It was an idea championed by Machiavelli, but in practice it didn´t work.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I do not expect the legionaries defensive equipment to protect them against arquebus fire. I only say that the number of them going down before they can close in and render enemy arquebusiers helpless is going to be limited, because the proportion of arquebusiers was limited, and their range, accuracy and rate of fire even more limited.
And once in close, then their extra gear IS going to help them a great deal. The Pike & Shot crowd is going to be virtually helpless against them.
I think you're underestimating the arquebousse's ability to disrupt slow-moving infantry by hard-hitting fire, especially supported by cannon. The Pike sometimes got away with it because they moved really, really fast when they needed to, and they were lightly armoured so they ccould actually do it.
Why not? What are they going to do against pike? Get tied up and then get trampled by some Gendarmes/Spanish horse coming in from behind to support their infantry?
But say even if they do achieve success once. The next time a pike and shot army will layer gunners behind the pike and shoot the legionnaires POINT BLANK while they're trying to overcome the spear-points.
Like HERE for example. Tell me what the Legionnaires could possibly do against that given roughly equal numbers.
Finally, I'd love to see Legionnaires try to deal with men at arms on foot. For one thing, they don't have a weapon that (even remotely reliably) could kill a 16th c. knight without acctually dragging him under and stabbing him through the visor.
---
I would readily agree that against a medieval army, they may well have a better performance.
Why insist on equal numbers? You might as well demand they have equal equipment as well
Last edited:
Why insist on equal numbers? You might as well demand they have equal numbers as well
To be able to compare tactics and equipment, naturally.
Otherwise it's more of a comparison of state vs. state, no? No European state had quite the manpower of 1st c. Rome before 1600.
But numbers is the most important factor in tactics. Removing it just doesn't make military sense.
And after all life is cheap. Wouldn't it be a better measurement that the sum of the two armies' equipment should cost the same?
In that case the pike-and-shot winds overwhelmingly, doesn't it?
Chainmail is an artisan product. Shields and pila aren't cheap either. Training the legionnaires to the presumed standard is probably vastly more expensive than raising new pikemen.
The expensive items are gendarmes and cannon, both of which are going to be disproportionally effective against the Romans. Everything else, with 16th c, inftastructure, is much cheaper than chainmail is.
On the other hand, transporting a 16th c. army into 1st c. Europe makes all 16th. c gear unreasonably expensive.
This is why these comparisons are very difficult.
The crusaders experimented with that because, even if they faced a totally inferior cavalry, worse than the ancient one, they were losing because of inferior tactics and flexibility.
I don't think I overestimate the skill of leaders, since the medieval commanders didn't actually pre-plan anything, usually the only tactic of commanders like Richard I was to charge with the whole army hoping for the best. By contrast, some ancient commanders either were able to develop a brilliant pre-plan (Cannae) or adapt to the conditions (Ad Decimum, Pharsalus, and many others). Medieval generals didn't even had a reserve usually, all control was lost once the 1st charge was unleashed on the enemy, and often the fate of the battle totally depended on the success of that charge.
Err, in what way was turkish cavalry inferior to byzantine one? One of them managed to successively maul the other, and we don't call the place "Byzantium" any more.
I think it's pretty clear that ancient cavalry flat-out sucked compared to their medieval counterparts. (while the reverse is pretty much true when comparing infantry)
This topic is one I've thought about and discussed several times before. It doesn't have a single answer, since it depends on so many factors.
If we're talking about teleporting a Roman legion from between 107 BCE and about 300 CE somewhere in Europe sometime between 751 CE and about 1500 CE, I think they'd trounce any army they could march to, and legions are good for nothing if not marching. The reasons for their victory here have already been discussed enough in this thread, though I think that the legion's iron discipline and ability to maneuver on the battlefield without breaking formation are its biggest advantages over any army of this period, as opposed to any technological or numerical superiority. Another thing to take into account is that, unlike hereditary magnates commanding feudal levies, a legion's officers would all be reliable and well-trained and -experienced, never shirking their jobs or growing lax at the first taste of success. The only things I think would slow the legions would be big fortresses, which were not ubiquitous anywhere except maybe northern France and England, and even a royal castle could only slow a legion which had control of the land around it. I don't think anyone who knows well about Masada and its fate will disagree here.
If we look at the years between the two periods I defined above, though, things are messier. An old legion teleported into this era might well end up facing an army created in its own image, and things would be more of a toss-up. Later legions tended to be a lot more lax as time went on, they were allowed to spend most of their time sitting around in comfortable barracks or patrolling around cities as lighter, cheaper troops took their places guarding borders and fighting bandits and highwaymen, which became a more serious issue as time went on. Part of it was that legionaries could expect pay increases whenever Rome went into a crisis, as every would-be Augustus tried to curry their favor. Later legions carried less equipment, after the fourth century often used personal arms and armor of inferior quality, and would much more heavily rely on their auxiliaries. They still had tactics and training, though, and could probably best an old legion after an initial shock if given superior numbers, advantageous terrain, particularly fierce auxilia, or some other advantage(s) along those lines. The odds would be close in any case.
I'm not going to talk about how a legion would do after the fall of Constantinople. I'm no expert on the armies of the renaissance, and don't want to make false claims. It seems to me, however, that the tercio brought back something that had been missing for nearly a millennium: large scale, well organized formations able to independently move across a battlefield, using fire-and-advance strategies not dissimilar to a cohort with javelins and swords, and with enough defensive capability to neutralize most threats. Of course, tercios had their weaknesses, but with the reintroduction of unit tactics and diverse weaponry the legion could be countered again, even if it might have initial success. And by the 19th century, warfare had evolved to the point where I don't think anyone would deny an ancient legion was obsolete (except maybe in terms of logistics, discipline, and movement)
Edit: Sorry about the extremely long reply. I started writing and forgot to stop myself for an hour and a half. I need to find a job.
If we're talking about teleporting a Roman legion from between 107 BCE and about 300 CE somewhere in Europe sometime between 751 CE and about 1500 CE, I think they'd trounce any army they could march to, and legions are good for nothing if not marching. The reasons for their victory here have already been discussed enough in this thread, though I think that the legion's iron discipline and ability to maneuver on the battlefield without breaking formation are its biggest advantages over any army of this period, as opposed to any technological or numerical superiority. Another thing to take into account is that, unlike hereditary magnates commanding feudal levies, a legion's officers would all be reliable and well-trained and -experienced, never shirking their jobs or growing lax at the first taste of success. The only things I think would slow the legions would be big fortresses, which were not ubiquitous anywhere except maybe northern France and England, and even a royal castle could only slow a legion which had control of the land around it. I don't think anyone who knows well about Masada and its fate will disagree here.
If we look at the years between the two periods I defined above, though, things are messier. An old legion teleported into this era might well end up facing an army created in its own image, and things would be more of a toss-up. Later legions tended to be a lot more lax as time went on, they were allowed to spend most of their time sitting around in comfortable barracks or patrolling around cities as lighter, cheaper troops took their places guarding borders and fighting bandits and highwaymen, which became a more serious issue as time went on. Part of it was that legionaries could expect pay increases whenever Rome went into a crisis, as every would-be Augustus tried to curry their favor. Later legions carried less equipment, after the fourth century often used personal arms and armor of inferior quality, and would much more heavily rely on their auxiliaries. They still had tactics and training, though, and could probably best an old legion after an initial shock if given superior numbers, advantageous terrain, particularly fierce auxilia, or some other advantage(s) along those lines. The odds would be close in any case.
I'm not going to talk about how a legion would do after the fall of Constantinople. I'm no expert on the armies of the renaissance, and don't want to make false claims. It seems to me, however, that the tercio brought back something that had been missing for nearly a millennium: large scale, well organized formations able to independently move across a battlefield, using fire-and-advance strategies not dissimilar to a cohort with javelins and swords, and with enough defensive capability to neutralize most threats. Of course, tercios had their weaknesses, but with the reintroduction of unit tactics and diverse weaponry the legion could be countered again, even if it might have initial success. And by the 19th century, warfare had evolved to the point where I don't think anyone would deny an ancient legion was obsolete (except maybe in terms of logistics, discipline, and movement
)I don't think after that date for a while yet, either. I'm just speaking from memory right now, but I think the population of Europe as a whole (not centers of ancient population) had only just recently reached the numbers it had before the dark age population crash. Keep in mind that Europe was still very much divided into petty states with often inconsistent policies as to military service, while Rome had a relatively centralized government spanning three continents, including all the parts of Europe worth the cost of guarding and policing. Going from memory again, between Augustus and Diocletianus there were 25-30 standing legions, each with about 10,000 soldiers serving in it. Legions likely to see action could also be reinforced to 15,000 men. This means 250,000-400,000 fighting men available at all times, plus the ability to raise more soldiers on demand: Conscription was never implemented after Marius started recruiting volunteers. The problem the Romans had in raising additional armies came from a lack of money rather than a lack of manpower. As far as I know, no European army except the Ottoman sultan's (which was a seasonal, conscripted army anyway!) could match this number until the late 18th century, except maybe the Russian army.
I think people were trying to compare equal-sized forces in order to assess the armies by how they fight in a battle. Of course, battles are only the culmination of a long process of training, supplying, maneuvering, and planning for every situation....
Factoring in prices skews everything even more. Very different things were available for very different prices in 200 and 1200.
With 1st century infrastructure, 1st century gear was also cheaper, better, and present in larger numbers. Roman legionary equipment came from armories. These armories were characterized by the unsurpassed quality of their work, their large output, their efficient use of materials, and a degree of standardization that only machines could in the 19th century, not unlike the Roman pottery industry. The armories, like the big pottery workshops, have been characterized as early factories. Even the ballistae and onagers legions dragged with them were standardized, down to livestock being raised for the express purpose of providing sinew to make their strong ropes. They continued to produce equipment and supply the western legions until after 409, when barbarian marauders and bandits would loot and burn them frequently enough to make them more a liability than an asset. I would argue it would be cheaper to outfit a Roman army than anything in the sixteenth century, and that the army would end up better equipped (in quality rather than usefulness of equipment.)
Inferior cavalry? Horse archers were the one thing that could reliably beat legions. They made the premodern world's most flexible infantry look like a Philippian phalanx. They totally slaughtered the heavy cavalry a lot of legions were still pulling around. Whenever you see the horse archers losing to non-horse archers in a pre-gunpowder battle, it's because they've been isolated from the rest of their army and somehow immobilized, or because they've been rushed at by cavalry riding lighter horses than they are (rare in these east vs. west fights). There's a reason that the later legions recruited so many Sarmatian auxiliaries, all lancers and horse archers. You might be interested to know that horse archers actually formed a core part of the medieval Eastern Roman army, recruited right from Anatolia! Manzikert was a time of structural weakness in the army, an exception rather than a rule.
Very true. The study of tactics and strategy was kept alive, though stagnated and reduced, but armies were not well trained enough to use most strategies and tactics, low discipline meant no plans would stay in place for long, and a commander couldn't rely on his lieutenants to not suddenly rush the enemy's strong point for glory, or rush away for their lives....
There wasn't too much of a difference, except that the Roman cavalry tended to be more specialized, with one unit carrying javelins and light weapons, one carrying big shields and spears, one carrying compound bows, one carrying extra-long lances, etc. Turkish tribal cavalry was a bit more versatile because almost every man would carry at least a bow and long sword. After Turkish tribesmen had overrun eastern Anatolia following the battle of Manzikert, most of the Eastern Roman cavalry were Turkish tribesmen anyway.
Yes, though western heavy cavalry remained inferior to eastern light cavalry, which was more versatile, could be fielded in larger numbers, and could use the same weapons. Not to mention horse archers. In fact, I could argue that horse archers and light cavalry are ancient in their tactics and equipment, barring their use of stirrups and modern breeds.
Edit: Sorry about the extremely long reply. I started writing and forgot to stop myself for an hour and a half. I need to find a job.
Yes, though western heavy cavalry remained inferior to eastern light cavalry, which was more versatile, could be fielded in larger numbers, and could use the same weapons. Not to mention horse archers. In fact, I could argue that horse archers and light cavalry are ancient in their tactics and equipment, barring their use of stirrups and modern breeds.
The hell they are. Thats like saying that the equipment of a Landsknecht and a legionaire are the same because they both have armour and use a sword.
Even if we only take post-Ural light cavalry armies, then the technology and tactics gap between the lets say, scythian forces and the cumans is very high. The mongol armies of Ghenghis Khan (may he rest with Tengri) are the absolute pinnacle of steppe warafre, with formation movement on the battlefield (not really a sycthian thing), camel-urine hardened, metal-laced leather armour strong enough to withstand cuts and arrows, vastly improved bows, lancer tactics, and so on.
What you all seem to forget is that weapons have been constantly evolving, usually towards the better and more deadly (and subsequently armour towards the better and more survivable) since 0 AD at least. Swords from a 6th century viking blacksmith may be outright broken by a 10th century blacksmith, and will be utterly useless against plate armour, while crushing weapons will be less useful against padded chain.
As for those 200K legio (legia?), if even half of them are recalled from active frontline warfare, half the empire revolts away. They were kept in their places mostly because they were the "dont move or we will cut you" type garnissons of major cities. The so-called Pax Romana is, frankly, nothing more that a very well enforced military dictatorship.
People tend to forget that Rome could field 27 legions already during the 2nd Punic War. The armies of the Empire were actually rather small considering the amount of territory they control
And while technology progress, tactics evolve
And while technology progress, tactics evolve
You don't think medieval commanders created pre-battle plans? You don't think they used reserves? You aren't aware of occasions where they used terrain to their advantage, concealed flanking forces, launched attacks in echelon, employed combined arms tactics effectively? I'm particularly amused by the suggestion about Richard I. You may want to read about the batle of Arsuf for an alternative idea of tactics he actually used. Not that he's one of the great commanders of the medieval period, but he's got more sense than to think "Charge!" is a battle-plan.
Seriously, don't assume all or even most medieval European commanders were bad generals. They're just as capable in planning and organisation as generals in other periods, and since they're commanding armies that aren't generally professional they operate with limitations that a Roman general would not have.
You can have the numbers but that means jack all if your soldiers aren't experienced. Look at Montrose's scottish campaigns during the wars of the three kingdoms. 3000 experienced men recruited from the spanish army of flandres managed to defeat scottish goverment forces that where better equiped and larger.
If a legion manages to keep it cohesion. It probably wouldn't fare as bad against medieval armies. Seeing as they are all proffesional career soldiers.
If a legion manages to keep it cohesion. It probably wouldn't fare as bad against medieval armies. Seeing as they are all proffesional career soldiers.
True, the main difference is that they don't have the clear chain of command and a trained officer corps. This isn't a disadvantage to be underestimated, but medieval generals weren't really any worse than ancient ones.
IIRC the largest european powers exceeded the roman armies in number in the 1600's. Even a sparsely populated backwater like Sweden could field almost 200,000 men in total (although maybe 20-30,000 max in an actual field army, the rest being tied up in garrisons and such) They don't call the 17th century developments "The Military Revolution" for nothing (in contrast 16th century Spain fielded "only" about 150,000 men and it was considered gigantic, there really was a revolution in the 17th century) France exceeding half a million men is likely.
17th century armies drastically exploded in size, but where then scaled back until the next big explosion (which would be the Revolutionary wars, when armies started numbering in the millions)
And, well, the problem with raising armies is ALWAYS money. Very few societies every run out of warm bodies if they can pay enough
Last edited:
Actually, the difference is smaller than you would think. A the mail shirt of a early 2nd century legionaire wouldn't be much different from that of a XI century knight, say one of William the Conqueror. The only difference would be the knight hauberk would be a litte longer, and reach below the knee. Both would be short-sleeved. Resistance would also be similar, since they were made with much the same technique. The main difference in this respect would be that all the 5.000 legionaires would wear one (or a plate lorica), in addition to a metal helmet, while only the tiny fraction of the 5.000 medievals would wear mail.
As for the sword, it's a common mistake to think swords got steadily "better" through the centuries after 0 AD. They got better adapted to their intended role, which changed. A XIX century smallsword, the main military type of the era, would be absolutely useless for a legionaire.
It might surprise many RPG-damaged co-nerds to learn that the Roman Gladius was an excellent sword, which is actually superior to most medieval single-hand swords for cutting power. Why? Because it was a heavy weapon, weighing more than most medieval swords, but it was also short, which means it was quick in the handling. Heavy+Fast=Massive damage. Only with really long swords (like longswords) is the added leverage enough to offset this advantage. The Gladius was also perfectly adapted to thrusting attacks, because that was the main way it was used in the legion. This sword would be BETTER than most medieval swords at thrusting into gaps in the armour, being stiff, heavy and very, very pointy.
What it lacked was reach, and therefore it was replaced with the Sphatha, which was better adapted to the way the Legions fought, but was actually a less versatile weapon.
Last edited:
Well, first of all the Legions, even earlier versions of them, were perfectly capable of smashing a pike phalanxes. The pike and shot squares didn't hold a candle to the Macedonian Phalanx as pike formations regarded, and the Romans totally annhilated those time and again. It went like this; the rain of pila creates gaps, lots of them, the legionaries exploit those to get past the pike points and in between the pike men. The result was horribly lopsided fights and crushing phalanx defeats. A few horse coming in from behind wouldn't have phased the legionaires. They knew that all they had to do to whithstand a cavalry charge was to stand their ground and stay in formation, and they had the discipline to pull it off. Horses will not charge into closely formed men.
Finally, those few men-at-arms would be dealt with in just the way you describe - pulled under and stabbed through gaps in their armour. They would be like islands in the sea of unarmoured, lightly armed foot. Now, if we're talking about an army of men-at-arms, then that is another matter all together, but that wouldn't be a realistic army of the era, whereas a legion would be quite typical.
Err, the problem is that the legionaries would themselves be disorganized by the "shot" portion (the disorganization part would probably be far more significant than the actual casualties inflicted) The Macedonians never had the kind of missile weapons (especially field artillery) that a 16th century tercio would have. Grapeshot would do *incredibly* nasty things to a legion.
And you'll note that the way legionaries were usually beaten was precisely by being attacked from the flank or rear by horse.
The Legionaries were far less dependent on organisation than the Phalanx/Pike square. In fact, the way they fought against it was usually precisely by "disorganising", ie letting centurions and decurions take charge and lead individual maniples whereever an opening was present, not the least they would flow around the immobile square of pike and attack it's vulnerable flanks as well. The one or two volleys of arequebus fire they would suffer would do precious little to stop them.
And as for Legions being defeated by cavalry attacks from the rear, yes, but aren't you thinking mainly of late Empire disasters like Adrianople? Discipline and training had suffered terribly since the days of Trajan. It was not the same army any more.
I didn't imply medieval commanders were total morons or something. Surely, many of them were capable generals. My point was that most of the forces under their command were too untrained/undisciplined to be able to maneuver and change tactics after they were engaged.
By contrast, ancient generals would usually have a well-trained army at their disposal, with a good chain of command and capable officers, giving them a clear advantage on the field.