Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Roman legions vs Medieval armies Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 09:12 |
i belive the Medieval armies would have won due to the fact that they had heavier armour, longer swords an stronger armour..
I rekon 10,000 knights would destroy 50,000 legionaries..
The Gladius would have been useless against the steel armour.
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 09:36 |
The middle ages is a rather large time period and furtheremore does not
specify region or state so until better defined this topic is can not
even be speculated on.
Regards, Praetor.
|
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 09:39 |
Originally posted by Praetor
The middle ages is a rather large time period and furtheremore does not
specify region or state so until better defined this topic is can not
even be speculated on.
Regards, Praetor.
|
Well its up to you to decide which Medieval army you will use, it can be specualted on if you have a broad mind.
|
|
New User
Shogun
Joined: 04-Mar-2007
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 218
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 10:41 |
Well longer swords doesn't help in close hand to hand fighting....but then these questions are rather like which superhero would win when you were young!
Fun to think about but we aint never gonna get a definite answer.
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 16-Apr-2007 at 11:29 |
Originally posted by think
Well its up to you to decide which Medieval army you will use, it can be specualted on if you have a broad mind.
|
Ok I choose Australian Aboriginal medieval warriors.
Regards, Praetor.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 01:47 |
The Romans wouldn't have stood a chance Praetor I pick Roman a medieval army to fight the Roman ancient army. My money is on the Romans.
Originally posted by think
The Gladius would have been useless against the steel armour. |
What about the shield? That would've been pretty effective against a late era Knight I'd think. The ancient Romans did have steel armour you know.
Edited by Omar al Hashim - 17-Apr-2007 at 01:50
|
|
Eondt
Earl
Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 02:04 |
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim
What about the shield? That would've been pretty effective against a late era Knight I'd think. The ancient Romans did have steel armour you know.
|
A shield would have been pretty near useless against a late medieval knights' charge. Especially if he charges in formation with his buddies. Even if your shield is effective in stopping the lance, the heavy warhorse would just use your shield as stepping blocks. You'll be crushed. What you need to stop heavy cavalry is pole-arms. I'm afraid the pillum is just not up to standards for this.
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 04:52 |
Originally posted by Eondt
A shield would have been pretty near useless against a late
medieval knights' charge. Especially if he charges in formation with
his buddies. Even if your shield is effective in stopping the lance,
the heavy warhorse would just use your shield as stepping blocks.
You'll be crushed. What you need to stop heavy cavalry is pole-arms.
I'm afraid the pillum is just not up to standards for this. |
If you think the Pilum is inadequate for dealing with calvalry then you
obviusly have not heard of the battle of Pharsalus where the much
smaller force of legionaries defeated Pompeys calvalry by catching them
by surprise and using thier Pilums as spears and aiming them at the
face of the enemy calvalry. Though I admit Pompeys calvalry are not
late medieval knights the Legionaries were outnumbered over two-to-one
by the calvalry, whereas in most instances infantry greatly outnumbers
calvalry. An example of the ability of the Romans to repel heavy
calvalry is Carrhae where the initial charge of Parthian cataphracts
was repulsed easily. Furtheremore Spanish light Infantry during the
high middle ages known as Almogavars possesed a similar armnament and
were noted for success against mounted Knights. One final example of
what the Romans could do to repulse a calvalry charge is this:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/repel-cavalry.html
this is a roman anti-calvalry formation that I believe would be most effective against Knights.
Regards, Praetor.
Edited by Praetor - 17-Apr-2007 at 04:55
|
|
Eondt
Earl
Joined: 23-Aug-2006
Location: South Africa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 279
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 05:08 |
Good post Praetor. Interesting info, thanks
|
|
think
Baron
Joined: 25-Sep-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 435
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 02:00 |
I pick Roman a medieval army to fight the Roman ancient army. My money is on the Romans |
Reasons.
|
|
Scorpian
Consul
Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 323
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 18:14 |
Originally posted by think
I pick Roman a medieval army to fight the Roman ancient army. My money is on the Romans |
Reasons.
|
Okay! i'm winging it with either or winning depending on battle tactics and General in command of each army. This is also dependent on which Roman time period we are talking about and units used given that later disciplined Roman Cataphrachti or Clibinarii in my opinion would give later Medieval Knights a hard time in a head on clash. Probably a few thousand well placed archers either army could equate to victory either way too.
Though!
my personal opinion might be cack! cause I know squat diddly anyways
Seems if I had one wee tactical nuke I could blast both Roman and Medieval armies to hell and back and win by default
Edited by Scorpian - 18-Apr-2007 at 18:18
|
Scorpian
|
|
pekau
Caliph
Atlantean Prophet
Joined: 08-Oct-2006
Location: Korea, South
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3335
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2007 at 22:21 |
It really depends. Are Romans armor and weapons upgraded as well? How smart are their generals? Are you talking about Medieval army in general or elite knights? Where are they fighting in?
I admire Romans' discipline and tactics, which many Medieval armies lacked. Oh, and I am talking about Roman legions, not conscripts. In most cases, Medieval armies were mostly conscripts.
|
Join us.
|
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended
Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 15:17 |
Let me at them with the English army at Crcy and Poitiers.
|
|
Omar al Hashim
King
Suspended
Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 06:55 |
Originally posted by think
I pick Roman a medieval army to fight the Roman ancient army. My money is on the Romans |
Reasons.
|
What? Take a guess at what my reasons are. I'll spell it out. If I take a medieval Roman army (aka Byzantine) to fight a ancient Roman army, of course the victor is going to be the Romans! There on both sides obviously! Its like asking what are my reasons for thinking the English won the English civil war.
|
|
Praetor
Consul
Suspended
Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 07:02 |
Good call Omar I personally think that "think" has quite the ironic name
Originally posted by glcle2003
Let me at them with the English army at Crcy and Poitiers. |
Such a force would certainly have a good chance at prevailing but give
me the Roman army of Trajans Dacian or Parthian campaigns and I believe
the battle could easily go the way of the Romans. In such a battle I
believe that leadership would be the decisive factor.
Regards, Praetor.
Edited by Praetor - 20-Apr-2007 at 07:17
|
|