Romans vs. Normans--Help!

[caiusbeerquitius]

BTW whats the source for the romans didn't scale very well?

Source: the Mainz pedestals:
www.livius.org/mo-mt/mogontiacum/mainz_pedestals.html
look especially at proportions head / hands 7 arms / upper body.
An about 10.000 other Roman stone monuments, among them a considerable number of "Reitergrabsteine" like this one:

As for all over the med I meant just about every ancient nation all over the med

Yes, I got that. Do you want me to write my answer a third time?

[M. Demetrius]

The shields on the Adamklissi monument as well as Trajan's Column are ridiculously small compared to what we find as actual shields. The heads on many gravestones are exceptionally big, not in keeping with archeology.

Why? A full sized shield obscures everything behind it (which is the whole purpose of a shield, really, isn't it?), and it's not the shields the artists were interested in describing. The sculptors wanted us to recognized the face, not the known, normal body proprotions. Artistic convention. Why did Picasso paint all kinds of things flat and out of position? Why did the Egyptians paint their people in such odd postures? Artistic convention. These things change with culture.

Horses are often presented tinier than ponies on sculptures and reliefs, particularly military battle friezes. Why? It's not the horses they're mainly interested in. But the bones dug up, now that's a horse of a different color, as it were. We can compare them to known horses and men these days, and get a finite measure.

[fasta]

According to Comitatus the horses should be around 14-15 hands, as for names I don't know all I see is the animal there is no name written on the
statuary. BTW whats the source for the romans didn't scale very well?

As for all over the med I meant just about every ancient nation all over the med

I'm sorry I keep coming back to this but "Comitatus" keeps getting banded about.

Can I please make sure it is the group I'm a member of?

Because if it is you are misquoting the site and nowhere does it state"the horses should be around 14-15 hands" It clearly says quote " To generalise there is a consensus that Roman horses in the west were around 13 to14 hands, with some as tall as 15 hands." This consenses was based on earlier thinking.

But it then goes on to state that smaller horses have shown up on recent bone research. This supports smaller horses not larger. This doesn't mean that this will never change but we can only go on the current evidence.

It does not state large horses as you have refered/implied to in a former posts and then added our site ,to support this from my view as I read your posts.

The whole page needs to be read together not sections cherry picked.

On the website we site Ann Hyland's & Junkelmann's work for ref. which is where you need to go for your sources, not just wrongly quote our site.

Once again if it is not our site you are talking about I'm sorry but I couldn't stand by on the possibility.

Its late so sorry for the typos :wink:

[Tarbicus]

Crow's feet. Sorted :wink:

[jkaler48]

Romans instead of Saxons at Hastings...
Late or Imperial? (Pila or Plumbata?)
Defended camp to fall back on? Defended forts and cities?
In depth chain of command?
Well trained and disciplined Troops?
Artillery? Roman Cavalry Support?
Imperial or Late both have many advantages over the actual Saxon Army and would have made the Norman Conquest much more difficult or impossible.

[Tarbicus]

Scipio Africanus and Hannibal.

While the Normans ransacked and pillaged England the Romans would have taken a large force to Normandy, do the same, and cut off the Norman supply chain. Once the Norman forces were forced to return to Normandy for fear of losing their homeland they'd have found new roads used by the Romans to deploy swiftly, impregnable forts, and probably an ex-serf army ready to do anything for their new saviours :wink:

It might have taken over a decade, but that's nothing to Romans.

[Antonius Lupus]

Romans instead of Saxons at Hastings...
Late or Imperial? (Pila or Plumbata?)
Defended camp to fall back on? Defended forts and cities?
In depth chain of command?
Well trained and disciplined Troops?
Artillery? Roman Cavalry Support?
Imperial or Late both have many advantages over the actual Saxon Army and would have made the Norman Conquest much more difficult or impossible.

Artillery is a factor that has not been mentioned yet, and it may have been decisive. According to Frank McLynn's "1066. The Year of the Three Battles", the impact made by Norman crossbowmen was enormous. Many fyrd militiamen fled from the battlefield because of it. Now imagine the effect on the opposite side of some ballistae at work!

The more I think about it, the more certain I am of a Roman win.

[Proximus]

I read in this forum romans had one of the best European and mediterranean reserve and scool of horses, and when barbarian invades, they did a big hole in all thoses institutions, witch means disparition of the bread and the disciplined scool in Europe.

I read in this forum too they used barbs horses from berberia, and else.

Can't find the read, though...

[L C Cinna]

I read in this forum romans had one of the best European and mediterranean reserve and scool of horses, and when barbarian invades, they did a big hole in all thoses institutions, witch means disparition of the bread and the disciplined scool in Europe.

I read in this forum too they used barbs horses from berberia, and else.

Can't find the read, though...

The imperial army took the best available breeds from certain places (I remember that they used many Spanish horses). Then the horses were trained for war in special training schools for 3 years! then they were sent to the troops. So the drill of the Roman horses (even the reserve ones on campaign) was probably very very high.

the scorpions are really a nice idea. I haven't thought of them as well in the beginning.

How many Romans do we have in this battle?

let's say a legion of about 4.600 plus 1.500 cavalry (an ala milliaria and an ala quingenaria equitata just for the fun of it), 500 Syrians plus another 3000 auxiliaries (Batavians and other nice and heavy stuff ... :lol: ). so that gives us about 60 scorpions right? :twisted:

I'd like to see the Norman faces when they try to get up that hill under fire from 500 Syrians and 60 scorpions, THEN we can talk about the battle :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

I read a bit about how the Norman cavalry faired in the first crusade against lighter Turkish cavalry then Nikaia was captured (1097 CE). For the sake of this topic the latter can be perhaps compared with Roman auxilia EDIT: I mean just cavalry here.

From the text (in the order it is stated):

- Norman cavalry men were used to work together (as a ships crew) and behaved accordingly when attacking and stuck close together.
- so they usually attacked as a tight packed mass trusting on the shock they would deliver on impact
- while attacking they positioned themselves pretty rigid in their deep saddles and long stirrups
- Norman horses were small (battle)-stallions, chosen for their weight, strength and broad flat ridge
- so it was expected to break the enemy by sheer force
the annalist Anna Comnena wrote: " [...] that a Frank on a horse would push a hole in the walls of Babylon."
- BUT this tactic only worked when it went against a foe who waits standing still for the enemy to come
- and the Turkish cavalry (equipped with bows, only light armour and small shield) fought not in formation but simply evaded and attacked the Normans wavelike
- the individual decisive point was reached when the Norman charge was over
- WHEN the Normans stuck together they were able to fight the now incoming Turks off and were almost invincible
- BUT it's not easy to maintain group cohesion and many Normans were singled out and defeated
- both sides had heavy casualties that day and that encounter ended as a numerical draw (though a tactical retreat for the Turks)

Source:
Jones, Terry & Ereira, Alan (1992): Die Kreuzzüge. 1. Ed., Augsburg: Weltbild Pbl. Pg. 45f. The english title is "Crusades". (A history book that's very funny to read btw.)

[Tarbicus]

Hold on, what about how legionaries took down cataphracts with clubs? Apparently very effective.

[Tiberius Clodius Corvinus]

Hold on, what about how legionaries took down cataphracts with clubs? Apparently very effective.

My bad, I edited my above post. Its a cav. vs. cav. situation. But, I'm certain these palestinian clubmen (I think you're are refering to) engaged the cataphracts only then the latter had ended their charge. At least I guess. :?

[Matthew Amt]

Romans instead of Saxons at Hastings...
Late or Imperial? (Pila or Plumbata?)
Defended camp to fall back on? Defended forts and cities?
In depth chain of command?
Well trained and disciplined Troops?
Artillery? Roman Cavalry Support?...

Well, if you follow the link in my original post, you'll see the specifications of the scenario. "7000-8000 Roman legionaries, a legion plus a few cohorts, Late Republic or Early Empire. " It's just for the battle, really, not meant as a greater campaign or overall "Romans versus Normans to conquer the world" kind of thing.

Artillery is a factor that has not been mentioned yet

Actually, I mentioned artillery in one of my posts in that thread, but it didn't get discussed, really. I certainly agree that it would make an impact! But I think the guy who started that whole thread was only thinking of replacing the Saxons with an equal number of Romans. That alone would mean Norman defeat, most likely. But if you replace the Saxon *army* with a complete Roman *army*--including baggage, tools, artillery, etc.--then it's no contest!

The thread on MyArmoury seems to have ended, no new posts for a couple days. We don't really have to fight it all out again here!

Matthew