Colonial Army vs Roman Legion

I was sitting in class one day when this thought struck my head. what if you pitted a roman army against a colonial one. by colonial i mean like american revolution, Napoleonic wars, ect. i figure the colonials would have massive gun fire supposrt (most of which was totally inaccurate) and that they rely heavily on bayonet charges, (which would be totally useless to romans, who would always be superior hand to hand). also, i wonder if roman armour and shielding would protect the romans against colonial fire arms. although colonials would have superior artillery, that cant help you that much. also, colonial cavalry would certainly fail to do anything against roman legions. so i would have to definatly say the roman legions would win this battle.

Armors are powerless against bullets. That's why there were no armored knights anymore in the 18th century. The Romans would be massacred (assuming equivalent numbers).

And you're probably minimizing also the power of a cavalry charge. In Roman times (at least before German invasions) there was no stirrup that could give charging power to cavalry.

Finally the colonials only needed to have one or two cannons to break completely the Romans without even have to make any approach.

Furthermore, the Roman legions were relatively slow infantery, what would give them even a worse situation, unable to attack before they had recieved many fire rounds.

cavalry charges were also used alot in roman times. you dont need stirups to sit on a horse.

but colonial armies used bayonet charges soo much! the colonial soldiers would be wiped out in close combat by roman legionares!

In close combat the Legionnaries would win against the 'Colonial' troops,the Roman way of war was all about its soldiers abilities in close combat.But the Musket troops would annialate the Legionnaries before close action took place.A Brown Bess musket is a powerful weapon which would easily punch through Roman chainmail or segmenta plates,scutum too.
The Romans would advance in neat century formations ideal targets for volley fire from the muskets.Then you have the cannons,the 9 pounders could lob rounds into the Romans from 1500mts.Keep that fire up as the Romans advance and they wont be much left to get into the close combat,what is left finish off with grape shot then your musket troops can advance into the mush what was once the Romans and finnish them off with the Bayonet.


I have a lot of respect for the Roman Legionnaries but they wouldnt be able to compete against musket/cannon fire.
Gavriel

I think people are underestimating the effectiveness of musketry. This is a weapon that rendered the longbow obsolute. It's a highly accurate weapon up to 100 metres when it starts to tails off. A Roman cohort of 80 men would have the width of about 30 musketeers in three ranks, getting in 6 rounds, 2 at 300m, 2 at 200m and 2 at100.

On this chart they'de be devastated.

http://www.miniaturewargames.com/musketry.htm

The main difference between ancient and Napoleonic cavalry would be training and horses. Ancient horses were mostly what he would call ponies and would be dwarfed by Napoleonic mounts, however Napoleonic cavalry was barely trained, compared to ancient horsemen who would have been master horsemen.

Cannon supporting infantry would be devastating, grapeshot, would cut the Romans to pieces.

Finally the most important difference is command control. A modern Napoleonic army has NCO and Officers at as rate of over 5 times the Roman army. Napoleonic skirmishers would target Roman officers as they advanced. A good example is the French v Marmelukes in Egypt. Man for man the Marmelukes were way better than the French man for man, better armed, but virtually ineffective against a modern displine, well controlled army.

 

A better debate would be English 100 Years War vs Napoleonic. Longbows outrange and out accurate muskets and musketeers were armourless.