Knights & Legionaries

[Marcus Hortensius Castus]

Europeans have been using the longbow since prehistory, as far as we can tell. Its ability to penetrate armour and shields or kill large numbers of troops is often exaggerated, although it was a fearsome weapon.

Medieval Catholic armies could often handle logistics quite well (although camp sanitation and medicine were primitive). Again, the biggest problem for crusading armies was that they were large armies fighting in a strange climate 1000 miles from home. This would have challenged any army’s logistics.

Edited.

Right, I was refering more specifically to the feared Welsh longbow used by the English in the 13-1400's, but I failed to make that distinction.

As far as being a thousand miles away, compare Crassus in Parthia to the Crusaders at Hattin; both armies contained well-trained troops that were killed by a mix of the element and native horse archers that had the mobility that the western armies did not. I suppose every army has it's disasters.

[Matthew]

Doctrinal differences may matter more than the cosmetic ones.

Roman infantry may have been much better than some medieval infantry, and maybe only a little better or on par with better medieval infantry; but the organization of the legion was standardized into controllable subunits and allowed a measure of control which few medieval armies could match (if any).

Interestingly, Joinville has something to say about this (circa 1250). He claims that he had sixty Knights under his command and that each of these Knights was in charge of ten men. That sounds like a very interesting hint at cohort sized organisation. Ten of those sixty Knights were 'of his household' and seem to have been more important, but he also claims to have had Bannerets in his forces, which suggests another layer of organisation (i.e. Knights commanding Knights).
The proportion of Knights to Non Knights is also an important subject, because the change between the eleventh and thirteenth century appears to have been dramatic and this can colour our perception of the professional medieval soldier.

Tantalising, but unfortunately, the information is sparse at best. There certainly does not seem to have been formalised organisation on par with the Legion, but, then, how much of the organisation of the Roman Army is paper organisation anyway?

Just a thought.

Matthew James Stanham

[Endre Fodstad]

When it comes to "medieval military organization", one cannot readily compare it with "roman military organization" without picking a period and possible a geographic limitation for both. We have a number of descriptions of tactical units in medieval sources (some of which are described below) but they tend to differ greatly depending on region and time period - knights could be organized in conrois or banners or lances or tens or eights or...you get the picture. I strongly suspect that, if we had the same wealth of roman sources as we have of medieval ones, the picture would be a rather less homogenous army than many (outside these forums) tend to picture.

Logistically, we also have a lot of different descriptions. Overall, they don't talk about it all that much (just as in roman sources) but there are 12th century medical manuscripts discussing camp hygiene still extant, and the norwegian levy laws of the 13th-14th centuries discuss everything from unit size to supply to camp organization to the ratio of bowmen-to-infantry demanded of the yeomen. I've seen french 12th century poems describing the marching order of an "ideal" invading army, and the norse Sverres saga (among other things) detail 12th century winter campaigning that would have demanded a great deal of logistical thinking and preparation. The subject of medieval warfare studies is growing greatly these days, as it gets more and more acceptable to study it among academics (it had a rather bad, and not always entirely undeserved, rep as "unprofessional" in the 50s-80s).

[Robert Vermaat]

Moving this to OT...

[Narukami]

This all seems very reminiscent of an earlier discussion we had on the question: Who would win in a battle between a Samurai and a Roman Legionnaire?

Of course there is no real answer for a host of reasons we outlined in that thread.

However...

These threads provide a wealth of information on the non-Roman force (be it Samurai or European Knights) and point out a few traits that remain consistent throughout time and culture.

Tarbicus hit upon this when he mentioned that Roman legions could be just as impulsive and hot-headed as any medieval force.

When I think of the Crusaders marching off into the desert, without proper logistics, to be slaughtered by Saladin at the battle of Hattin I am also reminded of Marcus Crassus marching ever deeper into the desert trying to engage the Parthians in a "stand-up" fight. We all know how that campaign ended.

These threads may seem insane ("Who would win: Superman or Mighty Mouse?") but they are usually very informative and a lot of fun.

And I'm still backing the samurai -- but that's another discussion for another thread... :wink:

Narukami

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Well, OBVIOUSLY the knights would win!!!!

The Roman knights, of course, backed by the mighty Legions of Rome!! :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Carus Andiae]

There's been a similar discussion on the BBC History messageboards covering Legions versus Longbows. The jury's still out.

[Et tu brute]

I think it's one of those questions that can never have a real answer, as you'll always have the people who are primarily intrested in the Romans backing them and vice versa. Also my opinion is that we cannot say either way, because both armies (this may be more typical of the Romans) would adapt to the forces that they were fighting, so perhaps it would be adaptability and ingenuity that would win the day, and not solid military might.

[Endre Fodstad]

I think it's one of those questions that can never have a real answer, as you'll always have the people who are primarily intrested in the Romans backing them and vice versa. Also my opinion is that we cannot say either way, because both armies (this may be more typical of the Romans) would adapt to the forces that they were fighting, so perhaps it would be adaptability and ingenuity that would win the day, and not solid military might.

There was considerable adaption going on in the middle ages as well; it is better documented (as usual, it's more recent and there's none of that fall-of-empire business between us and the,) than the roman period. Examples would be the turks' increasing their dependence on heavy cavalry in the heyday of the crusader states and the crusader states' militaries use of horsebow (or the various strategies the french tried out in the hundred years war for that matter), but there are literally thousands of examples of this sort of fun out there.

I agree that debates like this are meaningless. No military system, unless there is an extreme discrepancy in technological levels (which there is not in this case) will be invincible to another.

[Et tu brute]

Thanks for pointing that out, to be honest my Medieval history is severely lacking, and that which I do know is quite narrow, it's definatly something I need to brush up on

[Ron Andrea]

IMHO neither would have an inherent advantage.

It would depend on leadership and motivation. The examples above plus many before and since support the proposition that any army can win in almost any circumstance if sufficently motivated and wisely led. On the other hand, many armies lost battles they "should" have won because of poor leadership or insufficent motivation.

Granted, some of the problem with both was indemic to the society that produces it, but societies that can not defend themselves--not to mention conquering their neighbors--have gotten much less copy in history books than those that could.

[Marcus Julius]

IMHO neither would have an inherent advantage.

It would depend on leadership and motivation. The examples above plus many before and since support the proposition that any army can win in almost any circumstance if sufficently motivated and wisely led.

Exactly what I was going to say. How many times was Julius Caesar in a position where he was severly outnumbered, and came out victorious?

I once read a military analyst wrote that the Roman legions were the finest infantry to ever walk the earth. The Legions were never bettered as infantry, but replaced by a different type of military in cavalry. Much in the same way that swords and spears were replaced by firearms.

[DanM]

Maybe we can figure this out with computers, combine rtw with mtw II

kids discussing if Batman could beat up Spiderman. :

Well me and my military historian firend ( another kid ) and I were talking about legoinaries vs. knights, he said the knights would win, but I say ROMA INVICTA! , but we both agree spartan hoplites can defeat eith side.