Rome vs Rome

[rrgg]

In a battle between a 1st century AD Roman army and a 4th century western Roman Army of the same size who would win?

[Erebus Pasha]

Well I'd like to know where you got that nice pic of the 4th century Roman army for a start...

[Jlop985]

The 1st century army would win. The 4th century army was geared to patrol the border and engage in raids and low-level combat. The 1st century army trained to fight pitched battles, though it was flexible enough to effectively patrol the frontier and keep barbarian disturbances to a minimum.

Now, in a long campaign, the edge would still probably go to the 1st century army, but the 4th century army would have a significant chance of winning.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

The late army had superior combat equipment. Better, longer swords, plumbata, the praesentalis troops probably would be clad in armour head to toe, and in the east many had experienced fighting the toughest opponents the romans ever faced.


And they had the discipline and training of the principate legions. I cast my vote at the late ones. Ofcourse, if we took the field armies and not limitanei.

[Jom]

"Who would win" threads are generally not appropriate to the VV, especially not with such a sparse opening post.

Closed.