Was medieval warfare a progression from ancient warfare?

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

let me clarafy this a bit when i say ancient i mean Rome's forces in their hey day because rightly or wrongly i believe them to be the most prolific and generally the best ancient troops and i have often wondered (usually when playing MTW2 after RTW) how Rome's legions who have faired. I would guess that they would far out class run of the mill conscripts which made up the bult of the infantry but i was not sure how they would fair against the heavily armoured foot soldiers and horsemen who may have been too heavily armed for the legionaires' weapons to be effective but i am by no means a weapons expert so im not sure.

[Ringeck]

The "search" button might do you good.

[Dr. Croccer]

Not sure. I always thought the two were seperate from eachother.

[Claudius Gothicus]

By the late 4th century the Roman Legions had been becoming more and more strike fast forces, and that meant a lot of heavily armed cavalry forces, just like Knights years later and feudal armies during the middle ages the shift had turned to cavalry from heavy infantry.
So yeah the late antiquity's armies were a preliminary of what was to come during the next centuries.

[Lysimachus]

Read THIS.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Read THIS.

Read a collection of confused nonsense and overgeneralisations by fanboys who don't have much of a clue about either period and who are largely talking out of their butts? Why?

Some highlights from the thread linked to above, for those who don't want to wade through a swamp of ignorance and myths:

• Roman scuta could stop musket balls.
• Lorica segmentata is superior to "chainmail" (of course!)
• Gladii were uberweapons
• Everyone in the Middle Ages was an idiot, not genius like in ancient Rome etc etc etc

As Ringeck says, use the search function and do some searches for the last 20 times we've discussed this. But search VV, because it looks like the kiddies in the modding sections don't have a frigging clue.

[Optimus Marcus Ulpius Traianus]

With the whole knights vs legionaries i think that legionaries could handle them think, Cataphracts of Armenia and Parthia were as heavily armoured if not more so and ignoring Carharre (which was tactics) the Romans could hold there own fairly easily eg Tigranocerta 17,000-260,000 (15,000-18,000 of which were Cataphracts) so they were tougher than people are assuming.
Edit-i do however agree that the legionaries may run into trouble against heavily armoured foot soldiers of late middle ages or dismounted knights as in prolonged combat the lack of protection would be costly but its also debatable that roman cohesian and formations would win over eg against the native Britons at wattling street (who despite great numbers and strength never did well against the tight romans) but did Rome have much experiance fighting foot soldiers as armoured as dismounted knights? how did they fair?

[jo the greek]

In equipment and individual abilities was improvement but in tactics in organization in logistics and many other was very retarded many battle of medieval europe are of low logic just charge them .

You can unterstand how much retarted were in organization and tactics when you realize that after medieval ages many of the Great militairy leaders 1500-1700
studied ancient Generals to evolve their tactics and organization.

some favourite examples of mine are
The battles of Hussite Wars
and the battle of the 100 years wars .

[konny]

If you would sent 20,000 Romans of the year 100AD against an army of 20,000 from the year 1300AD, my bets would go with the medievals: the core of the medieval army would be composed of arms that the Romans would have serious problems to deal with: extra heavy cavalry and missiles. In return the core of the Roman army would be swordsmen on foot - nothing that would give knights and archers a serious headache. The Romans would certainly outclass the pikes and spears of the medieval army, but it would take a rather poor MA commander to have those men leading the attack against a foe armed like a Roman legion.

I would think that a Hellenistic army would do better against knights because the pikewalls would make a cavalry attack impossible, while the Kataphrakts might be able to hold themselves against the knights.

[jo the greek]

If you would sent 20,000 Romans of the year 100AD against an army of 20,000 from the year 1300AD, my bets would go with the medievals: the core of the medieval army would be composed of arms that the Romans would have serious problems to deal with: extra heavy cavalry and missiles. In return the core of the Roman army would be swordsmen on foot - nothing that would give knights and archers a serious headache. The Romans would certainly outclass the pikes and spears of the medieval army, but it would take a rather poor MA commander to have those men leading the attack against a foe armed like a Roman legion.

I would think that a Hellenistic army would do better against knights because the pikewalls would make a cavalry attack impossible, while the Kataphrakts might be able to hold themselves against the knights.

You fail to see the basic in medieval armies there is no plan no organisation.
Romans had faced armies like those you describe Parthians and Persians
If a roman army face and army even if he lost the next time would learn
the medieval army would not.
Also i think in terms equipment would of classic roman would be useful
pilums and gladius were armor piercing.
Further in terms of recruitment a roman army would a lot more larger than a medieval army.

[Mangalore]

You fail to see the basic in medieval armies there is no plan no organisation.
Romans had faced armies like those you describe Parthians and Persians
If a roman army face and army even if he lost the next time would learn
the medieval army would not.
Also i think in terms equipment would of classic roman would be useful
pilums and gladius were armor piercing.
Further in terms of recruitment a roman army would a lot more larger than a medieval army.

I believe you don't see the basic in medieval armies which is that they were usually far more sophisticated than we give them credit today.

Pilum and gladius would not be any more armor piercing than any medieval weapons. Overall however both ages would be rather familiar with each others conduct. I guess the middle ages had developed even more sophisticated metallurgy though allowing for better or more steel/iron weapons and armor. It depends heavily on what era of Rome or the Middle Ages we talk. The 14th century would see the advent of plate armor, the 4-5th century AD the devlopment of cavalry based tactics.

The late Roman empire is imo a clear transistion to the medieval way of war and also demonstrates why there were so few deceisive big conquests in Europe. Harrassing and raids became more pronounced and as every small lord sported a castle conquering a region and keeping it became rather difficult as everyone could hole up in a fortress and hope to sit things out instead of getting slaughtered in the field.

I don't know total numbers but I'd guess a feudal medieval society would be equally far more militarized than the Roman empire had to be until the fall of the west. I mean, being a soldier was at least better than being a peasant...

[Manco]

You fail to see the basic in medieval armies there is no plan no organisation.

Lolwut?

If a roman army face and army even if he lost the next time would learn
the medieval army would not.

Lolwut?

Also i think in terms equipment would of classic roman would be useful
pilums and gladius were armor piercing.

You mean like javelins, throwing axes, arming swords, estocs, axes, military picks, halberds and practically every single other medieval weapon?

Further in terms of recruitment a roman army would a lot more larger than a medieval army.

Perhaps, but that's due to very different political and social conditions. Nothing inherent to the armies themselves.
Also if a Roman army suddenly got transported to the Middle Ages, it would have to rely on those same conditions, ergo army size and logistics would be comparable.

[Last Roman]

You fail to see the basic in medieval armies there is no plan no organisation.

quite wrong

[jo the greek]

quite wrong

still they cannot match a roman army in organisation
To understand further what i mean janisaries had quite good organization logistics and technological innovations and look what impression made to Europeans now a roman army was even more organised .
And as told before late medieval armies were based on heavy cavalry and ranged infantry this could be dealed by romans .

A do not forget that medieval cavalry was fond of bloody frontal assualts not overflanking and
lacked dishipline and controll in battle.

Early medieval were based on infantry spearmen swordmen and even the byzantines were able to deal with this.

[konny]

You fail to see the basic in medieval armies there is no plan no organisation.

I would rather say you have no plan of medieval military history.

Romans had faced armies like those you describe Parthians and Persians

Oh yes, and to what outcome?

If a roman army face and army even if he lost the next time would learn

What would they learn? The Roman army did not change significantly between the time of Marius and the late Roman army (some 300 to 400 years) despite being crushed time and again by enemies like the Parthians.

the medieval army would not.

what would be the next prove that you have no idea of the Middle Ages: Medieval armies were very eager and active in developing and adopting new tactics and techniques.

Also i think in terms equipment would of classic roman would be useful pilums and gladius were armor piercing.

If you would know what makes a weapon ap you wouldn't claim that swords could be armour piercing. Despite that, each single piece of equipement that, for example, a 13th Century knight would carry into battle would be superior to any comperable piece that could be found in a Roman army: sword, mace, lance, armour, helmet, shield, saddle, stirups, horse armour etcpp.

Further in terms of recruitment a roman army would a lot more larger than a medieval army.

Why that? Because the Medieval army would only be allowed to be composed of knights and their retinue from the Archbishopric of Trier, while the Roman army would be drafted from the entire empire with the assumption that the enemies on all other fronts remain quite for the time of the 'contest'?

[jo the greek]

Some of the arguments you say make me feel that this discussion is retarded.
For example about parthians and Persians from what i remeber Romans suffered only one major defeat from Parthian and this was of nomadic tactics not cause of the heavy Cataphracts and especially Parthians tended to have also infantry while in Medieval battles infantry was compose mostly of range units and would try to fight behind some kind of barricade.

The gladius is commonly know for the armor piercing abilities that medieval swords that came from roman spatha were so good .
The argument that medieval armies had armor piercing abilities is irrelevant cause i didnt say they didnt had so it was un needed.

The average roman army in all militairy history was larger than the average medieval army regarding even large states.

In numerous battles of medieval ages we see again and again the same primitive tactic of frontal assault of heavy riders thats all. Whille nomad and ottoman armies that used something more complex than that triumpethed in battles.

Again i refer the Janissaries and the fact that were more advanced than medieval armies and the impact they had in Europeans.


And my most serious arguments is that the Greatest Generals of all times
in order to learn about organiszation tactics and etc rode about Ancient Generals note about king Richard the lionheart not about Charlemagne .

Denying this argument is impossible !!!!

[Holger Danske]

If you would sent 20,000 Romans of the year 100AD against an army of 20,000 from the year 1300AD, my bets would go with the medievals: the core of the medieval army would be composed of arms that the Romans would have serious problems to deal with: extra heavy cavalry and missiles. In return the core of the Roman army would be swordsmen on foot - nothing that would give knights and archers a serious headache. The Romans would certainly outclass the pikes and spears of the medieval army, but it would take a rather poor MA commander to have those men leading the attack against a foe armed like a Roman legion.

I would think that a Hellenistic army would do better against knights because the pikewalls would make a cavalry attack impossible, while the Kataphrakts might be able to hold themselves against the knights.

It actually goes both ways. Why?
We can all agree that Knights (especially mounted) where superior to the average Roman footsoldier. Being heavy cavalry, having better equipment, and with most likelyhood better combat skills. Yet, the majority of Knights - as shown by the French in particular - had one considerable weakness. Chivalry, or rather; a lack of raw and solid disciplin, which was the fundation of the Roman Legion during it's Zenit.

Thus a competent Roman commander could easily take advantage of the medieval knights lust for battle and glory which would in most cases render a detailed and calculated battleplan utterly useless. As for Romans not being able to repel heavy cavalry charges I just have to call a bullocks. Plain and simple. The Romans have fought against several tribes/kingdoms/empires which employed cavalry in large numbers and they prevailed. Sure they would properly not be able to stand against a well coordinated charge where the horses - for some reason - ignored all the sharp pointy spears aimed at them and continued head on, but again Knights aren't exactly known for their ability to obey command and stay in line, and contrary to Total War games a horse will not charge into a spear recklessly.

And let's assume the weather isn't perfectly suited for mounted combat (which is the most realistic!) then you can take away the knight's advantage over the Roman soldier. He will be heavier, thus slower, and he is not trained to fight in formation and as a unit, but as a single warrior - And we all know how well the Romans handled this type of warrior during their prime days. Hell, even their main weapon (pre-spatha) is specificly designed for this type of combat...

In all I'd say the outcome would be decided by the terrain, the commanders, and the weather.

[Lysimachus]

Not to be rude, but don't slag me off when i'm the one arguing against the Roman supremacist views of the people posting in the thread.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Not to be rude, but don't slag me off when i'm the one arguing against the Roman supremacist views of the people posting in the thread.

I was slagging off the thread. As valiant as your efforts on it were, that thread really wasn't very useful except as an illustration of how pointless such threads are. I got to the bit where some fanboy was saying "Oh yeah? Well a Roman could knock over a knight and use his training and his big shield to pin the knight down, so the knights would all lose" and was reminded of how much like ten year olds arguing over whether Batman could beat Spiderman that kind of "discussion" is.

This thread isn't quite as bad as those pointless "Romans vs Medieval" threads, but it's close. Part of the problem is the idea of "progression". Was Medieval warfare a "progression"? No, like ancient warfare it was a series of reactions and changes to different circumstances. There were some technological innovations and changes that affected tactics - principally in fortifications, siege warfare and plate armour production - but to look at history in Whiggish terms like "progression" or "better/worse" is rarely terribly useful

[ray243]

I was slagging off the thread. As valiant as your efforts on it were, that thread really wasn't very useful except as an illustration of how pointless such threads are. I got to the bit where some fanboy was saying "Oh yeah? Well a Roman could knock over a knight and use his training and his big shield to pin the knight down, so the knights would all lose" and was reminded of how much like ten year olds arguing over whether Batman could beat Spiderman that kind of "discussion" is.

This thread isn't quite as bad as those pointless "Romans vs Medieval" threads, but it's close. Part of the problem is the idea of "progression". Was Medieval warfare a "progression"? No, like ancient warfare it was a series of reactions and changes to different circumstances. There were some technological innovations and changes that affected tactics - principally in fortifications, siege warfare and plate armour production - but to look at history in Whiggish terms like "progression" or "better/worse" is rarely terribly useful

Forget it. The fact that mods are willingly to tolerate all sort of nonsense down here basically means that it is impossible to have any serious discussion down here.