Roman army vs Byzantine army

>>2162480
Byzantines, 1000 years of military and technological development makes such situation really uneven

File: 1478302453719.jpg (271KB, 1508x1000px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 1508x1000px

>>2162480

>I just watched Dan Carlin and he said that imperial Rome could beet any1 :DDDDDDDD

>>2162933

No I don't listen to quietLOUD imaginary friend guy

>>2162958

Ok then, well the Byzantines to make a long story short would curb stomp Imperial Rome, the ERE by this point was an extremely versatile force and Byzantine heavy cavalry would inflict heavy damage on the legionaries, in addition to the Infantry being just as solid as their Imperial Roman counterparts.

>>2162480
Byzantines It's not a guaranteed outcome, the romans could win given the right terrain and an incompetent byzantine commander, but in a hypothetical head to head fight on open ground, they're in trouble.

It's actually worse if they fight a war, byzantine forces could and would raid the absolute shit out of them and render it impossible to forage, or attempt to ambush the army and crush it.

1100 is a particularly bad year, as it's when the kommenian restoration is in full swing. You've actually got well equipped, professional guard regiments of infantry, and they'd be able to go toe to toe with an equal sized force of romans. And these are backed by... professional infantry and cavalry regiments from the provinces, as well as the latinkon.

Romans meanwhile are still utterly reliant on grinding through an enemy with heir infantry....

A tactic the Byzantines fully understand and have long since learned how to defeat. They'd need a genius leading them to have any real chance. Otherwise, you're going to get cavalry riding out, shooting at them, charging down any unit that gets isolated, slaughtering the Romans cavalry, and running behind friendly infantry when threatened or tired.

>>2162480
Totally different styles of warfare you're dealing with.

I'd give it to the Byzantines man-for-man because they had more advanced steel weapons and armor. But they'd probably take enormous casualties, and I feel like the more tight, formation-based fighting the ancient Romans used would have overpowered their descendants.

>>2162480
The one with flamethrowers and cataphracts.

>>2163015
....you mean the exact sort of tight formations that byzantine infantry would have been using?

Well, that's not entirely true.

The Byzantines would include archers in the formation itself.

This is important if you don't want to be a big walking target for lances, javelins, and bows delivered into your force from horseback.

File: IMG_0015.jpg (72KB, 640x399px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x399px

Checkmate, Constantinople... fancy your chances against a well-drilled meme?

>>2163275

Pretty good. Can you imagine what greek fire would do to a tightly packed formation like that?

>>2163275
looks like a job for trebuchets.

>>2163288
>>2163288
i thought greek fire was only used on boats

File: FUEGO+GRIEGO[1].jpg (66KB, 500x401px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 500x401px

>>2163337
the cheirosiphōn was dual use land/sea

on land it would have been less effective but also less impacted by weather conditions

>>2163337
>>2163347
One westerner faced it and saw that it was about to be launched at his position via pots.

His words to the men around him were essentially
>get down behind something and pray, and hope you die fast if you're hit, because that shit WILL seep into your armor and burn you alive

Would guys like Ceasar, Marius, Pompey, Marc Antony, Scipio Africanus or Sulla win against a bunch of inbred degenerate unichs that got to command an army for no good reason? Yeah they would. And they could use a way worse army than what Romans of their time had, to do it.

>>2163559
This. Byzantine were a 1,000 downward spiral and coasted on Roman merit. Byzantium is now Istanbul and the Hagia Sophia is a mosque, enough said.

>>2162480
Can someone give me the tldr on why the shields became circular and practically flat in the latter centuries?

>>2164181
Less heavy, cheaper to make, roughly same amount of protection for less material.

>>2164470
So why did they become rectangular in the first place?

>>2164181
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNyvLz9w69s

>>2165022
The Marion Reforms and the Legion formations and military tactics, once those became outdated they were replaced with more ovular/circular shields.

>>2165022
Shifting strategic considerations, moving away from pitched infantry battle to conquer new lands to more cavalry heavy forces that can intercept invading armies and raids inside border.

>>2164470
>cheaper
I doubt legionaries were willing to risk their lives to save 2 sesterces

>>2164181
>>2164470
Also the engagements they fought have changed.

In later centuries of the Empire there were much more small skirmishes than large formation warfare(or ancient siege warfare, if we're at it), so relatively lighters, smaller and handier oval shields were much better than rectangular ones, while offering 90% of the protection when in formation anyway.

>>2162480
>Roman army vs Byzantine army
Roman army vs Roman army you mean? Byzantine is meme name used by meme historians and idiots. Point me to a single historical source where East Roman Empire is called "Byzantine Empire" - pro tip - you cant!

So your question is which Roman army is better - from 100 AD or from 1100 AD.
No doubt - 1000 years improved military tactics and weaponry wins.

>>2164181
They started that way. Then they used ovals. The oval form predated and outlived the rectangle.

Round shields are the standard across cultures.