Print Page | Close Window

Roman legions vs Medieval armies

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19213
Printed Date: 09-Jun-2024 at 05:55
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Roman legions vs Medieval armies
Posted By: think
Subject: Roman legions vs Medieval armies
Date 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.





Replies:
Posted By: Praetor
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: think
Date 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.


Posted By: New User
Date 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.


Posted By: Praetor
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Eondt
Date 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.


Posted By: Praetor
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Eondt
Date Posted: 17-Apr-2007 at 05:08

Good post Praetor. Interesting info, thanksThumbs%20Up



Posted By: think
Date 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.


Posted By: Scorpian
Date 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. Ermm Probably a few thousand well placed archers either army could equate to victory either way too.
   Though!Wink
my personal opinion might be cack! cause I know squat diddly anywaysConfused
   Seems if I had one wee tactical nukeNuke I could blast both Roman and Medieval armies to hell and back and win by defaultLOL
                        


-------------
Scorpian


Posted By: pekau
Date 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.


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2007 at 15:17
Let me at them with the English army at Crécy and Poitiers.

-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.

Confused 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.


-------------


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2007 at 07:02
Good call Omar I personally think that "think" has quite the ironic nameWink

Originally posted by glcle2003

Let me at them with the English army at Crécy 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.



-------------



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com