Who would win?

[BarSteward]

This is just a hypothetical situation thread a bit like Alien vs predator but less crap


A fine Roman army at the height of there military might commanded by old Caesar himself up against a Medieval feudal army in all of its glory.

Who would win?

Roman discipline, organization and a superior command structure or

Feudal European army with its heavy Cavalry and superior technology (chain mail, steel etc.)

[ihranator]

Lancers

[Ferdiad]

Wrong forum, probaly belongs in the alternate history in the VV.
Rome cos I >3 them.

[Vespasian92]

Rome cos I >3 them.

[ashenhigh]

I think it depends on the make of the Feudal army. Specifically, the cavalry.

edit: On Second thought, I say the the Roman's win. Their sheer numbers would bring them victory. Just too many disciplined legionaries.

[Nightbringer]

Well, armies during the period of Rome were probably 2-4 times larger than those during the Medieval period (or more so) so I would have to say Rome would win. Also, they generally had much better trained troops for the bulk or their army. The medieval cavalry would do enormous damage though so it would be possible for them to win if they had enough of that. That is how the vandals and many other "barbarians" managed to defeat romans armies on numerous occasion (although those roman armies were far from what they were in the days of Caesar.

[Townsaver]

The romans would, i think, die a horrid and quick death.
Archers, Crossbows, ballista, cats, trebs, all that in the medieval forms has greater range than the roman..
put up some quick fieldworks to slow the roman formations down, and create gabs in the formations?
Sorry, Ferd.

[nickname]

1 Legion arround 10000 men.
5000 Legionary, 5000 Auxillary, 56 Carroballistae (range 1000m, effective Range 500. Cav feel free to charge ), 10 Onager.
The roman Locoria Segmenta was good as a full plate armor with the same material (because it is a full plate in segments), it even can handle a balistashoot (not at 10m maybee but at longer range).
Auxiallary could have spearman, bowman or heavy an light cav. Depends on the situation and what they needed.
In which numbers medieval Knights charged? 100, 200? 1000?
There will also be a rain of pila and a way better diciplin.
Only question is, how good are the roman shields against crossbows or longbows.

[RC-1136]

1 Legion arround 10000 men.
5000 Legionary, 5000 Auxillary, 56 Carroballistae (range 1000m, effective Range 500. Cav feel free to charge ), 10 Onager.
The roman Locoria Segmenta was good as a full plate armor with the same material (because it is a full plate in segments), it even can handle a balistashoot (not at 10m maybee but at longer range).
Auxiallary could have spearman, bowman or heavy an light cav. Depends on the situation and what they needed.
In which numbers medieval Knights charged? 100, 200? 1000?
There will also be a rain of pila and a way better diciplin.
Only question is, how good are the roman shields against crossbows or longbows.

The actual strength of one legion would be around 5000 men . 3000 legionaries, the rest auxillaries & Co.
Only a few legionaries would wear loricae segmentatae. Especially when under command of Julius Caesar. Segmentata-armour never dominated the Roman armament and I know about theories that it was more the armour of Auxillaries than of legionaries ...

Regarding the question: It depends. It always depends. What is a typical Medieval feudal army? Where would they fight the Romans? At a beach, in the desert, in Germanic forests? Would they have to march to the battlefield, are walls, entrenchments or even castles included? The typical Medieval battle is a siege. So it would be quite unfair to force them to do an open field battle

[BarSteward]

The actual strength of one legion would be around 5000 men . 3000 legionaries, the rest auxillaries & Co.
Only a few legionaries would wear loricae segmentatae. Especially when under command of Julius Caesar. Segmentata-armour never dominated the Roman armament and I know about theories that it was more the armour of Auxillaries than of legionaries ...

Regarding the question: It depends. It always depends. What is a typical Medieval feudal army? Where would they fight the Romans? At a beach, in the desert, in Germanic forests? Would they have to march to the battlefield, are walls, entrenchments or even castles included? The typical Medieval battle is a siege. So it would be quite unfair to force them to do an open field battle

haha have to be difficult don't you. It was more a questions about over all strength, ill refine the question a little more.

who would win in a siege battle? defense and offense

and who would win in an open field battle?

lets say a French or German Feudal army up against a Roman army of similar numbers (I image that would be around 1 legion?)

[Ferdiad]

The romans would, i think, die a horrid and quick death.
Archers, Crossbows, ballista, cats, trebs, all that in the medieval forms has greater range than the roman..
put up some quick fieldworks to slow the roman formations down, and create gabs in the formations?
Sorry, Ferd.

I don't thnk Kings employed cats yet?

[Marcvs Antonivs]

I don't thnk Kings employed cats yet?

Ahahahahaha that's what I thought as well

[Vespasian92]

The romans would, i think, die a horrid and quick death.
Archers, Crossbows, ballista, cats, trebs, all that in the medieval forms has greater range than the roman..
put up some quick fieldworks to slow the roman formations down, and create gabs in the formations?
Sorry, Ferd.

Lol where did the technology of ballistas and catapults come from? Romans used ballistas extensively and also employed onagers, which can sometimes be considered the basis of the later catapults and other siege machines included mangonels. Archers and archery were common in the ancient world also.
The english perfection of the longbow and the italian technology of the crossbow would be new technology to the romans, but not ballistas and other siege equipment.

[Nightbringer]

All those things could be decisive under the proper circumstances I think. As is always the case in warfare, a huge amount of it comes down to the terrain it was fought on and who was in command. Also, things such as trebs and cats were generally used for siege warfare, meaning they might not be on the battlefield.

[Evelien]

Rome Would be more organised and diciplined.

[Lugiahua]

I wonder how well Roman could performed against late Medieval fortifications?

[Ichon]

I wonder how well Roman could performed against late Medieval fortifications?

Quite well. Romans were some of the best engineers in the military sense until Napoleanic era. How to bring down structures changes less than how to build them.

I'd lean towards Romans- the discipline and adaptability would overcome Medieval armies in more situations. I think Medieval army might win in certain circumstances but over the range of possible battle fields and situations I'd give the edge to the Romans at their height and commanded by Caeser. Which Medieval general could be given command?

[Ferdiad]

I wonder how well Roman could performed against late Medieval fortifications?

Alesia.

[Lugiahua]

hmm, don't think Alesia was able to compared to Kerak...

[Asterix]

Rome, no doubt about it. if the artillery didn't break the ragtag medieval infantry, then the strict discipline of the legions would. the medieval cavalry was famously ill disciplined (especially if this is a french army we're talking about) and even if they could get off a good charge, they'd be cut down and massacred.