Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Legionaries Vs. Medieval Heavy infantry
#31
Quote:Peter said: 8) Some people on this forum only have eyes for the Romans, which is why they aren't objective in this thread.
Well, it isn't called Roman Army Talk for no reason. I have eyes for various other cultures and military groups, but this isn't the place to discuss them, so I generally don't. It's just called being a good guest in someone else's house, that's all.

This thread has no historical objectivity anyway, much like if I were to start a thread that said,
Q: "How would fully armored knights stand up to a 21st Century mechanized infantry assault? I understand that they were the best and most effective soldiers of their day, but how would the battle turn out?"
A: It would be brief, and completely one-sided, with the utter destruction of the knights, who would have no defense against armor piercing rounds, artillery and air assault.

But what does that prove?
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#32
We really ought to ban these types of discussions IMO, they're entirely pointless.
Reply
#33
Quote:The Romans under Caesar met the period equivalent of Medieval armored warriors merely broke out the Dolarba knocked them over and beat them to death as they lay on the ground. Tactics discipline and flexibility over individual bravery and armor every time.
The Romans would have poles and dolabrae, but the dismounted men-at-arms would have axes (example) and lances and more practice using them. Taking on a few thousand elite warriors wearing full armour in close formation does not seem a trifle to me.

Other types of medieval infantry would be more like what the Romans were used to fighting, although often a bit better armed and less manoeuvrable than usual. The medieval army's cavalry would probably force the Romans into close order, so the fighting styles and armament on both sides would be quite similar. The outcome would be as likely to be determined by terrain and which side was better fed and less sick that morning as the differences between the two armies.
Nullis in verba

I left this forum around the beginning of 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value
Reply
#34
Quote:The outcome would be as likely to be determined by terrain and which side was better fed and less sick that morning as the differences between the two armies.

In otherwords, the lack of logistical supply in the medieval era would dictate a Roman victory.
Reply
#35
Hmm. Wouldn't that depend on which "home field" they were fighting? If in 2nd C Rome, that would clearly favor the Romans, but in 14th C France, the Romans would be isolated.

Of course, "Q" would have thought that all through, and both sides would have resupply and teleporters, and --- 8+)
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#36
Quote:Hmm. Wouldn't that depend on which "home field" they were fighting? If in 2nd C Rome, that would clearly favor the Romans, but in 14th C France, the Romans would be isolated.

Of course, "Q" would have thought that all through, and both sides would have resupply and teleporters, and --- 8+)

I remember the one where he sends Picard and friends to robin hood Tongue
Reply
#37
Quote:In otherwords, the lack of logistical supply in the medieval era would dictate a Roman victory.
The best medieval commanders had read all of the Roman and Greek texts on the subject and had additional centuries of experience to improve upon them. In reality, successful logistics depends on the ability of the commander, resource availability, and the local geography just as it always has. The Romans had just as many logistical failures as medieval armies. Even Napoleon had logistical problems during some campaigns.
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#38
I believe that people have forgotten that the Romans fought and defeated cataphract Calvary numerous times in their history. Compared to the Parthians, medieval kingdoms were Ill-disciplined, ill-supplied, and in most cases, were poorly equipped on the infantry level. In fact, many knights fought on foot, and made up only a fraction of an army's force. Additionally, many only fought out of duty to their lord. I believe it was William the first who scolded his knights for lack of effort in battle. He derided them saying that they were lazy and were more interested in showing prowess in the bedroom than on the battlefield.
Tyler

Undergrad student majoring in Social Studies Education with a specialty in world history.

"conare levissimus videri, hostes enimfortasse instrumentis indigeant"
(Try to look unimportant-the enemy might be low on ammunition).
Reply
#39
Please read the de re militari article before this thread gets even more out of hand with outdated notions and false assumptions. It is complete nonsense to claim that medieval armies were undisciplined or unskilled in battle. For those who missed it the first time: http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-myth...l-warfare/
Author: Bronze Age Military Equipment, Pen & Sword Books
Reply
#40
Quote:Even Napoleon had logistical problems during some campaigns
So have all armies, at all times, including modern. There are a dozen critical supply failures in the "Battle of the Bulge" on both sides that had extreme effect on the outcome. The Romans were better organized than many of their opponents, which had great effect on the campaigns they waged. They sadly underestimated the value of water when fighting the Parthians, and greatly underestimated the horse archers' arrow supply line.
M. Demetrius Abicio
(David Wills)

Saepe veritas est dura.
Reply
#41
Quote:the lack of logistical supply in the medieval era

Another myth (with maybe some exceptions, mostly from the Early Medieval).

But even examples from the Early Medieval prove something different.

When Duke of Normandy William (later known as the Conqueror) invaded Britain in 1066, his fleet had ca. 1000 ships. By comparison when Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 54 BC, his fleet had ca. 800 ships.

So much for the "lack of logistical supply"...

Also William the Conqueror gathered his fleet and his large army from his tiny Duchy of Normandy.

By comparison Caesar gathered his fleet and his army using resources from a much larger area.


Quote:Compared to the Parthians, medieval kingdoms (...) were poorly equipped on the infantry level.

Rather inversely - the Ancient Parthians made no use at all of heavy infantry.
Reply
#42
That's not true - and the parthians didn't rely heavily on cataphracts either. The Sassanids relied heavily on cataphracts. Both had good infantry though.
Reply
#43
Hi, my understanding is that Parthians used former Seleucid Greek infantry until Phraates II around 127BC who used them to fight Sakas in east but they mutinied & joined Saka and killed Phraates, made Parthians rethink the use of heavy infantry in their armies.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Hoplites at War: A Comprehensive Analysis of Heavy Infantry Williamhawk 0 180 09-06-2017, 02:01 PM
Last Post: Williamhawk

Forum Jump: