Roman Legionaries Vs. Medieval Heavy infantry

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Gin,

this is actually similar to what i'm reading now - Jack Whyte's Camulod chronicles - if no ones read it then a short shabby summary is... Rome has fallen and the British colonies are having to deal with it as best as they can still using Roman military tactics and their own cavalry(((which is based off Alexander the Great's mounted charges))))

Nice book, as long as you realise that the 'historical' background is TOTAL BUNK. And I mean TOTAL.

my own opinion is .. if Medieval Cavalry met a Roman Legion it would be a stand off.... Romans are better at close quarter combat right? heavy cavalry just plows into their enemies but a grounded knight would have a hard time fighting with all the weight of the armor... :?:

Medieval cavalry would be as lost without infantry support as would Roman cavalry have been. Even when cavalry became more important it could never win batttles on its own. If cavalry 'plows into' infantry they're doomed.

Back to the original question: Roman infantry vs. Medieval heavy infantry. It would be a question of numbers and discipline, I'd say. If this question were to be about two infantry armies, equally numbered, Roman infantry has some advantages. For one, the pilum charge would be unknown to Medieval foot, and the impact might create enough confusion. Roman discipline wouold surely be an advantage, sionce training of Medieval infantry woulod not be similar by a long shot.

My guess would be that Medieval armour (this is a question about heavy infantry, after all), would be more versatile, protecting better that Roman Principate armour (which, after all, we see changing even during Roman times when enemy infantry becomes more organised and armored).

Roman missile support would be better than medieval infantry could offer.
Of course, cavalry support as well as artillery could make a lot of difference on either side, but there'd be the longbow as well.