>>667847 >A principate army wouldn't have a real counter to crusader heavy cavalry combined with heavy infantry. A principate army would be conposed of a spine of much better quality heavy infantry (the legion) combined with just as heavy cavalry (the clibanarii) and other auxiliaries like archers. They weren't that different in forces composition.
>>667768 The legions from the days of the early emperors or those from 460?
The crusading army probably has both a numerical and quality advantage in cavalry. Early imperial Rome and republican Rome were notoriously bad at providing native cavalry so they quickly had mercenaries fill that role.
In one corner you got say, a cavalryman on a 14 hands high horse with a four horned saddle. The guy himself would wear a short mail shirt. In the other corner you got a mail clad Frank or Norman, on a slightly bigger horse, with stirrups, a high cantle and pommel saddle and a couched lance.
Aside from numerical superiority that is going to end up bad for the Roman side.
To be honest it's going to boil down to what type of terrain the battle takes place and what the morale of the troops is. The leader is quite important in this regard and a good or bad leader will make or break the battle.
>>667925 >I thought their cavalry was crap Meme as fuck. Roman cavalry always performed ok to great throughout their history, the only issue was that it was never available in quantity because the social class they came from was the officer class, and Rome could use auxiliaries for cavalry but not for officer positions. Roman (as in, properly roman) cavalry however pretty much stopped existing during the principate, so it's a moot point anyway. It was replaced by auxiliaries like the numidian light cavalry,premier light cavalry of the period, and persian (ethnically not geographically, so eastern anatolians and middle easterners mostly) clibanarii/cataphractarii, also best heavy cavalry of the period. The clibanarii were pretty much identical to crusading knights as far as armor and tactics go, whereas the cataphtactarii were just slighly lighter but had ranged weaponry.
>so romans would win? Probably yeah.
>>667938 >The guy himself would wear a short mail shirt. Imperial Rome had heavy cavalry with heavier armor than the crusaders, and they used the same shock tactics too.
>>667957 >Meme as fuck. >no stirrups yea ok senpai >The clibanarii were pretty much identical to crusading knights as far as armor and tactics go, youre a fucking idiot their whole style was different no way at all could a person without stirrups match up to the couched lance crusaders its just total bullshit
The only thing i can think that the crusaders hade that the romans didedent have is the gambeson along with some small peices of plate (depending on what era pls for the love of god say a fucking era asshole the roman empire/republic existed for over a thousand years) romans probably hade better training
>>667967 >OP has yet to define what type of army he meant. Yes well does it matter? Let's just take the best from both factions, otherwise it's pointless. It's not like anyone cares about who would win between monarchic Rome and the people's crusade.
>>667975 >no stirrups No one had stirrups back then so it's irrelevant. >their whole style was different No you retard. Just because the crusaders relied on the couched lance and the clibanarii on the horse charge doesn't mean the tactics were different. They both formed lines or wedges and charged at the enemy's flanks.
Assuming equal numbers, the Legion has the advantage.
Ofc, Crusading armies aren't the best quality of army, so it's not really a fair comparison. Professional Legionnaires vs some full-time, some part-time, and some downright peasant-tier troops. Pit the Legion against a Crusading Order like the Templars, and with even numbers the advantage swings well to the Knights.
Some of the men who took the Cross were not professional warriors. Problems with poor discipline plagued crusader armies, often harming relations with the local Christians, who sometimes preferred Muslim rule to the rapacity of crusaders.
>>668044 As far as I can tell the vast majority of the first Crusade were soldiers with armor to begin with. Harassing the local population sure but the leaders of the first crusade didn't take along useless mouths to feed. In fact many nearly bankrupted themselves going on crusade.
As for the second bit, during the siege of Antioch Crusaders were supposed to recognize each other by their Frankish mustache (as opposed to full beards). What haperend of course was that local Christians and Jews were also killed when Bohemond openend the gates.
That said once things started to settle down a bit relations became better.
Well sure, but there were a whole bunch of other crusades, and OP didn't specify. Most crusading armies were a mixed bag of quality, at least when they first set out. A few years crusading would probably iron out a lot of kinks, but the Legion is nothing but professional soldiers right from the start.
But the crusaders do have the technological advantage, not just stirrups and lances but also larger and more aggressive horses. An army of full-time Knights should beat an equal army of Legionaries most of the time.
>>668055 >the footsoldiers of the first crusade were very poorly armed in comparison
Well they had more mail and their numbers were constantly augmented by cavalrymen who had lost their horse.
While the third crusade was nearly a century later a particular quote from then might illustrate it. You probably heard of Saladins scribe or confidant talk about how the infantry resembled pin cushions by the end of a days march.
Not that faggot, but mail was the usual form of armor for the Legions, and every man would have a set. On the other hand, Crusaders would wear more mail (those who had any, that is) which is helpful against archers... but the Romans don't have shit for bows anyway, so that's not going to help them. On foot, the Legion would win quite handily, but the Crusader cavalry would be like nothing they had faced.
>>668081 Am I reading this wrong or are you implying mail is only good against arrows? First off I would have to say that is wrong and second why would Romans bother with mail if it only stopped arrows seeing how they had a positively gigantic shield?
Mail is good against a lot of battlefield threats which is why it was used for so long.
>>668084 The peoples crusade is more of a mob that set one foot in Asia minor before getting stompted. Probably killed more Jews in Europe than muslims.
>>668087 In 30 bc - 100 AD. Mail would still have been the most common among the serving legionaries.
I don't see why the first and third crusade can't be compared. Both were led by aristocrats who brought along soldiers, these weren't guys just tagging along with an old shovel.
>>668042 Combined arms. Heavy cavalry, heavy infantry, archers and catapults.
Heavy cavalry protecting the flanks. Archers and heavy infantry (4 men deep, shields, pilum and spear) in the center. Silent until the enemy is in range. When enemy is in range, they would shout as loud as they can and concentrate missile fire (arrows, stones and pilum).
If for some reason the cavalry still charged, heavy infantry holds the ground with locked shields and spears the horses. 3 first ranks stop the charge, 4th rank throws their pilum. 1st rank spears the horse, continuously.
>>668185 a barrage of pilum could fuck up a cavalry charge
ofc they could still reach what ever they where charging but they would lose alot men and horses and the charge would be slowed since if a horse drops in the front then the rest have to get over it,
and even if they dont die javelins/pilum (pilum especially) would stick to the armor/shields and encumber the enemy the same applies to horses, dont forget that a pilum is a rather hefty peice of metal and wood and could be throw rather hard
but if you dont have infantry that can brace the charge then you just sacrificed alot of men since you have to get real close to be able to hit with javelins/pilum good thing legionares where heavy infantry equipped with pilum
>>668209 I realize that but even javelins won't stop a cavalry charge dead in it's tracks. At least I don't know of any battle in which it did.
Another thing is that you're going to only carry one or two at most. Honestly I and I think a lot of people still wonder why javelins fell out of favor during the late Roman Empire and pretty much everywhere after that. Cavalry and naval use of javelins continued for a long time but it seems infantry use stopped by the High middle ages.
>>668216 I wasent arguing that it would stop the charge dead in its tracks (it migth have happend a few times against small forces of light cavalry who just said "fuck no i aint running into that again")
>Another thing is that you're going to only carry one or two at most.
this is true but breaking up a cavalry charge and makeing it less effective could literally turn the tide of battle
> I and I think a lot of people still wonder why javelins fell out of favor during the late Roman Empire and pretty much everywhere after that.
well the romans replaced the pilum with plumbata pic related as for why it everyone stopped using it alltogether is simply (imo) because its lack of range it just wasent viable anymore, combat is constantly evolving, if you tried to send a skirmishing force of javelinmen (wich was the most common use for them) they would most likely get cut down by archers or cavlary before they even got to toss their javelins
>but it seems infantry use stopped by the High middle ages.
This i would account to the fact that armor was getting alot better and javelins just wherent doing alot of damage anymore also they are cumbersome to carry (like bring two extra spears with you) and only good when used enmass
>>668252 >I reckon that is true, though a second, third or even fourth charge wouldn't have to deal with javelins would they?
yeah thats true hopefully the enemy wouldent want to even attempt a third charge
>That dart looks ridiculous though
yeah i think so to, but i wouldent underestimate it, it probably wouldent look silly once theres 200 flying your way :^)
also it allowed the individual to carry up to 5 plumbata instead of 2 pilum, they also hade carried them on the shields making them easy to reach in the heat of battle also the smaller size allowed them to be tossed with ease in compact formations
>>668362 The level of discipline amongst the English for that battle is questionable. They were strung out and the leading echelons had been arsed about a lot so were presumably confused and low on morale. After that it was a cohesive French cavalry force mopping up isolated elements.
>>668365 Not the guy you where replying to but there are many factors in battle so basically anything tactic can work given the right circumstances, but in general heavy cavalry against heavy infantry in formation would usually end with alot of dead people, more so on the cavalry side
>>668386 Well the thing is that I cannot think of many cases in which the battle was openend with a cavalry charge against infantry to begin with. Except for say Patay.
From the time Alexander more or less invented heavy cavalry until WWI they were always held in reserve or deployed on the flanks. A few exceptions here and there. And if they did try to charge units that hadn't fought until then they usually went for the flanks like sane people.
This question is silly. Where is each army getting its supplies from? One of the key advantages of the Romans was their logistical capabilities. Does the 11th century army suddenly pop into Roman territory and get slaughtered? Or does the Roman legion pop into the 11th century and suddenly have to figure out how to feed themselves?
>>668252 >Well yes if the cavalry was found to be lacking enthusiasm, the more motivated folks would accept causalities and keep going.
mabey it was more ment to scare the horses then the men, think about it they charge up to silence then all of the sudden a bunch of shouting and well you know a hail storm of arrows, rocks and pilum, i would say thats enough to scare most horses, unless they where very well trained
>>668399 the crusaders made it all the way to turkey then they all of the sudden popped up right infront of a roman legion just about to start their formation practice, and for some reason they tougth the romans where muslim
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.