French knights of Hundred Years War with their plate armour were much more formidable than High Middle Ages Norman knights. Nevertheless, I think the battle shows us how limited tools Medieval commanders had in their disposal compared to Empires such Romans and Mongols with regular, uniformly trained armies and how things like unit cohesion and discipline play much greater role in real life than pike length, bow draw weight or plate steel tension strength we armchair strategists often get bogged at these discussions.

If the shield wall had not been broken by ill-disciplined troops pursuing what they thought was a beaten enemy the battle could indeed have been closer.

 

But then again Harold used the same British tactic that use useful at Agincourt and Waterloo. That is, put your infantry 'on a hill' and let the arrogant French attack with cavalry charges until they were exhausted.

 

But it didn't work for Harold.

 

Substitute a Roman Legion for Harold's army? No contest, the Commonwealth (and the USA?) would now be speaking Latin instead of a bastardised Anglo-Celtic-French-Latin dialect.

[Exel]

The thing was, the Romans did not fight as individuals, they fought as closely-knit teams. Against a German tribesman with a big long sword he would need so much room to swing it that one German warrior would be facing two or more Legionnaires. Same with the example of the plate armored knights with hammers. The hammers would be pounding on a shield wall and the knights would be trying to fend off multiple attackers thrusting sharp pointy things at them.

 

That was my point in question. In other words, could the Roman "team effort" in their tightly coordinated formations counter the superior equipment and individual fighting skill of Medieval heavy infantry or dismounted knights.

 

BTW, I would take some modern "demonstrations" with a large grain of salt. I recently saw a show with 'experts' showing 'real battle moves.' These numnuts were using their swords to block like a quarterstaff while holding onto the blade. Now most modern-manufactured swords are pretty dull, but I guarantee that if those idiots tried their 'real' moves with one of MY swords they'd have to get somebody to pick up their fingers for them.

 

Not discounting the stupidity in some of these "demonstrations" that are more like exciting spectacles than resemblance of anything real, but Medieval long-swords were not all sharpened. Like someone said earlier, their cutting characteristics were unimportant against heavy armor - instead they relied on sheer slashing power with their mass. Kinda like modern APFSDS doesn't really have to be sharp at the tip to penetrate armor. Still, I agree, holding a thin metallic object against your hand while it receives a heavy blow is probably not a smart thing to do, sharp or not sharp.

[KingSargent]

Medieval Europe did have some professional heavy infantry - most notably Scandinavian style Housecarls. They seem to have been formidable in battle, but not very numerous: entire nation of England could maintain only around 3000 Housecarls. Obviously, this only serves to reinforce your point.

 

Hastings is of course where they are best known of, lets look at it bit more closely. Of size of Norman army I've seen estimates between 5000 and 8400: it seems to have been fairly high-quality and well-equipped for its time, with knights and mercenary infantry, since William was invading over the Channel and could not afford to keep rabble on rations.

 

If we look at composition of Saxon army, it seems pretty much total opposite to what coffee table discussions would recommend against Medieval knightly army. No cavalry to speak of, few archers, bulk of the infantry poorly armed & armored, professional core (Housecarls) can do a shield wall but is armed with axes and swords, not pikes! They don't even have any kind of meaningful numerical superiority. Surely any battle would result to quick destruction and complete massacre of Saxon army. Normans could outflank them with their cavalry, or shoot them from afar with their archers, or simply charge them and massacre helpless Saxon infantry with lances. Right?

 

Yet, by all accounts, battle was very close, and though Normans won and got to write their version on the history books, er tapestries, it seems to have been largely down to luck and they suffered heavy casualties in the process.

 

Of course, 1066 is quite far removed from 1346. There were no English longbowmen yet, and French knights of Hundred Years War with their plate armour were much more formidable than High Middle Ages Norman knights. Nevertheless, I think the battle shows us how limited tools Medieval commanders had in their disposal compared to Empires such Romans and Mongols with regular, uniformly trained armies and how things like unit cohesion and discipline play much greater role in real life than pike length, bow draw weight or plate steel tension strength we armchair strategists often get bogged at these discussions.

 

Most of the Fyrd had fought at Stamford Bridge and got left behind when Harold hurried south to battle the Bastard. IIRC only 300 of his personal guard (who were mounted) were at Hastings, the rest of the trained Fyrd were panting far behind.

 

That left Harold with third-string militia; if he had been willing to wait for the Fyrd he probably would have won. A little delay would seem prudent, it wasn't like William had waves of additional men coming to reinforce him. At least one account says William was being pretty nasty to the Kentish folks and Harold hurried into battle to stop it.

[thekirk]

I got to thinking about this question last night, and concluded that it would be an eventual walk-over by the Romans, due to better organization and field sanitation.

 

Which led me to thinking--what pre-gunpowder matchup would I most like to see?

 

And, my conclusion was that I'd really enjoy watching a Roman army at whatever high-water mark you want to pick, say Trajan during the rape of Dacia, take on a Mongol army from the time of Temujin. Now, *that* would be interesting to watch--heavy infantry with good leadership taking on the ultimate in light cavalry. I suspect the Mongols would likely choose to avoid open battle and bypass the Romans, leaving the Legionaries to hang while they devastated the surrounding territories, resulting in eventual destruction of the Roman nation.

 

It would also be poetic justice, given what Trajan was up to...

[Mark Walter]

BTW, I would take some modern "demonstrations" with a large grain of salt. I recently saw a show with 'experts' showing 'real battle moves.' These numnuts were using their swords to block like a quarterstaff while holding onto the blade. Now most modern-manufactured swords are pretty dull, but I guarantee that if those idiots tried their 'real' moves with one of MY swords they'd have to get somebody to pick up their fingers for them. Kids, it looks flashy on the screen, but Don't Try This At Home.

 

 

I don't know what those reinactors were doing but gripping your own sword blade is a technique that is illustrated in some period fighting manuals.

 

Unarmored half-swording

 

Talhoffer manual

[Exel]

I don't know what those reinactors were doing but gripping your own sword blade is a technique that is illustrated in some period fighting manuals.

 

Just happened to watch Kingdom of Heaven again last night, and noticed that there too in a couple of scenes the knights did grip their sword blades in blocking.

[KingSargent]

And, my conclusion was that I'd really enjoy watching a Roman army at whatever high-water mark you want to pick, say Trajan during the rape of Dacia, take on a Mongol army from the time of Temujin. Now, *that* would be interesting to watch--heavy infantry with good leadership taking on the ultimate in light cavalry. I suspect the Mongols would likely choose to avoid open battle and bypass the Romans, leaving the Legionaries to hang while they devastated the surrounding territories, resulting in eventual destruction of the Roman nation.

Which is precisely what happened when the Romans took on the Parthians. Parthian horse archers refused to close and nibbled the legions to death. The Romans also had no supply because their nitwit leader (I'm sure someone here will pop up with his name, I am in CRS Mode) had burnt his boats in one of those silly theatrical 'do or die' gestures.

[SCFalken]

Which is precisely what happened when the Romans took on the Parthians. Parthian horse archers refused to close and nibbled the legions to death. The Romans also had no supply because their nitwit leader (I'm sure someone here will pop up with his name, I am in CRS Mode) had burnt his boats in one of those silly theatrical 'do or die' gestures.

 

Crassus.

 

Same could be (sort of) said for Julian the Apostate. He was a very good military leader, who beat the Persians all the way back to the walls of Ctesiphon......and forgot to bring a siege train. Doh!

 

Falken

Edited February 5, 2008 by SCFalken

[thekirk]

Well, I *did* specify good leadership, for the Romans... Not that they seemed to have it, a great deal of the time.

 

I think the most amazing thing about the Romans is that no matter how many times they were defeated, massacred, and/or stomped on, they always came back for more. And, usually, eventually triumphed. I think the Parthians were the only people who really managed to give the Romans as good as they got, up until the final collapse of Rome.

 

You have to wonder what the Carthaginians were thinking, watching the Romans show up at Zama, remembering the relatively recent battle of Cannae. It must have seemed surreal, for those that knew how much damage Hannibal inflicted in Italy, to see the Romans show up outside Carthage, in a state of superiority. Not to mention, how Rome managed to cobble together a fleet, almost overnight, that swept Carthage's navy and merchant fleets from the sea.

 

I'd imagine the city fathers of Carthage felt a certain sense of frustration--"Don't these Romans know when they're defeated?".

 

I was thinking of this sort of quality put in opposition to the Mongols. Not a Crassus, or Varus, but a Marius.

 

Crassus or Varus would hardly have lasted a single battle, let alone a campaign.

[Yama]

Well, I *did* specify good leadership, for the Romans... Not that they seemed to have it, a great deal of the time.

 

I think the most amazing thing about the Romans is that no matter how many times they were defeated, massacred, and/or stomped on, they always came back for more. And, usually, eventually triumphed. I think the Parthians were the only people who really managed to give the Romans as good as they got, up until the final collapse of Rome.

 

In fact, Parthian Empire was in severe decline by time of Trajan, increasingly squeezed between Roman and Kushan empires and aggressive nomads - even Han Empire had garrisoned troops at Parthian border! Furthermore, Parthia was always kind of a confederation rather than Empire, and not anywhere as powerful as Achaemenids had been, or subsesquently Sassanids. Stunning victory in Carrhae seems to have surprised Parthians themselves too (only part of the Parthian force was present, numerically much inferior to Romans) and whilst they would remain strong adversary for Romans, they would never enjoy quite same level of success again. Romans in fact sacked Parthian capital no less than thrice.

 

You have to wonder what the Carthaginians were thinking, watching the Romans show up at Zama, remembering the relatively recent battle of Cannae.

 

Probably they were thinking "Damn, I guess we should have given that pesky Hannibal some financing after all". As has been said, Roman war effort was led by lawyers and politicians and sometimes they paid the price, but Carthage was ran by businessman, and that proved even more unfortunate. Carthage lost first two Punic Wars partly because the powerful merchant houses were horrified at the expenses of war, and made rationalizations - cutting back all kind of irrelevant and unprofitable stuff, like, uh, Navy and Army...

 

It must have seemed surreal, for those that knew how much damage Hannibal inflicted in Italy, to see the Romans show up outside Carthage, in a state of superiority. Not to mention, how Rome managed to cobble together a fleet, almost overnight, that swept Carthage's navy and merchant fleets from the sea.

 

In fairness, during First Punic War both sides had their entire Navy wiped out several times, both by enemy and storms and land warfare went back & forth in similar fashion.

 

Crassus or Varus would hardly have lasted a single battle, let alone a campaign.

 

Crassus was in fact fairly highly thought of as a military leader before his Parthian campaign - after all, he had beat Spartacus. But he had been out of touch of military matters for like 20 years.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Yama

[Jim Martin]

Crassus was in fact fairly highly thought of as a military leader before his Parthian campaign - after all, he had beat Spartacus. But he had been out of touch of military matters for like 20 years.

 

Crassus beat the rump of Spartacus' army after it had already been defeated by Pompey (I think it was Pompey who first beat Spartacus). Spartacus had managed to avoid annihilation and was running fast as he could when Crassus caught up, delivered the final blow...and got the Triumph. Leaving some fairly bad feelings there.