Could a Roman legion defeat a medieval army?

Could a Roman legion defeat a medieval army?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No, they'd get BTFO by TEVTONIC BVLLS as that is how the medieval era began.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >teutonics
      you mean the ones that fled from the holy land, got the shit beaten in hungary, got the shit beaten by the poles, got the shit beaten by the lithuanians, got the shit beaten by the russians, got the shit beaten by the mongols?
      >germanic "holy" order
      >leaves the holy land
      >busied itself slaughtering fellow catholics
      >the very first in the whole world to convert to protestantism
      lmao they might be the most pathetic thing in all of existance

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        my bad, you were actually talking about g*rms
        aka the only people in existance to lose both world wars after starting them

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Medieval armies didn't exist, but otherwise would be very similar strength depending on the time period.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    are you literally fricking stupid?

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Early Medieval
    Yes
    >Anything later
    No

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    If they were able to get medeival calvary then yes.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Medieval infantry? Yes. good luck dealing with the Cavalry though. Rome sucks at those.

    Even dark ages cavalry can wreck romans,

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >Carolingian cav
      >looks like an Avar
      What did they mean by this

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on the time period and size of army. A medieval army could mean anything from 500 peasants with pitchforks and 12 nobles on horseback to a full fledged army of 20 thousand with high quality archers and heavy cavalry. Do you just mean 1:1 manpower? That's a terrible comparison because Rome had superior methods of recruitment and logistics. A better debate would be something like: "Could Caesar with his forces used in the Gallic conquest conquer France in 1337?" The answer to that would be almost certainly not. Against England in 1066? He probably could have done it.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's a rhetorical question, obviously the armies were basically the same, it's more just a thread to post things.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >"Could Caesar with his forces used in the Gallic conquest conquer France in 1337?" The answer to that would be almost certainly not. Against England in 1066? He probably could have done it.
      This anon is onto something. A Roman legion might be capable of defeating a medieval field army, but it will never be able to match the medieval strategic initiative. Roman cavalry would get wiped out in the first battle and the same might happen to their light velites and archers. After this, the Romans have to deal with an interconnected network of castles which are full of highly trained cavalrymen. Their supply lines would never have a break and eventually what would probably happen is the Romans build an encampment and get besieged by an army of knights until they run out of food and water. Against the Flemish spearmen in defensive positions, the French would often just sit down and wait for them to run out of water and die of heatstroke. Infantry can't do anything against that because cavalry has the initiative.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Depends what you mean by "roman legion" and "medieval army"

    A late Roman army from c. 4th-5th century would look very similar to a medieval one: round shields, mail armor, nasal helms, a small core of heavy cavalry. They even had units centered around permanent stone forts called castra, which served a similar purpose to medieval castles.
    However, in the late roman army there were two different types of units. The "comitatenses" which were basically the successor of the legions, field units to be deployed at will, and the "limitanei", who were basically a border garrison whose job was to defend long enough for the comitatenses to arrive. The limitanei were under the command of local duces and patrolled the borders, fought against small raiding parties, and were generally badly paid and not as well-equipped. In a sense, the limitanei were the precursor of later medieval armies, less-professional bodies drawn from local peasants controlled by a warlord who owned a local fortification.

    anyway, if it's the late roman army, I assume you're thinking of the comitatenses. These units comprised about 6,000 fighting men, let's say about 5000 infantry + 1000 cavalry (there was less cavalry but just for the sake of even numbers). We can assume these are the Palatini, the most elite troops of the time with the best equipment and pay.

    (cont)

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Let's look at a well-known medieval army to compare, say William the Conqueror's at the battle of Hastings. estimates for troop numbers widely vary (just like they do for the Romans) but 6000 infantry + 1000 cavalry falls within a possible range. They would have been armored with long mail hauberks that the Romans wouldn't have had for a couple of centuries. They also would have had some crossbowmen mixed in with the archers. The equipment otherwise though would be pretty much the same; the main difference was the cavalry.

      The medieval cavalry would have stirrups, slightly larger and stronger horses, and possibly even use the couched-lance tactic, which could make their charge devastating to an unprepared Roman force. Roman tactics of the time relied on forming a shield wall and hanging back to preserve manpower, so a shocking cavalry charge could actually shatter a 4th-5th century legion.

      as for earlier Roman legions: They were (probably) smaller, (sometimes) more poorly equipped, had weaker horses, and their tactics would fare even worse against medieval armies. So I would say "no", the stereotypical "Roman legion" probably wouldn't win against your generic medieval army. The best chance a "roman legion" would have in this example would be for you to look as late into Roman (Byzantine) history as possible and pick the biggest single army you can find. Once you start equalizing the technological and tactical advantages things look different. Of course you eventually reach the point where Romans and Normans are literally fighting each other in real life so you don't have to speculate anymore.

      as an aside, there are lots of factors in a real war besides how the forces fare in a pitched battle. Could the late Roman army win a defensive scenario if they were instead invaded by William's army? That might be a different story, their tactics were designed specifically to counter incursions and raids.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Your entire premise is built around an incompetent slaughterhouse setting disregarding the late-republic/early-empire era of siege engineering and pitched battle setup.
        It's quite a shame, especially considering the plentiful source material from the era.
        Try for once in your life to read a book instead of getting your information from the israelitebox

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Your entire premise is built around an incompetent slaughterhouse setting disregarding the late-republic/early-empire era of siege engineering and pitched battle setup.
          I mean alright, let's assume it's a Roman legion under Julius Caesar then, nobody could say he's incompetent and that's the period you're talking about
          The traditional tactics of the era would see Caesar deploy in a three-line formation and try to win with an infantry push. Caesar being a resourceful and observant commander, would probably see the enemy has threatening heavy cavalry, and instruct his soldiers to sheath their swords and use their pila like spears, as he did against Pompey. Unfortunately, the situation isn't the same - medieval horses were heavily-armored enough that the makeshift-spear tactic wouldn't be as effective, and medieval lances were actually longer than pila, and with stirrups the cavalry could employ a couched-lance maneuver against the Roman infantry. This kind of charge can't realistically be stopped by normal spears - that's why the pike rose to prominence later in the Medieval era. Roman infantry specifically didn't use pikes, they don't have much of an answer to medieval cavalry. Late-republic Roman cavalry of course couldn't compete either, in strength or number.

          So what if Caesar didn't try the pilum-spear tactic? He could form a defensive square, but his cavalry would still be routed and he'd essentially be stuck... what if we gave him a free advantage, and he was allowed to build a fort on top of a hill first? Well, medieval siege engines like the trebuchet far outrange Roman ones, and Roman cavalry isn't going to be able to forage or scout very well with Medieval cavalry in pursuit. The battle would of course go better but even with a free advantage, the Romans seem to be in trouble.

          Is it POSSIBLE for a well-led Roman legion to defeat an equivalent medieval one? Yeah sure, anything is possible with luck, but do they have an advantage? Definitely not

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            "Equivalent" doesn't mean anything. The thread is a troll because these were in many cases the same army.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            By "equivalent" I just meant numerically. If you're implying that late-Republic/early-Empire Roman legion was the same as a medieval army that's definitely wrong, if you mean a late-Roman army vs. a Medieval one yeah they're basically the same, minus a few small mostly technological differences, which is what I was saying earlier. A c. 11th century force has enough advantages which I think tip the balance in their favor though, and a late medieval army wipes the floor with them of course. The earlier the medieval force or the later the Roman force, the better odds the Romans have

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well duh, that just means armies got stronger. Victorian England was the strongest army in history and everything after is weaker.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    roman legion would destroy them with the first javelin throws and then easily defeat them

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The side with more artillery or cavalry wins, no exceptions.
    The side with more iron always wins.
    Middle Ages had slightly better artillery.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      how do you handle 10,000 pilum throws that get stuck on your shield?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        It's just a function of whatever gadgets they decided to make or what they did with the resources available. Middle Ages had siege artillery, it also had siege guns that would destroy an Abrams. Roman's had other weapons.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    depends on how you define a medieval army. there were no standing armies, only levies which were mostly composed of just peasants.
    versus a standard medieval army? the romans win
    versus a highly equipped army with a lot of cavalry? romans lose

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    English longbow would be trouble
    French cavalry too
    Pike square is more Renaissance
    The Roman army was a professor fighting force though so overall, I think they'd have an advantage over the medieval armies. The impression I get is that they were not as professional, made from local lords and whatever troops they could muster locally

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A competent medieval army would absolutely tear the Romans a second butthole, heavy cavalry would absolutely frick a legion's shit up. However, medieval armies rarely had the manpower to rival a serious Roman field armies, so a prolonged slog between a unwavering Roman army and men-at-arms would eventually grind the smaller and more irregular medieval force down and bring a costly victory.
    Could Trajan's or Caesar's legions beat Carolingian armies? They would probably have an easy time routing the peasant levies, but the cavalry would still be a pain in the arse, that could harras the Roman force into withdrawing eventually

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      what could heavy cav do against the romans?
      romans had spears and tight shield walls with archers, english longbowmen defeated french knights.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Cavalry just has to change tactics, mongol Calvary just used archers.
        The side with more artillery or cavalry always wins. Archers are artillery.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >romans had spears and tight shield walls
        Those have never stopped a heavy cavalry charge. It takes massive pikes, usually on an angle into the ground with very thick or very long shafts to stop that.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    yes. probably any European army up until gunpowder or widespread plate usage.

    The main difference isn't equipment or tech but instead discipline, training and leadership. Even early roman armies had a sophisticated command and control system that wouldn't return until the renaissance in Europe. This included NCO's, semi-formal academic education of officers and a fairly effective logistics system.

    As an example Caesar took localized 'contravallation' and applied that concept to entire fronts, creating a form of ancient trench/fortification warfare which allowed a greatly outnumbered army to overcome much greater forces than could be expected in a pitched battle. In greece this meant several legions building fortifications hundreds of miles across to counter Pompey's army. The soon to come marian reforms advanced on this by adding an effective combined arms approach while also ensuring standardized equipment and logistics.

    Another thing to consider was Roman institutional resolve. There were several occasions in the early republic where they lost 3-5 legions in a row before achieving campaign success. Each time they successfully raised and armed yet another legion. Having the determination is great to do so is great, but not as great as the capacity to make that a reality, which they did again and again.

    As a final thought, even against the best armed, lead and cavalry heavy armies in European, the Roman military had tactical flexibility that is hard to counter. Artillery, auxiliaries, phillums ect would give just about any equal size medieval European force a damn hard time.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, Roman armies were larger than what most lords or kings could muster.

    It wouldn't be close.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Spanish Tercios (the best infantry in the
    1500s-1600s) would easily defeate several Roman Legions.

    Just consider that just to defeat 1 celtic tribe of northern Spain (Cantabrians)...the Romans had to bring:
    8 legions.
    2 maritime legions.
    The Caesar
    The best generals.

    And even with this they had to bribe the basques (to not support the cantabrians) and it took 11 years for the Romans to defeat this tribe.

    Or just read about the Numancia siege. Several Roman legions had to do a several years siege just to defeat a group of people from celtiberian lands.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Numantia

    "The siege of Numantia was recorded by several Roman historians that admired the sense of freedom of the ancient Iberians and acknowledged their fighting skills against the Roman legions."

    "All defenders killed by their own hand
    Whole city destroyed"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtiberian_Wars#Victories_of_the_Celtiberian_coalition

    "Lucullus marched on the town of Itercatia (location uncertain), where more than 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry had taken refuge. He called for peace talks. The inhabitants reproached him for the slaughter of the Caucaei "

    "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numantine_War"

    The most difficult war for the Romans ever.

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Dark Ages/Early Middle Ages? Probably
    High Middle Ages/Late Middle Ages? Probably not
    As others have noted, even Carolingian-era cavalry would present a serious issue to for Roman army. The Romans often struggled against opponents with superior cavalry, and really lacked a counter to it other than maintaining discipline. There were, however, few armies which could bring a sizeable amount of heavy cavalry. Against the farmer-levies that made up the bulk, or occasionally the totality, of post-Roman and Early Medieval armies, Roman soldiers would be essentially unstoppable. They would also outnumber them slightly, as Roman armies were usually somewhat larger than the armies of this time. I'd say the Romans would win, though it would be bloody

    As medieval metallurgy pulls further and further ahead of what the Romans had access to, victory becomes much harder to achieve. The knights and men-at-arms which made were the backbone of High Medieval armies at this point are both better-armoured than a Roman legionary, and possess a lance longer than the legionary's spear and a sidearm capable of piercing his armour. The infantrymen are less well-armoured and disciplined, but are certainly capable enough to not melt in front of a Roman assault. Any lordly or royal household troops present would be a true issue, being nearly as well-armed and armoured as their knightly masters.

    Once the Late Middle Ages are reached, the Romans have no chance. Fully armoured cavalry, longbowmen/crossbowmen, limited battlefield artillery, and large numbers of competent heavy infantry would make short work of any Roman army

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >As medieval metallurgy pulls further and further ahead
      Where can I read about these changes?

      >toasted in good bread

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Not that anon but you can look up Medieval Machine by Gimpel. The issue people had with medieval technology was that majority of it was developed by the guilds and rarely made it outside of their networks, so when let's say an enlightenment historian had to do research on it, he would go to an university and look into their archives and obviously find none of the insider info craftsmen had.
        This is also the case in medicine, where we can see that surgery was relatively advanced throughout the period, doctors proper have just continued babbling about four humours etc. Since these academic books, papers etc. could be easily tracked down while surgeon's manuals etc. would be only(maybe) present in private collections, a historian who doesn't know better may postulate complete stagnation in the field.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          This thread is full of so many generalizations and making things up, also everyone citing a book is mentally moronic.
          It would just depend on the battle and none of your sources mean anything. The early Middle Ages was the Roman Empire and Roman subjects became the HRE.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The early Middle Ages was the Roman Empire and Roman subjects became the HRE.
            What nonsense is this.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's literally math.
            The thread is asking
            >what if Rome
            >fought Rome

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >HRE
            >Rome

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Cambridge Economic History of Europe, Vol. 2 is the most comprehensive source. Historical Metallurgy regularly has good articles on Medieval metallurgy as well.

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on period, but especially after 1000 AD they've had progressively lesser and lesser chances. The medieval way of cavalry use was too effective both in open battle(see Byzantine or Arab accounts from the crusades, with all the "Norman knight can pierce the walls of Babylon" types of metaphors) and in raiding.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Yes it could even if we are talking about full plate knights romans have numerical superiority and adaptability.Getting medieval steelmaker wouldn't be such a problem.Also cavalry was big deal with standard infantry.If romans saw fully cavalry force they would probably try phalanx.I dont even know why phalanx wasnt used in middle ages.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      The HRE was the Roman Empire. The question is just asking how the HRE was stronger over time.
      The HRE at norlingen would defeat the Roman's at cannae. In turn Romans would defeat the PLC at Grunwald. It just depends on the time period.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    They cant even defeat Cataphracs

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Except they did though

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *