"Take a roman army and put it 1000 years into the future and they could still win battles". Yeah ok buddy.

"Take a roman army and put it 1000 years into the future and they could still win battles"
Yeah ok buddy.
Murder is what it'd be, for there'd be no battle

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Who are you quoting?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18u20t/dan_carlin_claims_that_you_could_take_the_roman/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >reddit thread

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Go back

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah but what year are you even jumping off from

        lmfao, return

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        A source was asked, and was provided. Yet the masses remain unhappy.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Because you need to go back you shithead.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        I could kill dan darlin' with my pinky finger

  2. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    *blocks your path*

  3. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Rome was like 600 BC to 600 ad? The extreme late would be brought into gunpowder era so they would be at an disadvantage but only in european battlefields not so in the rest of the world. Before 1300 everyone still fought with spears, swords, etc. Not to mention roman infantrymen were more heavily armored than anything but medieval knights. Romans had disadvantage in cavalry against everyone but the greeks but generally won with the infantry anyways.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Romans had disadvantage in cavalry against everyone but the greeks
      This is a total meme. Native roman cavalry was historically mid, but the roman army barely bothered with it by the time the empire came around since they could just use the best horsemen among their subjects.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        the empire also was more about patrolling previous conquests vast majority during the republic of the transitional phase under Augustus than adding new ones

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        You just agreed with him.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Romans had disadvantage in cavalry against everyone but the greeks
          This means they had a shit cavalry, not mid.
          It's also completely moronic if you consider the hetairoi greek cavalry (which you should), since they were pretty fricking elite.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Romans barely had any cavalry. Wasn't it pretty early that the equites stopped serving as cav?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The romans had a whole section of the population whose specific distinguisher was being cavalrymen, anon. Just because over time that section was too busy supplying officers to every legion's staff to fill whole alae of cavalry doesn't mean they didn't exist.
            Also the shift happened through the 2nd century BC, Hannibal faced wholly roman cavalry in every battle of the 2nd punic war. And while the numidians mostly rekt the romans (Trebia, Cannae), the romans always rekt the carthaginians (Illipa, Great Plains, Zama).
            I guess whether that's pretty early or not is subjective, it was only formalized with the marian reforms so Rome went with its equites for 600 years.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not sure it would matter since medieval cavalry would fricking mog the equites

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well yah no shit. I'm answering to a guy comparing roman cavalry to their contemporaries here.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            This guy is correct

            I'm not sure it would matter since medieval cavalry would fricking mog the equites

            Medieval horsemen had access to better equipment, had stirrups, were better trained to maintain formation, and rode horses that were bred to be more formidable than those of the Roman era.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Oh yeah the Roman cavalry was so mid they were able to beat the Macedonian companion cavalry in battle. That's a myth.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          They also routinely got rekt by numidians.
          They certainly weren't shit, but they didn't win consistently enough to be considered elite.
          Mid is what they were. Kinda like the gauls.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Gauls were great though, and were the reason the Roman's operated the way they did. They routinely shit all over hoplites and were some of the best shot troops and heavy skirmishers in antiquity.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >roman infantrymen were more heavily armed
      This is a good point. Gallic infantry often fought naked because only their rich could afford the mail they invented, germanics were just as poor. Charlemagne's army in his coronation trip left quite an impression in Italy for the amount of armor they wore, goes to show how deep the dark ages had struck. And no military would be on par with his for a long time.
      The dominance of the medieval knight was caused by how poor the infantry was in their heyday. Often when good infantry it was typical to order the knights to fight dismounted...Only towards the end of the middle agesdid good infantry emerge again. Literal merc companies frow the wealthiest regions of flanders, switzerland were already btfoing knights by 1300. Around the same period Visby battle remains show armor was widespread again. Safe to say it was aeound this tine infantry returned to roman era quality. By 1500 firearms were already a big advantage marking the point romans wouldn't compete anymore.

      • 4 months ago
        Chud Anon

        As for armored men on foot, Tacitus writes about how legions were already encountering men wearing armor from head to toe in either Germany or Gaul who’s armor they could not pierce with spears or swords. So they adapted to the legionaries pushing them over as a group, knocking them on the ground so they couldn’t get up, and having a dozen men reign blows on them till they died.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >knocking them on the ground so they couldn’t get up
          what.

          • 4 months ago
            Chud Anon

            I imagine standing up fast enough to rengage in combat after being splayed on the ground while wearing a full set of heavy armor would be difficult without assists.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I highly doubt this was the case in practice. It sounds like a LARP or something Mark Twain would write as a shitpost. Have you ever seen someone athletic move in heavy armor, even medieval plate armour? It's taxing to be sure but when trained they are freakishly agile and fast. These guys are wearing heavier armour and probably aren't physically exceptional particularly

            Imagine the warrior elite during the migration period in a suit of mail and leather and shit, I doubt they would be immobilized if taken to the ground.

            More so I've read the reverse being true, that Roman cavalry would charge at Germanics such as the Suebi and the mad lads would pike the animal or run it through, killing the war horse somehow, picking apart the rider wasn't difficult after that.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Have YOU seen anyone athletic move for MORE THAN 10 MINUTES in medieval plate armor?
            Don't try to play smart. Being downed is extremely dangerous in melee combat. Putting you danger of pummeling or TRAMPLING
            Maybe you're a fellow obese American, but "fit" people are only SO capable.
            They aren't BEASTS like you think. They're still human

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Being in the 21st century, no, I can't say I have. But it's absurd to think he'd fall to his back and just say "well, time to die I guess". Seeing them move like that should prove that even lighter armour wouldn't immobilize them. This is especially the case if you're talking about a migration period army, they are likely investing hours almost every day in riding or some type of training in armor. Romans were expecting to put down a small force of half-naked starving barbarians at Adrianople, what they encountered was a well-trained, well organized fighting force.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            A mail shirt is proportionally heavier and more poorly articulated than medieval plate
            idk if this was the case in the Migration period, but afaik they would sometimes wear layers* of mail (due to snowBlack person butted mail breaking rather easily)
            Like wearing a very heavy shirt vs a suit which rests on your shoulders and hips

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Knights would often wear both mail and plate armor thoughbeit. I highly doubt their kit weighed less than migration period Germanic warriors or soldiers on horseback during the migration period.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The mail of the middle ages was made of steel, not of the iron of the classical age.

            Also the mail worn under the plate was sewn into a gambeson or other garment so that the only mail seen was where it was needed (look up a half hauberk).

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The mail of the middle ages was made of steel, not of the iron of the classical age.

            what did he mean by this?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also the Germanic shield maiden women would wear specially crafted amour called "she-mail" and it weighed approximately 1/3 of the normal gear, most she-mails weighing around 10 lbs which would make most regular mail kits around 30 lbs.

            Since we're gonna shitpost and just make stuff up this needs to be said.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Warrants mentioning that Romans were using Dolabras, clubs and random camping equipment and tools they always carried in large numbers as impromptu anti armor weapons, which tells us they were at least equipped to kill a knight if they ever managed to knock one down.

          They used similar tactics to face Sassanid Cataphracts. Knock them down with a hidden pike or caultrop then mercilessly wailing on them with big sticks.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >germanics were just as poor
        Depends on the group tbh. After a certain point you're talking about extraordinarily different peoples, some may have had the heaviest infantry and cavalry of those eras, more so than Gauls by far.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Being nude was a religious thing relegated to the young, who mainly acted as skirmishers. They filled the same role as the Ulfhednar IIRC. Its more likely that they wore lino-thorax or something similar to gambeson seeing as they had access to lots of linen and wool, had significant contact/trade with the Greeks as well as there being depictions of it.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Gallic infantry often fought naked
        isn't this a total myth? as for OP's question, i suppose it depends on what year you transport your roman army to. early middle ages then yes but late medieval and you're talking about full plate including the horse. your scutum formation isn't going to save you from heavy shock cavalry

  4. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The fact that the First Crusade succeeded against much larger Muslim armies, that had previously defeated the Byzantines several times, should indicate the military prowess of the Medieval Franks. I agree that a Roman legion could get manhandled by a much smaller force of knights

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Byzantines were outnumbered for centuries while fighting off various muslim invaders. Then they lost once and lost the whole asia minor because of civil wars that followed. A political, much more than military frickup.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      homie comparing the Arabic conquests to the First Crusade in any way is utterly insane. All things should be taken in measure. You can't take two completely unrelated periods, armies and states and just make a comparison.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >First Crusade succeeded against much larger Muslim armies, that had previously defeated the Byzantines several times

      The First Crusade was against rando Emirs who didn't give a frick about what happened to the other emir in the next emirate, who barely unified to face the Crusader horde. In contrast the Byzantines faced the full might of a united Islamic world.

      Incidentally when the Crusaders started facing bigger Islamic entities (the Ayyubids and the Mamluk Empires) they got munted.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Even Anna Komnenos wrote about the martial prowess of the "celts".

  5. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    I think an early modern army would crush a Roman army. You can't go muh professionalism because an army like the late 15th century French one was a professional force. They had fricking field artillery.
    The cutoff for the Romans having any chance of victory is the 12th century. And this would only be Late Roman armies able to contend.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      The peak of roman military power was in the late republic with the legions of Caesar. Professionalism is just a substitute for battlefield experience which peaked in this period.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >e late 15th century French one was a professional force
      utterly annihilated by the spaniards in italy though
      >cerignola

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Going to have to tell me what you mean by professional here I am totally under the impression you only really get into “professional” armies in the 17th century

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        A standing, permanently retained armed force with a complex command structure

  6. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is such malarkey. A few hundred French knights would wreak havoc on Roman Infantry.

  7. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Truth is, Medieval arms and armor is a hard counter to Imperial Roman.
    But Medieval armies were much smaller

    The gladius was meant to tear up snowBlack person butted mail, which it did
    But by the Middle Ages, an infantryman (let's say a man-at-arms) would be wearing
    >riveted mail
    >a cuirass
    >brigandine
    not only that, but in the High Middle Ages at least, polearms became the favored infantry weapon
    Not unlike the dacian falx, polearms would give the legionaries signficant pause
    Overhead strikes from poleaxes would either fricking kill a legionary or force them to hold their heavy scutum above their head
    Now, in their own time, a barbarian going for an overhead strike would present an easy opportunity for an underhand stab by the legionary. As stated earlier though, the man-at-arms is nigh-impervious to this.
    Given equally competent commanders, I'd say the Romans would lose. But maybe not in a bloodbath.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Overhead strikes from poleaxes would either fricking kill a legionary or force them to hold their heavy scutum above their head
      Ever heard of testudo?

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Testudo is exhausting and useful for closing the gap* with other infantry when being pelted by missiles.
        The Romans relied on being a meat grinder in the melee.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Rome lasted for a long time but we need to go from its army's peak. That lasted from around 70 BC to 100 AD. If we look at Europe in 1100 AD we do not get what you are talking about.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >but we need to go from its army's peak

        why not do the same for "The Middle Ages"?
        why not compare to a legionary from Trajan's time to a man-at-arms from around 1400?
        What I'm saying, is why not be as charitable as you can be to the armies of each period?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >"Take a roman army and put it 1000 years into the future and they could still win battles"

          Having said that I will freely say that you do not need to even go to 1400 AD for the match up to get ugly for the Romans. Around 1140 AD due to improvements in armor, metal working, horse breeding, other cavalry kit, and crossbows the match up starts to be less favorable for the romans. 100 years later it enters good luck territory in all honesty. Like they could pull a win against a army from 1240 AD but that would be do to the other general making some major mistakes or the battlefield being very favorable to the Romans.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's incredible how much of a "revolution" the Middle Ages actually were when they seem to have a reputation for being stagnant and backward
            Ah, the fruits of competition and decentralization...Vigor.

  8. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, totally bro. Not like heavy cav was OP.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's fricking over.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Literal mediaeval tanks

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Those are Normans. The average Norman peasants scores these kinds of ratios too.

  9. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    >The crusaders won a cavalry skirmish in which they were outnumbered, defeating 500 Byzantines with just 80 Frankish knights.

    >Alexios III had lined up the Byzantine army in battle formation along the shore, north of the suburb of Galata. The Crusader knights charged straight out of the horse transports, and the Byzantine army fled south. The Crusaders followed and attacked the Tower of Galata, which held the northern end of the massive chain that blocked access to the Golden Horn. The Tower of Galata held a garrison of mercenary troops of English, Danish, and Italian origin. On 6 July the largest ship in the crusaders' fleet, the Aquila (Eagle), broke the chain. A section of it was then sent to Acre to boost the defences in the Holy Land.

    >As the crusaders laid siege to the Tower of Galata, the defenders routinely attempted to sally out with some limited success, but often suffered bloody losses. On one occasion the defenders sallied out but were unable to retreat back to the safety of the tower in time, the Crusader forces viciously counterattacked, with most of the defenders being cut down or drowning in the Bosporus in their attempts to escape. The tower was swiftly taken as a result. The Golden Horn now lay open to the Crusaders, and the Venetian fleet entered. The Crusaders sailed alongside Constantinople with 10 galleys to display the would-be Alexios IV, but from the walls of the city citizens taunted the puzzled crusaders, who had been led to believe that they would rise up to welcome the young pretender Alexios as a liberator.
    The Romans would get absolutely curbstomped. People vastly underestimate how insanely OP medieval knights were, especially if they were led by a good commander/general.

  10. 4 months ago
    Chud Anon

    No one is considering economics of mass warfare. Even if feudal states won battles, the Romans could replace losses, learn to adapt, and pull auxiliaries from other parts of the empire to combat the enemies strengths.

    Yes, if you are talking about one battle they may lose, but a feudal state relying on pedant levies and a small corps of professional knights simply can not replace losses and keep coming back like a wealthy empire.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      This only happened during the republic because they had a regular draft pulling 40k men per year minimum. An emperor couldn't risk loses like that anymore without losing his neck and stability was the main concern, troops had to be happy and it was harder to rely on conscription. Don't forget Augustus had to emancipate slaves after Teutoburg something not seen since the dark days of the punic war even though it was like 1/100 of the crisis that had been.

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Roman army peaked at half a million to an actual million by the third and fourth centuries, Rome could pull numbers, the problem was deploying them all in one front and not keep them performing multiple functions as local police, firefighter and engineering personnel there were useful to their local economy instead of just a net drain.

        Even then, a modest Roman army of 10k already dwarfs a medieval one, let alone a full legion with 40k combined. They could overwhelm most non professional medieval armies without using any ellaboorate tactics, the medieval army in turn would have to bring as much technological overmatch to bear as possible and be very well prepared to take advantage of it. The Romans were also an expeditionary army which likely was better supplied and could starve out an entrenched enemy, if they faced a fully defensive enemy.

        Medieval armies could be incredibly effective but on average we're not talking about a high standard. Its easy to say knights would curbstomp them but the real question is how representative of medieval warfare were knights.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          The knights would simply have to concentrate all their force on a single point of Roman defense, break it, and win by momentum.
          But at that point, it’s up to terrain/circumstance to present an opportunity for the knights to attack

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is assumping breaking one point of the line would rout the Romans when they made a habit of plugging gaps and reforming in the middle of battle.

            The knights need to number pretty high for the sheer effort of fighting enemies as stubborn as the Romans not to wear them down. Besides, 10k Romans would see they're being set upon by heavy armored cavalry and do what their doctrine says, deploy sudes and dig a trench, and they could do it pretty quick depending on the terrain.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The knights would simply have to concentrate all their force on a single point of Roman defense
            Good luck breaking a shield wall of armored dudes trained for years as a professional fighting force
            >break it
            Giant question mark there, assuming your single wedge doesn't get flanked and swallowed by the rest of the battle line
            >win by momentum.
            And what if they don't just break and run away? What then, moron? Catch a few javelins with your face? Turn to run while they hack at your horses with swords? Run away to do it again as they reform and advance, butchering your levied peasants with improvised weapons as they move up?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Frick the peasants, take the heaviest knights and charge into the bastards with maces on horseback
            A mace swinging downwards with momentum from horseback can kill a legionary dead, helmet be damned
            This would work so long as approximately a thousand knights merely had that dog in them

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >knights charge
            >take several volleys of pilum
            >hit the front lines and start killing
            >another century moves up and fills the gap, chucking pilum into the fray
            >hack at the horses
            >more pilum to the face
            >the whole time the rest of the legion is moving to surround your vanguard and cut them off

            Nice job losing your best hope of winning in a suicidal frontal assault, moron

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >knights charge
            >take several volleys of pilum
            >hit the front lines and start killing
            let's break this down
            let's say a pilum throw had a MAX feasible distance of 25 meters
            Let's say that a more realistic distance (where they'll actually hit their mark) is 20 meters
            A charging horse is going at about 45 km/h
            Realistically, how feasible is it for the Romans to get good hits with their pila against fast moving targets closing the gap?
            Do the Romans at the front have the stomach to CERTAINLY die at the end of a lance just to throw a single pilum?
            >another century moves up and fills the gap, chucking pilum into the fray
            Which hit more friendlies than not

            >hack at the horses
            get brained by a steel mace or halfway decapitated by a sword (tfw no gorget)
            horses fine

            >the whole time the rest of the legion is moving to surround your vanguard and cut them off
            with what? Equites wearing girlie dresses?
            crossbowmen should be able to level them across the field with a well-timed volley.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >knights charge
            >take several volleys of pilum
            >hit the front lines and start killing
            >another century moves up and fills the gap, chucking pilum into the fray
            >hack at the horses
            >more pilum to the face
            >the whole time the rest of the legion is moving to surround your vanguard and cut them off

            Nice job losing your best hope of winning in a suicidal frontal assault, moron

            let me reiterate
            being in the front ranks staring down a full blown charge from lancers on horseback is certain death
            the ability for charging knights to mog whole armies was psychological
            few men could willingly agree to fulfill the role of "shock-absorbing corpse"
            When the knights approached, the front-liners would start to turn at run causing a chain rout

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            That shit didn't happen because the Romans were trained, moron. It happened at Carrae because the Parthians had been shooting them with arrows for HOURS beforehand and Crassus was a dogshit commander

            What the frick is a melee focused cavalry charge gonna do against a solid wall of dudes?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            a solid wall of dudes?
            no such thing
            pikemen could come close.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >dudes overlapping shields phalanx style in solid squares of a hundred being commanded by veteran legionares
            Those knights would get some kills in, they'd do damage. But they would be totally fricked. The Imperial Romans beat heavy calvary ALL the time, and their forces were professional down to the javelin throwers, compared to the medieval army with a few hundred professional knights, each with a few dozen levies of unarmored peasants with grain scythes and clubs

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            A knight atop a horse is a lot easier a target than any footmen, the higher relative speed would also add to the impact energy

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Realistically, how feasible is it for the Romans to get good hits with their pila against fast moving targets closing the gap?
            Happened all the time. Good luck getting horses to charge into a wall of swords and dudes while the back ranks are hurling javelins at larger targets that are running INTO the missile fire.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Good luck getting horses to charge into a wall of swords and dudes while the back ranks are hurling javelins at larger targets that are running INTO the missile fire.
            I mean that's what they actually trained their horses to do
            Pre-Modern heavy cavalry was a fricking nutty force multiplier limited only by the technology and ECONOMICS of its day (horses are expensive as hell)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            If that wall of spears and dudes held like any trained army did, those horses wheeled and pulled back. They're animals, anon, you can't train animals to commit suicide.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://www.reddit.com/r/yesyesyesyesno/comments/h0nkuz/and_free_men_you_are/
            >inb4 "reddit"

  11. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    How about a more hypothetical. Peak Roman legion with all the experience and logistical prowess but fully kitted out in high medeival equipment and versed in high medeival tactics.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would you go to all that trouble to just make medieval soldiers vs medieval soldiers?

  12. 4 months ago
    Chud Anon

    For reference these were atypical soldiers in whatever enemy the legionaries were fighting, I tried to search the Annals with a quick ctrl F but couldn’t find the passage. It wasn’t light mail, these were men covered head to toe in armor and the Romans couldn’t pierce it with javelins, so they adapted to bashing them off their feet and reigning blows on them while they were downed.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but couldn’t find the passage
      Yeah, because you're making shit up.

      • 4 months ago
        Chud Anon

        Shut up homosexual

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >but couldn’t find the passage
      Yeah, because you're making shit up.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crupellarius

      It was Gauls

  13. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages Vol 2.

    Elsewhere, however, he reports that an eye-witness told him how amongst an Ottoman force returning from a raid into Hungary ‘there was not one in 10 that had both bow and sword’, and Brocquière himself confirmed that ‘of those I saw there were many more that had neither bow nor sword than there were armed with both’; this time he stated that only ‘the best-equipped’ had a small wooden targe. Pero Tafur too (1435-39) stated that the Ottomans ‘want [for] many of the essentials of war’, describing ‘the whole of their fighting outfit’ as comprising an iron staff (a ghaddara - see note to figures 17 and 18), bow, quiver and ‘tambourine’ (possibly meaning a small shield, but more probably a drum, for which see figure 31). Janus Lascaris, who wrote 1489-92, similarly described the sipahis (who, he says, were ‘assembled only with difficulty’) as ‘poorly-armed. Some carry a lance, but others only a scimitar or a bow.’ In another passage he even says that only ‘a part’ even of the cavalry of the Porte had bows and ‘carquois of arrows’.

    le armor meme. Logistic and arms are king.

  14. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just 5000 knights could wipe the floor with romans.
    If you want to see what happens when heavy armoured mounted enemies attack romans just look at the havoc the cataphracts were able to inflict on the romans and the cataphracts were worse armored than the knights of medieval ages.
    It would be a total slaughter, just the knights charging and breaking the roman formation over and over and over again.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      m8 the eastern frontier with persia was stalemated for 700 years, the romans lost battles but they also won about as many

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        They got saved by their forts, 90 percent of the time they lost in field battles. They managed to stalemate the persians with logistics not with actual battles.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >90 percent of the time they lost in field battles

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            kek you realize you just made my argument for me, romans couldnt handle mounted armies and would have gotten ass raped by mounted knights.

            No they didnt

            Yes they did.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Rome's very first encounter with cataphract style heavy cavalry was a win (Magnesia)

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            now imagine an entire army of cataphracts but 100 times better due to mounted combat evolving,armour becoming better and weapons increasing, not to mention all the different techniques and combat tactics evolving.
            They'd get butchered.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Knights were eaten alive by literal mercenary companies, their continued success then made rulers adopt them wholesale eventually making them lose their market share

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Mercenary companies would frick up the romans too

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >try to pike the Roman's
            >get a bunch of pilum to the face

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >mercenary companies
            yeah the pikes and swiss which only happened much later in the late medieval age and the swiss and pikemen of the late medieval ages were armed up and armored heavily as frick, up until the 1400s knights were nigh impossible to stop and at large numbers just fricking plowed through.
            People arent dumb they dont do shit that isnt effective.
            The thread argument is that roman army of the 1st century would beat the medieval armies of the 1000s when they would get stomped by the knights.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know Ottomans also had heavy armored cavalry but how did they frick up the crusaders at nicopolis and varna ?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            They had better generals and crusader armies were heavily fractured in comparison to the ottomans, for example for a crusader army to advance you would have to get 100s of lords and nobles to agree whereas for the ottos to advance all they had to do was the sultan to give the command.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah but it cant be only this
            For exemple during the first crusade, the normans/franks fricked up the turks and they were also feodal

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Thats because the first crusade was nearly 3 centuries before the ottomans gained power. The impact of the heavy knights at first was devastating in the first crusades but by the 1400s and late 1300s the muslims learned how to counter them and had smart leaders that werent fractured.
            And not to mention that during the first crusades the muslims were fighting between each other as much as with the christians.

            >They managed to stalemate the persians with logistics not with actual battles.
            Anon logistics frickups were the reason behind most of the worst roman defeats as with Crassus, Antony, Valerian and Julian. The one time persians scored victory after victory was in their last war the only time they ran over the levant.

            Any time a roman army left their forts and advanced on the east they got wrecked, just look at the byzantine record in terms of attacking the east, only one actual successful campaign and that was a hail mary by their emperor. The forts did their job by holding the frontier, if the east wasnt so shit at siegecraft we'd probably be speaking persian right now.
            The logistics of the romans were so superior due to the fact that they had shit ton of forts so the easterners couldnt just siege one place without getting constantly harrased by 50 other places it was a piece of wonder.
            And later when the big forts fell thats when you see the east penetrate into the interior.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            The persians weren't shit at siegecraft? The last siege of Nisibis iirc they dammed a river and then had it flood the walls out of the way. And they relied on forts to hold the frontier just like the romans.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The last siege of Nisibis
            that came after centuries of them trying to figure out how to break the romans.
            Romans were just very good at holding their ground, on field battles they got owned but put some fortifications to cover their infantries flanks and they could hold as long as needed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >just look at the byzantine record in terms of attacking the east
            So, including their penultimate war that began with a failed siege by the byzantines and saw its two biggest battles won by the byzantines on persian territory? There is a reason these wars were all modest gains by one side on the other and generally undone by the next war.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >muh forts and siegecraft
            >Mark Anthony defeated because failed siege
            >every Roman invasion of Mesopotamia fails because they cannot conquer Hatra and other colosal forts side the cities

            Dunno, anon, seems to me you are a pop history brainlet who speaks out of his ass :I

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            I know thats an ancient as frick bait pic from /k/ but frick it. A bullpup has more to do with bolt placement than magazine placement. A handgun isn't a bullpup because the bolt is sitting on top of the trigger assembly, whereas on a bullpup the bolt sits behind the trigger assembly, and a linkage between the trigger and firing pin is needed.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I know this is an old bait image but the worm on that hook looks delicious

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            And the ottomans got stopped by austrians when the europeans learned to actually use their heavier armour in tight spaces and sieges also it helped that there werent 100s of nobles bickering instead the king of austria just gave orders.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ottoman heavy armored cavalry was a rarity. Most of those that did wear armor were looted from dead christians with often tight or loose ill fitting gear.

            Ian Heath's Armies of the Middle Ages Vol 2.

            Elsewhere, however, he reports that an eye-witness told him how amongst an Ottoman force returning from a raid into Hungary ‘there was not one in 10 that had both bow and sword’, and Brocquière himself confirmed that ‘of those I saw there were many more that had neither bow nor sword than there were armed with both’; this time he stated that only ‘the best-equipped’ had a small wooden targe. Pero Tafur too (1435-39) stated that the Ottomans ‘want [for] many of the essentials of war’, describing ‘the whole of their fighting outfit’ as comprising an iron staff (a ghaddara - see note to figures 17 and 18), bow, quiver and ‘tambourine’ (possibly meaning a small shield, but more probably a drum, for which see figure 31). Janus Lascaris, who wrote 1489-92, similarly described the sipahis (who, he says, were ‘assembled only with difficulty’) as ‘poorly-armed. Some carry a lance, but others only a scimitar or a bow.’ In another passage he even says that only ‘a part’ even of the cavalry of the Porte had bows and ‘carquois of arrows’.

            le armor meme. Logistic and arms are king.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            They beaten persian cataphracts but would have got beaten by medieval knights
            I mean its logic there is like a thousand year difference of technology

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          No they didnt

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          >They managed to stalemate the persians with logistics not with actual battles.
          Anon logistics frickups were the reason behind most of the worst roman defeats as with Crassus, Antony, Valerian and Julian. The one time persians scored victory after victory was in their last war the only time they ran over the levant.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          They won 40% of battles.
          Also, if this was true why were offensive campaigns in equal number on both sides?

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >They won 40% of battles.
            >wins 40 small skirmishes and losses 60 huge battles
            checks out

            >muh forts and siegecraft
            >Mark Anthony defeated because failed siege
            >every Roman invasion of Mesopotamia fails because they cannot conquer Hatra and other colosal forts side the cities

            Dunno, anon, seems to me you are a pop history brainlet who speaks out of his ass :I

            Seethe all you want bud romans just were fortunate to have their women be baby machines and a willingess to send hundreds of thousands to their death just to get a stalemate.
            Any other country who would get those losses they would never recover.

  15. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Romans got mogged by Norman and Frankish knights near the end the early medieval period. Robert Guscard was the bane of the ERE and they were constantly shitting bricks when fighting him. All he had to do was F1+F3 and he won.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Byzantines
      >Roman
      Redditor spotted

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I don't actually have an argument so I am going to call you a Redditor
        YWNBAW

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Not an argument

          >Armies that developed from the same units and tactics that I larp about aren't the same because...they don't look the same anymore
          lmao

          Let me guess, Stefanos Gregorios "The Isaurian" Papadopolous Palalaigolos XXVI is your favorite medieval Roman emperor? The Byzantines were GREEKS. Rome died in 476 AD

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Armies that developed from the same units and tactics that I larp about aren't the same because...they don't look the same anymore
        lmao

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thread is as is, all regarded, even if legionaries naked, shields are still shields wood remained wood 3000 years

          They arent?
          That is like saying 5th century Greek infantry is the same as a Hellenic one...

          >They won 40% of battles.
          >wins 40 small skirmishes and losses 60 huge battles
          checks out
          [...]
          Seethe all you want bud romans just were fortunate to have their women be baby machines and a willingess to send hundreds of thousands to their death just to get a stalemate.
          Any other country who would get those losses they would never recover.

          Ah, I tought you had legit opinions, not just being moron as is.
          My bad.

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Ah, I tought you had legit opinions, not just being moron as is.
            your opinion got btfoed by me, and I am oversimplifying things due to the fact that I can be arsed to write a 100 page essay on the topic.

  16. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Roman army from 60bc could do pretty well against a european army from 940ad

  17. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Bannockburn leads me to believe the Romans of certain eras could pull it off.

    >heavy infantry with pikes, axes and simpler blades taking on knights
    >Small army trained to use a Nord shield wall but adapted it to a more phalanx-style formation so it could be used offensively
    >formations so tight and heavy that even heavy cavalry cannot penetrate with ease
    >infantry heavy enough and formation close enough to not get picked apart by projectiles
    >Bruce is tricksy and setting up traps and ambushes, using lesser trained forces to elicit terror

    It would take some thinking on their feet and anything but easy, but I don't see why later period legions would be incapable of getting a strategic W over a medieval army.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nord shield
      Skyrim isn't read bud

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Well I couldn't say Norse or Anglo-Saxon shield wall because no one is certain of the etymology or tactic for what the Scottish were using for "shield wall" was North or West Germanic. So Nord it is.

  18. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    How many knights are in a standard unit of knights?

    How much damage can they inflict before the exhaustion and casualties inevitably renders them less combat effective?

    How much damage is enough to full break a Roman legion?

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      If Dyrrhachium is anything to go by, the Romans get fricking stomped, without question. Robert Guscard, leading a fairly small force beat the complete and utter dogshit out of the ERE repeatedly.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      look up the battle of patay, less than 300 knights managed to rofflestomp the english and that was in the late middle ages
      to counter heavy cavalry you need terrain advantage and pikes. if you take those out of the equation then you better have kissed your mother goodbye

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        >hundred years war
        Forgetting longbowmen are we?

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          that's the thing, they got utterly rekt to the point the english couldn't replace them anymore and had significant effects on the outcome of the war
          like i said take terrain and pikes out of the equation and suddenly your longbowmen get killed by the thousands in a one sides route
          >Historian Juliet Barker suggests Patay was the most disastrous English defeat since the Battle of Baugé in 1421, and one with more significant consequences since they lost over 2,000 dead out of 5,000, while all of their senior commanders were captured apart from Fastolf, the only one who remained mounted.[4] Grummitt estimates English casualties as 2,500, the bulk of whom were archers, while the French lost only about one hundred men.[2]
          also it was less than 200 mounted knights actually. the kind of battles they don't teach you in anglo history
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Patay
          imagine being a roman with a 1000 year gap in technology, what do you think would happen? my guess is it starts and ends with pressing on the F button

          • 4 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The virtual destruction of the English field army in central France and the loss of many of their principal veteran commanders (another, the Earl of Suffolk, had been captured in the fall of Jargeau, while the Earl of Salisbury had been killed at the siege of Orléans in November 1428), had devastating consequences for the English position in France, from which it would never recover. During the following weeks the French, facing negligible resistance, were able to swiftly regain swathes of territory to the south, east and north of Paris, and to march to Reims, where the Dauphin was crowned as King Charles VII of France on 17 July.
            lol. lmao even. why didn't they shoot the horses then this disaster was easily avoided. aiming too spicey?

  19. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Im not one of those MUH KNIGHTS morons that acts like they were w40k space marines, however you’d have to be ignorant of not only history but even basic principles of physics if you think there’s any plausible outcome other than the legionnaires getting ground into paste.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      i'm a muh knights moron, i'm not saying they're invincible but as a roman you'd better choose your battles very carefully or you're going to get trampled

      • 4 months ago
        Anonymous

        Read my comment again, I basically said its an impossible matchup for the romans.

        • 4 months ago
          Anonymous

          i know, i just gave a more nuanced reply
          mounted knights aren't invincible but they were kind of OP

  20. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Romans probably would win to be honest, but not because of "le epic technology and superior tactics". Their armour would be inferior as frick, as would their archers. Their cavalry would be absolutely destroyed by European heavy cavalry. Rome still wins though, purely because of numbers. Medieval armies were tiny compared to Roman armies.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Romans had similiar level of armors for the infantrymen then Europeans until the mass introduction of munition plates.

      A richer english town like bridport had like 10% of the soldiers that showed up without any armor, 50% had jacks and sallets and the rest had maille.

      In York men were led in Wards, with a Warden armed in White harnesses and the rest with Jaks and Sallets again.

      Compared to that to Oxfordshire only 6 people in 17 villages had white harnesses. Of course, this was England which had much better standards of array compared to countries like Portugal and Scotland.

      Compare that to the legionnaire after the Marian reforms, who had almost every fighting man armed with maille and sometimes segmentata (flux welded low carbon steel)

  21. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on when the Roman army was from.
    >Caesar’s legions travel to 950 AD
    Yeah I could see a 2-3 legions of Romans stomping early France, Holy Roman Empire, or England. In 1066 all of England could barely muster a legion sized force to fend off the Normans and their method of war wasn’t wholly alien to Rome.

    >Rome Circa 450 AD fighting France circa 1450 AD
    France absolutely stomps. By this point they have the numbers to effectively battle Rome (a legion isn’t shit and six or so legions would be required to match the French at Agincourt in numbers) and while they are accustomed to fighting heavy lancers (knights didn’t appear out of thin air) the equipment and force of the charge of French knights leaves Rome with no real response as you really need pikemen to stop a charge of fully armoured gendarmes. Likewise longbows would be highly lethal against Roman cavalry whose horses are mostly unarmoured.

    Put simply
    >2-3 Roman legions could conquer Anglo-Saxon England wholesale
    >If you dropped mid 15th century France into Gaul they would be able to conquer the Western Roman Empire outright

  22. 4 months ago
    Anonymous

    Alexander the Great's forces would have a better shot at it by virtue of having pikemen and decent light cavalry which could skirmish Mongolian style while the pikes worked to box the knights in.

    • 4 months ago
      Anonymous

      Alexander's was the best army before gunpowder period. Only possible contender was Subutai's forces that brushed knights aside without much of any issue. Horse archers were just better than knights in general too so I don't think any feudal army other Charlemagne's would pose a decent challenge for Alexander. As for the romans they kept losing to Pyrrhus (discount Alexander) until he went away. Even the best roman armies ever under Caesar would lose to him, but they probably could beat Charlemagne and certainly any other medieval armies.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *