Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Colonial Army vs Roman Legion Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 13:48 |
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.
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 13:59 |
remember, this is not colonial like american civil war, where we had much better aim in our guns. this is napoleons time.
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 14:11 |
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.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 17-Nov-2005 at 14:13 |
but the colonial guns could barely hit a mark! plus, colonial artillery isint that good...and how can armour not help against bullets? round bullets
Edited by AlbinoAlien
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Nov-2005 at 14:12 |
cavalry charges were also used alot in roman times. you dont need stirups to sit on a horse.
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
Imperator Invictus
Caliph
Retired AE Administrator
Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Nov-2005 at 14:20 |
Armor helped but it wasn't worth it. Plus, Roman armor was much weaker
than medieval full plate, which was defeated by firearms.
By pure numbers, the Romans can win, however.
Stirrups were more important for melee than for charge. The saddle was the key element in the charge.
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Nov-2005 at 09:30 |
but colonial armies used bayonet charges soo much! the colonial soldiers would be wiped out in close combat by roman legionares!
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
AlbinoAlien
Baron
Joined: 05-Oct-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 418
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 11:10 |
yes yes?
|
people are the emotions of other people
(im not albino..or pale!)
.....or an alien..
|
|
Gavriel
Pretorian
Joined: 17-Jun-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 151
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 12:23 |
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
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 21:09 |
You don't need to have accurate gunfire to kill enemies. The Romans advanced in a solid square, so long as you shoot in the general direction you are bound to hit something. Furthermore, colonial troops fired in mass vollies which demoralized their enemies. After taking casualties for a little while a frightful volley would ensure that their nerve broke and they ran. not even disciplined legions could stand up to that kind of shock.
|
|
Paul
General
AE Immoderator
Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Dec-2005 at 21:32 |
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.
|
|
|
lennel
Pretorian
Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 179
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 03:04 |
If you were able to get the romans to overcome their fear of all the smoke, noise and chaos of guns they might have a chance. Remember that battles aren't orchestrated particularly fast. It's not uncommon for major ones to last days. If both armies are organizing and setting up the colonials would just keep popping off shots. Charges aren't as clean as you see in movies. Certain groups go, others hesitate. If you're manning tens of thousands of people its impossible to have immediate communications for mass attacks.
considering some of the roman battles they were able to raise proffesional armies at least as large as many colonial.
with that said.. if the colonials were outnumbered by some fanatical romans and it was in close range terrain like forests then thats another story.
10 well organized skilled swordsman could surprise 10 musketeers. the musketeers manage to drop 2 swordsman before the fight is hand to hand. swords and shields with skill would trump bayonetts. This works for a small group, but realistically as said before huge armies can't organize that fast.
|
|