Yes. The Roman Empire's tagmata would be something that the Roman Empire might copy.
As I previously pointed out, the themata bear a strong resemblance to the late Western Empire's limitanei, so you make a very good point.
How strong are Roman Army compared to Medival Army?
- Thread starter Kryndude
- Start date
-
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.
As I previously pointed out, the themata bear a strong resemblance to the late Western Empire's limitanei, so you make a very good point.
To begin with, maces (or hardwood clubs with spikes) were known to the Romans, Constantine had his lighter cavalry use them against Roman Cataphracts at one point and they were known in the East as the best means to defeat heavy cavalry.
You'll note I specifically said "up to 1200" which is before the advent of true "plate" armour. The Western "Coat of Plates" was roughly equivilent to the multi-layered armour worn by Roman Cataphracts that was primarily scale-over-mail. That's a very effective defence, it spreads the impact well.
As to the Roman cavalry vs the "medieval knight trained from childhood" it's important to note that Roman cavalry were also trained from childhood, from peoples with a strong tradition of mounted warefare. These men learned to ride without stirrups and they controlled their horses exclusively with their legs, as both hands were taken up with the lance.
There's a long-standing myth perpetuated by a few academics with much education and no practical experience that the stirrup is necessary to couch the lance, it isn't. The essential piece of equipment is the saddle, stirrups provide lateral stability and they transfer some of the weight of the rider away from the horse's spine, but they do not prevent the horseman from being unseated during a charge, the high pommel and cantel of the saddle prevent this.
What Stirrups also do is make riding much easier, which allows you to start riding later and still become highly proficient, which means you can devote less time to it. In the Roman period cavalry were drawn from cultures with a tradition of horsemanship but cavalry were not a social elite - or rather socially elite cavalry did not form elite units. In the medieval period the social elite.
Medieval knights formed a relatively large social elite and they could learn to ride and fight from horseback relatively late - they weren't as skilled because they didn't need to be. Now, that doesn't mean they weren't still more skilled than most horsemen alive today.
As noted above - the Romans were familiar with shock cavalry, and whilst the couched lance appears to have been unknown I've seen it done by a man riging in a Gallic saddle without stirrups. It's entirely possible that it was known but not used, or that it simply wasn't invented.
Roman-era Contarii and Cataphractarii used lances as long as medieval ones. We don't know if they charged as the gallop or the canter, but we should not assume they were incapable of it. What we do know is that heavily armoured men sat horses as large as medieval chargers and used a 4 metre lance in two hands at high speed, and they did this without the stirrup that we today tend to rely on. I've ridden without stirrups and it's decidedly unnerving not to have your feet secured.
Roman infantry had a number of means to deal with cavalry - in one demonstration I saw them form three ranks. The first rank grounded their shields and plant their pila, the second rank raise their shields over the heads of the first rank and crouch over them. the third rank throw their pila into the faces of the oncoming cavalry.
It's rather like a Napoleonic Square formation. You don't need hugely long spears to fend off cavalry, a wall of shields will generally stop horses, and sharp points will guarantee it. Roman auxilaries carries spears over six feet long, which is about the same as a medieval spear or halbard. Note that the Norman Knights did NOT break the Saxon shieldwall as Hastings, part of the Saxon army charged down the slope and exposed itself to a Norman charge, then they were whittled down by bolts and arrows. It was only at the end that the cavalry broke them.
I would bet Roman infantry against medieval knights every times, and I'd half those odds id you add in the Roman field artillery which would flay they before they even charged home.
- 9
- 3
- 1
Regardless of how roman tactics dealt with certain opponents i personally would not attempt to recreate old roman tactics within game. Rather i think the question would be how the revived romans would fight. The OP stated that he uses mods to 'start' as roman culture and reform rome from there. A reformed rome born of the ERE would likely use a light/heavy cavalry mix for their retinue with a high moral tactic or charge tactic. One new rome born of the HRE might use a retinue closer to knights with a high defence or charge tactic. But due to the circumstances of this particular rebirth id suggest a retinue closer to the classical roman heavy infantry legend, as this would reflect the mindset of the dynasty reviving the legacy. I wouldn't think a new roman would care wether the infantry could hold their own against a cavalry charge or not as part of being roman was being able to adapt and be flexible. As long as the tactic and bonus is reflective of this idea then you will have achieved your goal of role playing and realism in balance
- 7
I think some people are missing a key point here: if a Roman Empire survived into the late Medieval period they wouldn't be using the exact same types of units as they did in the apex of their empire. They would of course develop them over time as new technologies came around. So they would probably have a lot more plate armor, heavy cavalry and combined arms etc. But with their standing armies and better logistics they would(/could) be a professional force instead of feudal levies. As this is of course alternate history you're free to come up with your own ideas.
- 8
- 1
Indeed. But since the Romans had iron/steel weapons how's that relevant?
- 2
That depends on the age of the Romans.
And btw, Bronze Roman legions started conquering lands. Iron Roman legions lost lands eventually.
Last edited:
- 1
Yes, but when people talk about the Roman legions they usually refer to the post-Marian legions and especially the imperial era ones.
- 3
Why try to add a Roman Legion-type system to a Roman faction in the game when one already exists in the Roman (Byzantine) Empire?
Even if some Italian state managed to become outrageously powerful and re-conquer much of the old Western Roman Empire, they'd have to be out of their mind to reform the legions of old. Even if they tried to do it with the legions from when Rome was at its most formiddable - under Trajan, Hadrian or Aurelius, they just wouldn't compare with modern medieval technology.
Just use whatever the Byzantines have but change the names. The Byzantine Empire IS the Roman Empire evolving with the times.
Even if some Italian state managed to become outrageously powerful and re-conquer much of the old Western Roman Empire, they'd have to be out of their mind to reform the legions of old. Even if they tried to do it with the legions from when Rome was at its most formiddable - under Trajan, Hadrian or Aurelius, they just wouldn't compare with modern medieval technology.
Just use whatever the Byzantines have but change the names. The Byzantine Empire IS the Roman Empire evolving with the times.
- 7
- 1
One thing to consider is uniformity of equipment and training. Most medieval armies (as well as the Punic Wars-era Roman army) furnished their own and more or less fought as individuals, whereas the classical Roman Legions had theirs paid for by the empire and were trained to fight as a unit like a modern army.
- 1
How did the Romans get armies so big, weren't there many more cities and entirely new populated areas in the Medieval age than in antiquity?
- 1
There had been massive amounts of depopulation both in the late roman empire and later on during the middle ages, mainly because of diseases but also the constant wars. It took until the fiteenth or sometimes sixteenth century or later until the regained their former size.
- 2
- 1
This is ridiculous, the guy is asking for information to help him make a Roman Revival mod. If the Roman empire somehow was revived they sure as hell wouldn't somehow only use outdated materials for their troops. Yes, over a thousand years metalworking improved, good job detectives.
The best place to start for such a mod is to simply look at the Byzantines and how they altered their forces from the barbarian invasions to the Mehmed II.
The best place to start for such a mod is to simply look at the Byzantines and how they altered their forces from the barbarian invasions to the Mehmed II.
In places like Britain, Germany and eastern Europe, yes. But the Mediterranean basin and especially the western part were seriously depopulated starting in late antiquity.
You do realize that the Roman Kingdom was founded during the Iron Age and they absolutely didn't form legions until even further into the Iron Age, right?That depends on the age of the Romans.
And btw, Bronze Roman legions started conquering lands. Iron Roman legions lost lands eventually.
- 7
Honestly, you could just give Byzantium a skoutatoi heavy infantry retinue, give it a testudo formation to protect it against archers, and then clone it to make a Roman spatharii retinue. The Byzantines continued to use proven Roman tactics like the testudo up to Manzikert at least. The skoutatoi also used large shields and long spears, so a special shield wall tactic could also work. Even though heavy cavalry formed the core of the Byzantine army, well equipped heavy infantry formed the core of most battle groups, so a heavy infantry retinue would fit right in. Considering Rome's focus on cavalry in the dominate period, I'd also give it cataphracts. There's actually a lot that could with retinues if Paradox would focus on them.
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
IIRC, the early modern formations such as pike square and infantry square (latter used against cavalry but not good against artillery) was based off Roman formations, probably with modifications. So some tactics may still be relevant even in medieval age but I don't think such formations were ever used in this era until early modern era with rise of pikemen as exemplified by Swiss mercenaries. This may perhaps partly explain the dominance of cavalry during this times, as no one seem to have thought about apply these formations to pikemen. I'm not certain.
Actually, pike squares predate the Romans considerably: the Alexandrian-era Greeks were the first ones to really perfect it. AFAIK the Romans didn't really use pikemen and their main ranged weapon was the javelin.
- 1
Understood... I'm still puzzled at why pike square weren't used in Middle Ages much earlier... if they were already used throughout the Middle Ages, then how come cavalry dominated the warfare during this era? The only reason I can think of is that pike square were not used, at least not extensively, until the early modern era. It was my understanding that the appearance of pike squares used by Swiss mercenaries brought the end to the dominance of cavalry at beginning of early modern era.