How would Roman legions fare against Medieval armies?

[Monolith2]

Pre-gunpowder era, of course. Going by the last two TW games (i know, its not historically accurate, but it just gave me the idea to ask) it seems like a legion could be a pretty powerful unit against a lot of the medieval melee units.

Was there much that changed in the 1000 years between roman and medieval infantry? How about cavalry? If someone could have snapped their fingers in the year 1000 and recreated the roman empire, would they have had the military technology to hold on to it?

[Lusted]

Moved to the VV, the forum for discussions on all things historical. Also for discussion of all smaurai v spartan type topics.

[Exploder]

Metallurgy was much more advanced in medieval times then Roman times(means better weapons and armor), but aside from that I think the legions will have the advantage especially in command structure and organization.

[Ketzerfreund]

Good question...
Well, the Romans had that super steel made from iron from Noricum.
According to a documentation I've seen it was one of the things responsible for Rome's success on the battlefield. In that film they had a swordsmith grind the dirt crust off a real roman sword and analysed the surface. It seems, that steel could even compete with materials of nowadays.
So, at least, regarding the quality of the weapons, the Romans would be better off, I guess.

-Der Ketzerfreund.

[Miraj]

When it comes to discipline and order the Romans would own the medievals. When it comes to cavalry the Romans are just plain dead.

[Edmonton]

To @Ketzerfreund.No.The sword quality is not enough Roman armour was bronse which would result in defeat.You can easily defeat a Roman with disent steel made modern kitchen knife would slice trough ancient bronse

[HunterKYA]

Most Roman armor between the Republican and Imperial eras, including the lorica hamata and lorica segmentata, were made of high quality steel or iron, just like the gladius, spatha, or pilum. So to say the Romans would've lost based on the type of armor and weapons they carried into battle against Medieval armies would have been an insult to the Romans, who strove to give their soldiers the absolute best in terms of armor and weapons.

With that being said, I think the Roman legions would have been more than a match for the average Medieval army that was fielded around the year 1000.

In addition to that, the fabled discipline of the legions would rout most armies of the Medieval period just by a matter of sheer will and determination to achieve victory.

[Edmonton]

Most Roman armor between the Republican and Imperial eras, including the lorica hamata and lorica segmentata, were made of high quality steel or iron, just like the gladius, spatha, or pilum. So to say the Romans would've lost based on the type of armor and weapons they carried into battle against Medieval armies would have been an insult to the Romans, who strove to give their soldiers the absolute best in terms of armor and weapons.

No ,Gothic armour was much more better and what is 'segmentata' 'hamata' sounds unfamiliar... pauldron,greeves?

[Manji]

No ,Gothic armour was much more better and what is 'segmentata' 'hamata' sounds barbaric... pauldron,greeves?

Not to mention your tone right from the start, showing you know nothing about the subject yet persist on making judgment, here is Lorica segmentata:


(basically "segments" of plate joined together hence the name)

Lorica Hamata



(basically mail wore over normal or reinforced clothing)


Hand to hand, I guess the Roman Legionary would be a even match to a medieval man-at-arms; cavalry wise the romans were very lacking and used only "light" cavalry or barbarian levies.

[Edmonton]

No ,Gothic armour was much more better and what is 'segmentata' 'hamata' sounds barbaric... pauldron,greeves?

To @Gil you quoted this line ,right(not to mention the last part of sentence it clear states that Gothic armour was far to advanced to compare with Roman)?And to @Last Roman the knight are not to compared to cavalry of other eras in fact in 3-rd crusade the calculation was like that: one European knight an equiivalent for 2.5 Eastern heavy cavalry.They used such odds for parleys betwen Lionheart and Saladin.

[Ringeck]

You can easily defeat a Roman with disent kitchen knife would slice trough bronse

No, you can't. I welcome you to try, if you wish to mangle your kitchen knife. Trying to slice through metal with a metal blade, or even stabbing through it in many cases, is almost impossible even with the most amazing steel qualities, unless the defending metal is so heavily corroded you could push through it with a blunt bar.

[Ringeck]

The legions? Which ones? Which period? What quality? What medieval armies? Which period? What quality? What leaders? These sort of questions are practically impossible to answer.

One on one, the best, and luckiest, fighter would win. Once again.

In that film they had a swordsmith grind the dirt crust off a real roman sword and analysed the surface. It seems, that steel could even compete with materials of nowadays.

Sadly, the Noricum (and Colchester) analysis is complete nonsense (I've had the dubious pleasure of once sitting through parts of that nasty metallurgical debate); there is probably not enough pieces left before the 15th century to provide a statistical analysis for comparison between the two periods, and there are steel samples from the roman period through to the modern period that easily quality-wise match the best samples analysed (see below). Heavens, they even tried to compare a set-hardened lamellar piece to the back piece of a 13th century helmet once during the debate; the lamellar piece had been picked out of twenty or so samples as the least impure metallurgical sample (which says about as much as to exactly where on the piece the sample had been taken from as to the quality of the piece), whereas the helmet sample was from the back edge of the helmet, the most corrosion-weakened part of it to boot. Yee haa, talk about weighing the evidence. Few pre-19th century steel samples are homogenous enough to provide real general structural metallurgical data on a single piece without completely destroying the piece.

[Vanquisher]

Heavy cavalry reminicent of the medievil times was also the bane of the roman legions (cohorts of heavy infantry).

[Last Roman]

Heavy cavalry reminicent of the medievil times was also the bane of the roman legions (cohorts of heavy infantry).

Not exactly true. The Romans, when keeping in formation, faired well against even heavy cavalry, as seen in the battle of Emesa against the Palmyrenes. However, if the infantry broke up, then they would have been slaughtered.

When it comes to discipline and order the Romans would own the medievals. When it comes to cavalry the Romans are just plain dead.

Early Roman cavalry, yes. But as the Romans faced more cavalry based armies (especially in the mid-late empire), they themselves (a famous aspect of the Roman military) adapted and began to raise heavy cavalry. That said, I'd still put my money on a medieval knight over a Roman heavy cavalry.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

Heavy cavalry reminicent of the medievil times was also the bane of the roman legions (cohorts of heavy infantry).

Not really, Good Quality Light Calvary (Parthians,Numidians) was what the Legions had the most diffucult time dealing with, Many Times Legionairres have stood up to a Charge of Heavy calvary including Sassanid/Parthian Catraphacts.

[Edmonton]

Strange then because this time is time of Roman decline.Or maybe Germanic had better metall-craft.Which might be the case.

[HunterKYA]

That was never specified by Monolith.

Pre-gunpowder era, of course. Going by the last two TW games (i know, its not historically accurate, but it just gave me the idea to ask) it seems like a legion could be a pretty powerful unit against a lot of the medieval melee units.

Was there much that changed in the 1000 years between roman and medieval infantry? How about cavalry? If someone could have snapped their fingers in the year 1000 and recreated the roman empire, would they have had the military technology to hold on to it?

I think what he meant by this was the Roman Empire during its period of unquestionable strength, which would have been between the late 1st century BC and the 2nd century AD. It wouldn't be a fair comparison of the Roman Empire to Medieval armies if you used the Romans of the 4th and 5th century AD, when they were in deep decline and their armies were nothing next to what they had been two or three centuries before.

[Freddie]

It wouldn't be a fair comparison of the Roman Empire to Medieval armies if you used the Romans of the 4th and 5th century AD, when they were in deep decline and their armies were nothing next to what they had been two or three centuries before.

God help you if ThiudareiksGunthigg (yeah I can't say it either) reads that...

The late Western Roman Army was still the most respected army in the modern world and won nearly all of the battles it fought. In fact it was more effective then the pre marian armies of the Hannibal/republican period, I can't think of one catastrophic defeat that befell the WRE army during that late period of the Empire.

Anyway, I would believe the a classical Roman leigion from Augustus time, would fair fairly well against a medieval army. The bulk of Medieval armies were made of conscripts (farmers, yeomen, peasants etc), I guess they would have been given training but I never seen any evidence that they were paid for there services, so they lacked the professionalism of the Roman army. Knights however made up a small % of medieval armies, if you could field a few hundred you were doing well. Roman cavalry against medieval cavalry there is no comparison, whilst Roman cavalrymen were brave and hardy, without stirrups or steal plate they are no much for the stronger and much larger horses of medieval warfare. If the Romans could protect there flanks from cavalry attacks there would be every chance the Romans could win, but only if they can protect there flanks and rear.

[Carach]

The late Western Roman Army was still the most respected army in the modern world and won nearly all of the battles it fought. In fact it was more effective then the pre marian armies of the Hannibal/republican period, I can't think of one catastrophic defeat that befell the WRE army during that late period of the Empire.

heh, the late WRE did not have any single catastrophic defeats on the battle field, rather it had a long string of disasters on and off the battlefield.

If the Romans could protect there flanks from cavalry attacks there would be every chance the Romans could win, but only if they can protect there flanks and rear.

Medieval cavalry did not usually attack the flanks (at least not until the later period). Medieval tactics was usually use the levies to soften things up and go on the flanks, until the mounted knigths were ready to make a huge charge into the centre, basically steamrolling the enemy. This worked some times, and theres just as many examples of it failing completely (a couple of times on the crusades, the french lost a few too..), this would never have been workable against a fully trained, equiped and proffessional army such as that the romans fielded in their prime simply because the infantry were far better prepared to absorb such attacks and deployed better maneuvers and tactics.

[Freddie]

heh, the late WRE did not have any single catastrophic defeats on the battle field, rather it had a long string of disasters on and off the battlefield.



Medieval cavalry did not usually attack the flanks (at least not until the later period). Medieval tactics was usually use the levies to soften things up and go on the flanks, until the mounted knigths were ready to make a huge charge into the centre, basically steamrolling the enemy. This worked some times, and theres just as many examples of it failing completely (a couple of times on the crusades, the french lost a few too..), this would never have been workable against a fully trained, equiped and proffessional army such as that the romans fielded in their prime simply because the infantry were far better prepared to absorb such attacks and deployed better maneuvers and tactics.

I agree with everything you have just said. The only real disasters that came on upon the WRE armies were ones that were self inflicted i.e. through civil wars.