Roman Legionaries Vs. Medieval Heavy infantry

[M. Demetrius]

The midieval soldiers would have won. Heck, the Romans would be like 500 years old by then, and not very formidable, right?

:wink: :roll:

[A_Volpe]

Ooohftah!

Myself and Mark Millman (Higgins Armory Sword Guild) do a special presentation once in a while to cover this exact question.

I think this has been discussed here on the board once or twice before.

If you come to Arisia ( http://2009.arisia.org ) in Cambridge MA this coming January, we *might* be doing this demo (we call it "Roman vs. Knight"...I add onto it tongue-in-cheekily "Caged Death Match Heavy Metal Action Fight Nite" or some variation )

if you look carefully on Flickr or Webshots, you might be able to see some pictures from past presentations. Sometimes we do it at the museum as well. It's one of my favorite presentations to do.

In terms of singular combat between a 1st Century Legionary against a dismounted Late Medieval / High Gothic Knight - we usually come to the same conclusion - Knight wins.

Roman is too exposed. Although both are designed and trained for very close quarters fight, the Knight gets the advantage with more covering armor. We don't know if or what Romans trained for in terms of wrestling - but if the Roman had experience with this, he might be on level terms.

Since Romans of course prefer thrusting and stabbing attacks, he may be able to find the little kinks in the Knight's armor and pose a threat, but the Roman has the same exact problem vs. the Knight, and again with lack of armor in important places, is at a major disadvantage.
If the Roman knows where to hit (eyes, face (if visor up) pits, groin; if he figures out the Fiore trick to get the gladius down into the gauntlets) ~ then it'll get interesting...Maybe he'd get lucky with a hamstring cut.

Also, since the Knight isn't carrying a shield, he could grab the Roman's scutum and get rid of it really quick - As well as using his Longsword in half-sword technique (or even a spear or broken lance) and wrench the shield out as well as wrench and pretzel the Roman. (Mark seems to enjoy this "turn Andy into pretzel" maneuver...he's even crunched my helmet with my head in it in a half-nelson)

leg-sweeps and hip-throws by a Knight in full plate, while I've got my bare legs and arms - STINKS - there is way too much risk of major pinch-points and scraping up my limbs on his armor. And, here would be the ONLY time pointed Sabotons would be effective in stabbing me or crushing my feets.

For "heavy" weapons - The Knight's Lance and charge would just crush Romans, both in terror factor and sheer impact. (Funny how the Romans and Persians essentially INVENTED that stuff later on!). Pila we think would be pretty useless vs a Knight, but, NOT the Horse!! That said, if the Romans could unseat the Knight, and totally surround him, the Knight might be in trouble eventually, maybe try to exhaust the knight. ("perhaps we could make him so cross he will make a mistake!") The Knight with a Mace or a Bec-de-Corbin would just destroy Romans with fair ease. An Auxiliary or Roman with a Hasta spear may be on fairly equal terms vs a Knight with a spear...But again lack of limb coverage is bad news.

Also, if a Roman was able to get a Knight on the ground and smother him/sit on him with the shield, so the Knight couldn't wrestle or roll away - Then eventually the Roman would find a hole to punch into, maybe at this point (ha ha) with the Pugio over the Gladius, but both of course are effective. Knight's roundel dagger - *shudder* forgedaboutit!

OK

Now, if we're talking Medieval regular infantry Vs. Roman Legionary - Now I think the stakes are pretty even. Both would be fairly well armored vs each other. Medieval in anything from Brigantine, Padded Jack, to a Breastplate, would be pretty well protected ~ as would the Roman, of course. Attacks to the face, pits, groin and other gaps in revatively similar armors would be best bet.

If Romans were against a Halberd or Pike block, Romans would probably slaughter them - seeing they get past the polearms' reach, which should be easy enough.

So, there, One on One, I'd say the Roman would win vs. the Medieval soldier. I also think training and discipline is on the Roman's side as well as fighting spirit. Not to say Medieval soldiers were wussy, though.

[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.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

If I can get away with a generality here, medieval armies were typically less organized than the imperial legions, so I would bet on the Romans.

Then again, this question relies solely upon the 'what if' type of scenario that I despise, yet I cannot help but to respond. But hey, if s**t was gold, we'd all be rich.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Dunno about Medieval Knights kicking our AS£$s, but what about Caledonian tribes women!!!! They are dead scary!! hock: :lol:

[Spartan198]

was a question that occured to me the other day, If the romans were to have fought later in history againist full armoured Knights etc. what would have been the outcome? in terms of their weapons, armor and tactics, sure the romans were heavily armored in their day but would they have been able to withstand an army of men who are fully armored?

Whenever the M2TW mod Conan: Total War releases, I'll let you know. :o

[Gluteus Maximus]

If the Empire had remained it would of adopted new tec advances and would be armed as well if not better than a middle age army. But if they had remained there wouldn't of been a middle ages!

...but the Empire DID remain, and while their territory and tax base remained intact, they were armed as well as any other medieval state. Whilst there definitely was a middle ages despite this, it could be said that in the Eastern Roman Empire there was no Dark Ages.

In this hypothetical conflict I believe the Longbow would have been decisive. So, against an English medieval force, the legion would not, I feel, be successful. However, against a Scottish army, reliant on schiltrons and light cavalry, the legion would be victorious for the same reasons they were victorious over hellenistic phalanxes.

Against a French/German medieval force Roman artillery would take out the Genoese crossbowmen before they got in range, and mop up the peasent footsoldiers without ceremony - but the knights would of course be a difficult nut to crack. Wether they would recover from a double volley of pila is interesting to ponder, and the feudal host was never disciplined enough to conduct organised flanking manoevres. So, I believe it to be at least feasible that the Roman legion would be victorious.

Taking the question in its pure context, i.e. specifically medieval heavy infantry against legionaries, then the legionaries would be victorious. After a few ballista rounds, harrassment from the small cavalry detail and two volleys of pila punching through the plate armour - before the close up stuff even starts - I believe the men at arms would find themselves outclassed.

[fasta]

If the Empire had remained it would of adopted new tec advances and would be armed as well if not better than a middle age army. But if they had remained there wouldn't of been a middle ages!

...but the Empire DID remain, and while their territory and tax base remained intact, they were armed as well as any other medieval state. Whilst there definitely was a middle ages despite this, it could be said that in the Eastern Roman Empire there was no Dark Ages.

This is one of reasons these type of questions help no one. This is a large space of time when lots of things changed.So it would of helped the question to add dates.

When you say to use your quote "the Empire DID remain" we are talking of the Eastern part?But "their territory and tax base remained intact" only for a short period.

It is true that part of the Eastern Empire did remain and became more influenced by the East in weapons,armour and troop types(which had beening going on for a while)but they were still part of the middle ages if we are running with the question.We tend to see things from a Western(normal thing that happens)but time rolls on for the whole world.
The East had their own "Dark Ages"with the reduction of land because of the raise of new faiths etc.

But let me say that having fought troops from the 1400's from the position of Roman infantry from the 400's last year we had the edge and left the field pretty much intact.

[Gluteus Maximus]

When you say to use your quote "the Empire DID remain" we are talking of the Eastern part?But "their territory and tax base remained intact" only for a short period.

Yes, I do mean the Eastern bit - from the point of view of everyone in 476, the extinction of the Western half officially reunited the empire. I believe that their tax base and territory survived from that date until 1071... quite a long time, although I accept that the rise of Islam and the loss of Egypt/middle east put a dent in it. It is interesting what you said about a dominate period army wargaming favourably against late medieval foot!

[fasta]

I can't of made myself clear.I don't war game.

Its been a tradition that at the end of some multi period events in the UK for a laugh and bit of fun that a battle is held for the re-enactors.The sides based roughly based on equal numbers.In no way authentic but neither is the question to start with :wink:

We cut through the 1400's boys like a hot knife to butter.

[Domen]

"The Myths of Medieval Warfare" by Sean McGlynn:

http://deremilitari.org/2013/06/the-myth...l-warfare/

[jkaler48]

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.

[Gesiþ]

Medieval Heavy inf (mostly consisting of Dismounted Knights, with various Men at Arms coming after 1100) varied considerably in quality from region to region. In France, for example, the knights were almost entirely a mounted force, at least early on, while in England and Germany there was also a strong tendency to fight on foot.

[Domen]

Jkaler48:

1) Of course you did not read the article I linked "The Myths of Medieval Warfare".

2) You are wrong that there was no tactics, discipline and flexibility in Medieval warfare (read the article).

3) There were no any "period equivalents of Medieval armored warriors" in the Ancient period.

=====================================

Gesith:

4) The "tendency to fight on foot" among the knights was everywhere when it was necessary.

5) In Medieval Poland in the 1300s knights were among people responsible for the defence of castles.

6) How do you think a person can defend a castle wall or a castle tower on horseback?

7) Knights were not only nobility, often also people from other social groups were knights.

=====================================

8) Some people on this forum only have eyes for the Romans, which is why they aren't objective in this thread.

9) Deremilitari.org is among the best websites about Medieval warfare - I recommend it.

.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

6) How do you think a person can defend a castle wall or a castle tower on horseback?

By modding the descr_building file in RTW.