How strong are Roman Army compared to Medival Army?

[Soladept]

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.

the introduction of gunpowder warfare may have had an influence with the rise of Pike Squares, early gunpowder weapons were mixed with pike formations until the development of the bayonet. and Cav remained somewhat prominent even then for some time.

 

[Tarroque]

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.

Levies raised for half a summer a year being replaced with professional career mercenaries probably had some sort of effect on discipline.

 

[hagagaga]

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.

Training. If the vast majority of your infantry force is levied on an as-needed basis and doesn't otherwise spend most of its time training to ensure that everyone knows how to work together for disciplined maneuvers, they're not going to be able to perform an effective pike square.

 

[icedt729]

Training. If the vast majority of your infantry force is levied on an as-needed basis and doesn't otherwise spend most of its time training to ensure that everyone knows how to work together for disciplined maneuvers, they're not going to be able to perform an effective pike square.

There are other layers to it besides tactics or training, as well. For a society that is aristocratic, decentralized and mostly rural, it's simpler economically and logistically to have a small retinue of well-trained, well-equipped horsemen than to support a larger number of infantrymen. You need to be able to take advantage of economies of scale in order to maintain large forces of high-quality infantry, and it takes a powerful state to pull it off (it took massive infrastructure projects, a large bureaucracy and the annona system for the Romans to support their professional armies). Frankish nobles just couldn't manage this. It wasn't until Western kingdoms became more centralized and started collecting taxes in lieu of personal military service (i.e. scutage), giving them the money and authority to raise their own standing armies or hire on long-term mercenaries, that good quality infantry made any serious comeback. In the interim you still had quality infantry in the civic militias or in the gallowglass-huscarl model of northern Europe, but the elite high-born cavalryman was seen as the 'normal' soldier (relevant: the Latin milites, originally meaning the professional infantrymen on the Empire, came to be applied to knights).

 

[hagagaga]

There are other layers to it besides tactics or training, as well. For a society that is aristocratic, decentralized and mostly rural, it's simpler economically and logistically to have a small retinue of well-trained, well-equipped horsemen than to support a larger number of infantrymen. You need to be able to take advantage of economies of scale in order to maintain large forces of high-quality infantry, and it takes a powerful state to pull it off (it took massive infrastructure projects, a large bureaucracy and the annona system for the Romans to support their professional armies). Frankish nobles just couldn't manage this. It wasn't until Western kingdoms became more centralized and started collecting taxes in lieu of personal military service (i.e. scutage), giving them the money and authority to raise their own standing armies or hire on long-term mercenaries, that good quality infantry made any serious comeback. In the interim you still had quality infantry in the civic militias or in the gallowglass-huscarl model of northern Europe, but the elite high-born cavalryman was seen as the 'normal' soldier (relevant: the Latin milites, originally meaning the professional infantrymen on the Empire, came to be applied to knights).

I was hitting at that when I referred to the majority of infantry being levied on an as-needed basis. Your explanation of why it was only on an as-needed basis is a useful addition to the thread.

 

[Nyrael]

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.

1. Money - nobody really had enough money to field large enough armies to have meaningful pike formations
2. Training - you have to train peasants and keep them in shape for these tactics to be useful. This also costs money and literate people (and very few outside priesthood and merchant class knew how to read&write, even Kings just called for a priest when they wanted to read&write)
3. Nobility focus - for all the above reasons and some more, nobility made the core of Medieval armies (can partially pay for themselves, are trained from birth, are well equipped, like to get killed, etc.). And these guys were cranky when not being in cavalry or late heavy infantry (and some might kill you if you suggest they carry a pike)

All in all, the situation was just too different in Medieval times compared to Antiquity and Early Modern Period.

 

[Woifee]

If right now a time vortex opens and following a TARDIS 6000 roman infantry soldiers and 6000 heavy armored medieval knights would enter a plane field to fight each other I would bet my right ball on the knights.

 

[icedt729]

If right now a time vortex opens and following a TARDIS 6000 roman infantry soldiers and 6000 heavy armored medieval knights would enter a plane field to fight each other I would bet my right ball on the knights.

Well yeah, man per man the knight is much better. It's putting all your resources into a smaller group rather than spreading them out over a larger one, so of course the knights win if numbers are equal. That's before getting into the tactical advantages of the knight as a weapons system.

 

[Woifee]

Most of the thread was about the society, economy and organization behind the armys. All of them important but not part of the origin question since he or she only wanted to model roman levies and armys but not a roman society.

 

[TheDungen]

The roman legions would probably draw more of it's power from having access to some good tactics than from being better troops.

 

[darthfanta]

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.

Doesn't mean they are the most efficient way to counter cavalry.

 

[SigurdStormhand]

Doesn't mean they are the most efficient way to counter cavalry.

Sorry, been away with RL.

What do you mean "they"?

Maces?

Maces are a very good way to counter heavy cavalry, although there are other ways that are equally as good, like hidden caltrops, or repeated ballistae. In any case, the Romans were familiar with heavy shock cavalry and contrary to the beliefs of (purely) theoretical historians and archaeologists from the early 20th Century we now have a lot of experimental evidence to suggest this cavalry was at least as effective as its medieval successors.

 

[killerbee256]

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.

But what time period of the byzantine military? Depending on when the player started the military would be very different, there was a huge difference between the Byzantines of 768 and 1066. Even more after the battle of Manzikert.