How strong are Roman Army compared to Medival Army?

[Kryndude]

I'm making a Roman cultural retinue and tactic mod for my Roman Empire revival game.

The role-playing as a patriotic Roman family has already begun, and I find it hard to resist the temptation to make Roman legionaries super op. But that won't be fun, and I don't want my mods to be unrealistic.

So what do you think about Roman Armies compared to Medieval ones? What would be the adequate retinue and tactic modifiers for Roman culture considering that the Irish Gallowglass recieve 40% defense and 20% morale bonus, and the Rus Druzhina recieves 10% offense, 50% defense, and 20% morale bonus?

(Speaking of which, did Russian footsoldiers have a high reputation back then? Why are the bonuses so high?)

And btw English is not my first language and I know very little about European history so please excuse my English grammer and my lack of knowledge.

Thank you

 

[Caspoi]

I presume that you speak about the roman empire under it's golden age, with the augustian legions? The heavy infantry (the mainstay of the roman army) should be both very accessible and also good, 20 % offense, 30 % defense and 20 % morale and you would have some really good soldiers. Other than that I don't think that the romans were really all that much better than most medieval realms, when it comes to Heavy cavalry they were arguably worse.

 

[Maldeus]

A single Roman legion consists of no less than six thousand soldiers. These are almost all heavy infantry, with some cavalry support. Julius Caesar brought ten legions to Gaul. That's sixty thousand soldiers. This is not counting auxiliaries. The Roman Empire's economic power allowed them to field armies that medieval lords could only dream of. If a medieval ruler wanted a Roman legion, they'd have to revive the Empire first, in order to have an economy that can supply armies of tens of thousands.

 

[Kryndude]

A single Roman legion consists of no less than six thousand soldiers. These are almost all heavy infantry, with some cavalry support. Julius Caesar brought ten legions to Gaul. That's sixty thousand soldiers. This is not counting auxiliaries. The Roman Empire's economic power allowed them to field armies that medieval lords could only dream of. If a medieval ruler wanted a Roman legion, they'd have to revive the Empire first, in order to have an economy that can supply armies of tens of thousands.

So technology wise there weren't much of a difference then? As in having better weapons, war machines, battle tactics, etc.

 

[Chief of Staff]

To put in a perspective, Europe did not have standing armies again since the fall of Roman Empire (at least in the West) until during the Hundred Years' War that forced France and England to develop such armies. Standing armies tend to be far more effective than levies or militias. I would guess that the Byzantine Empire even in medieval era still had standing armies until the end but I am not certain.

 

[The Shacks]

Certain advantages of Legionary troops would be the Maniple formations, which was a level of tactical flexibility unseen again until the end of the Feudal age. But presuming your mod is going with a revival of late Roman troops, they were pretty shit. Mostly German auxilary, much less heavy.

 

[Caspoi]

To put in a perspective, Europe did not have standing armies again since the fall of Roman Empire (at least in the West) until during the Hundred Years' War that forced France and England to develop such armies. Standing armies tend to be far more effective than levies or militias. I would guess that the Byzantine Empire even in medieval era still had standing armies until the end but I am not certain.

This is true, although I want to point out that it is not so much that standing armies are better as much as they have different purposes. A standing army is especially good at giving countinous protection and constantly be ready to march out to war a useful thing when the roman empire became so large, although it was not until the augustian reforms that they actually begun fielding a truly standing army, and they Went back a bit on it since diocletian. Also quantity does not matter in a disscussion about quality.

 

[Maldeus]

So technology wise there weren't much of a difference then? As in having better weapons, war machines, battle tactics, etc.

Generally speaking, the weapons and armor of the Roman legion were significantly inferior to those of medieval troops, especially as time went on, and especially in terms of siege warfare. The strength of the Roman legion was almost entirely in their unit structure and the discipline of the legionaries to function as part of a unit rather than an individual. The former is basically impossible to model in CK2. It's just not a thing that happened in medieval times. In particular, it's something that doesn't matter until you have a minimum of several hundred people trained to work in those units. Being trained to work in a cohort of 500 men isn't helpful if you don't actually have a cohort of 500 men to be a part of, and having only one cohort of 500 men isn't that different from having a less organized army of 500 men. The real strength of the legion is as a complete legion with multiple component cohorts which, again, requires six thousand troops as part of a standing army. That's not something that will come up very often in CK2 even if the engine were equipped to handle buffs that only come online when your retinue reaches a certain size.

 

[Iron Chariots]

Honestly, a medieval army of similar size to a Roman legion would likely fare quite well, as far as I am aware, particularly if they fielded a strong heavy cav.

The difference is getting a comparable army into place. The Roman Legions were an effective fighting force, to be sure, but Rome's real strength was less the fighting strength of its units and more in their logistical superiority. They had a real standing army and the means to field it. Feudal armies were much harder to put into the field and even harder to keep in the field.

 

[Shebaloso]

Honestly, a medieval army of similar size to a Roman legion would likely fare quite well, as far as I am aware, particularly if they fielded a strong heavy cav.

The difference is getting a comparable army into place. The Roman Legions were an effective fighting force, to be sure, but Rome's real strength was less the fighting strength of its units and more in their logistical superiority. They had a real standing army and the means to field it. Feudal armies were much harder to put into the field and even harder to keep in the field.

Completely agree. Roman generals could easily field over 50.000 soldiers for a "private campaign" (crassus and julius caesar had roughly that number of soldiers when they campaigned agains the parthians and gauls). In times of need, the capability of the roman state to field armies was unprecedented. They mustered 80.000 men for a single battle, lost almost them all, and a mere years later were fielding an actual invasion army against Carthage.

This is completely unconceivable for medieval times

I'm making a Roman cultural retinue and tactic mod for my Roman Empire revival game.

The role-playing as a patriotic Roman family has already begun, and I find it hard to resist the temptation to make Roman legionaries super op. But that won't be fun, and I don't want my mods to be unrealistic.

So what do you think about Roman Armies compared to Medieval ones? What would be the adequate retinue and tactic modifiers for Roman culture considering that the Irish Gallowglass recieve 40% defense and 20% morale bonus, and the Rus Druzhina recieves 10% offense, 50% defense, and 20% morale bonus?

(Speaking of which, did Russian footsoldiers have a high reputation back then? Why are the bonuses so high?)

And btw English is not my first language and I know very little about European history so please excuse my English grammer and my lack of knowledge.

Thank you

Op, if you want a certain degree of verosimilitude in your mod, you might want to model your roman army after the late empire's army, not the "glorious legions" of the principate (by the way, the 6000-man legion is absurd. A full manned roman legion by the time of Julius Caesar had just over 5.000 men. In campaign, as they would often have been undermanned, this would reflect in some number between 4000 - 5000 soldiers. In comparison, by the 3rd century, a standard legion would be composed of 1.500 legionnaries).

You could even preserve the cataphract cultural retinue and it wouldn't be that far fetched.

 

[Finnish Dragon]

One should remember that Romans had very good logistics, military medicine and engineering compared to the many medieval armies. Romans could supply large forces relatively easily and they knew how to heal wounded soldiers well. Also, their military forces often built roads and fortifications. One should remember that the army under Caesar built one wall to surround the city of Alesia and another wall to protect them being attacked by the Gaul reinforcements outside.

 

[lwarmonger]

Define Roman legions. The legions prior to the rise of the professional army (during the Carthaginian wars for example) differed drastically from the legions of the professional army, which differed significantly from the legions in the late empire.

It is also worth pointing out that standing armies aren't always better than the semi-professional kind in ancient warfare. Nomads and barbarians tended to achieve that effect with their continual internecine conflict.

 

[DanubianCossak]

Romans had logistics and organization, medieval people had technology and different type of warfare. Romans from 0 ad would have no chance vs 1000-1200+ ad medieval, the heavy cavalry, spears, chainmails, crossbows and so on would just make them obsolete.

Druzhina literally means "company" or "group of people". Early Rus rulers would have those comprised out of vikings, and they were infantry. Later on when these started to become a mix of varangians and local nobility (boyars) they shifted toward being cavalry. During the mongol conquest they should pretty much be elite heavy cavalry.

Early:

late:

 

[hagagaga]

To put in a perspective, Europe did not have standing armies again since the fall of Roman Empire (at least in the West) until during the Hundred Years' War that forced France and England to develop such armies. Standing armies tend to be far more effective than levies or militias. I would guess that the Byzantine Empire even in medieval era still had standing armies until the end but I am not certain.

Correct: the Roman Empire established a system of Themata and Tagmata in the Seventh Century. The former were similar to the late Western Empire's Limitanei. The latter were standing units under the direct authority of the Emperor, rather than under local governors.

 

[hagagaga]

The Classical Roman Empire had good logistics. That was why they were the dominant military power of the time and it is why the United States is the current dominant military power.

However, their tactics and equipment would have been woefully obsolete against a late medieval army and the typical early medieval tactics and equipment were derived from how the Western Empire equipped its troops. The standard legionary that people think of carried a gladius (18" sword) and two javelins as his main weapons. Against anybody wearing plate armor, none of that would be useful at all. When those knights, presumably supported by longbowmen (I'm going with the English model here), would encounter a comparably-sized force equipped along the standard lines of an early Imperial legion, it would be an absolute rout.

 

[Helios Panoptes]

The old legions were completely and utterly outclassed. That's why East Rome stopped using the legionary system.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

While it's correct that the classical Roman Empire had great logistics they had other advantages.

While the Romans lacked gunpoweder and the counterweight trebuchet they had the "ballista" and the "catapulta". The former was a two-armed stone-thrower that could launch anything from an orange-sized stone to something capable of smashing a reinforced city wall out to about 500 yards. The latter, the catapulta, is what we generally think of as a "ballista" fired a javalin out to about 200 yards and it appears some models had an automatic loading and firing mechanism, allowing them to maintain a constant rate of fire so long as they had ammunition.

The Romans, therefore, had a crucial advantage over medieval armies, mobile field artillery.

At the same time Roman infantry had two major advantages - standardisation of equipment and tactical flexability. Every Roman soldier carried a sword, two heavy javalins and probably a spear - although this was not used often on the battlefield. Every soldier would also have a large shield of superior construction to early medieval models along with metal body armour and an iron or bronze helmet of superior design to medieval infantry models.

If we stretch it up to the "High Empire" under Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius then you can add in heavy cataphract cavalry of similar weight and superior skill to medieval cavalry (but less numerous) as well as professional skirmisher units, horse archers, foot archers etc.

There was some technological progress but I would say it doesn't really become all that important until after 1200 when forms of plate amrour become more common. Even then it's not clear that a medieval knight it more heavily armed than a roman cataphract. The former has learned to use his lance couched, and his stirrups make him easier to train but aside from that there's no evidence he's actually a better horseman, more likely the cataphract is better.

So I would say that before 1200 the Roman army would beat any medieval army, after that the technological advances in metalworking and the advent of gunpowder would start to tell - but not before.

 

[hagagaga]

While it's correct that the classical Roman Empire had great logistics they had other advantages.

While the Romans lacked gunpoweder and the counterweight trebuchet they had the "ballista" and the "catapulta". The former was a two-armed stone-thrower that could launch anything from an orange-sized stone to something capable of smashing a reinforced city wall out to about 500 yards. The latter, the catapulta, is what we generally think of as a "ballista" fired a javalin out to about 200 yards and it appears some models had an automatic loading and firing mechanism, allowing them to maintain a constant rate of fire so long as they had ammunition.

The Romans, therefore, had a crucial advantage over medieval armies, mobile field artillery.

At the same time Roman infantry had two major advantages - standardisation of equipment and tactical flexability. Every Roman soldier carried a sword, two heavy javalins and probably a spear - although this was not used often on the battlefield. Every soldier would also have a large shield of superior construction to early medieval models along with metal body armour and an iron or bronze helmet of superior design to medieval infantry models.

If we stretch it up to the "High Empire" under Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius then you can add in heavy cataphract cavalry of similar weight and superior skill to medieval cavalry (but less numerous) as well as professional skirmisher units, horse archers, foot archers etc.

There was some technological progress but I would say it doesn't really become all that important until after 1200 when forms of plate amrour become more common. Even then it's not clear that a medieval knight it more heavily armed than a roman cataphract. The former has learned to use his lance couched, and his stirrups make him easier to train but aside from that there's no evidence he's actually a better horseman, more likely the cataphract is better.

So I would say that before 1200 the Roman army would beat any medieval army, after that the technological advances in metalworking and the advent of gunpowder would start to tell - but not before.

I would say that the plate armor of a late medieval knight would be an overwhelming advantage over the cataphract. He would be pretty much invulnerable to the bladed weapons that most people carried, with his main weaknesses being blunt trauma (from the force of a charge, from fast-moving arrows hitting him, and from blunt weapons, for example). Also, why would the cataphract probably be a better horseman than a medieval knight who trained from childhood to be a cavalryman?

 

[Ashantai]

As the others have said it varies depending on which Romans and which Medieval era you’re referring to.



Principate Roman infantry was superior to any infantry in western Europe in discipline and even armament until the 15th century, the end of our period. The Saxon and Viking shieldwalls were effective, but only really on the defensive or for attacking other enemy shieldwalls. In armaments the Gladius and Pilum would still be quite effective as few in that era wore capable armour.

Excluding dismounted knights and retainers, most medieval infantry was a poor thing, especially in France until the later HYW where they were mainly levies there to swell the numbers of the army and provide mass.

What the Romans would have here is training, discipline and unit cohesion which was so important in such battles.

Roman armour of the traditional Principate design was effective enough, but would provide less protection against crossbows, though the shields would still work well.



It’s against cavalry though that the Romans would suffer. Cavalry in the Roman era lacked stirrups, so could not couch their lances like a Knight could. Further, Roman infantry lacked long enough spears to resist a mounted charge, though if they were densely formed the horses might refuse to crash into a wall.

Against later medieval cavalry Principate Romans would be nearly defenceless. Their weapons would be too short to penetrate plate.



Overall then, assuming best case scenarios of an Augustian legion vs William’s Hastings army, I suspect that the Romans would prevail as they could hold their ground better than the Saxons plus have the flexibility to counter attack.

However against an army from the HYW, either side, I suspect the Romans would be overwhelmed by cavalry, crossbows/longbows and superior tech.



Where does this leave you for CK2? Not sure, but strong bonuses for morale and defence seem fair.

 

[icedt729]

If you're talking about bringing back a well-drilled formation of armored swordsmen, I'd say go with heavy infantry with a solid buff to morale and attack. But realistically I think a revived Roman state would take the Byzantine military as its starting point rather than try to jump back 1000+ years to the time of Augustus, and that would mean relying on heavy cavalry as the core of the army.