Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Roman legions vs medieval European armies 2016-04-24 21:20:47 Post No. 29724394
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Roman legions vs medieval European armies 2016-04-24 21:20:47 Post No. 29724394
[Report] Image search: [Google]
So with Game of Thrones starting back up again, I couldn't help but have my wet dream again. The one where a few good Roman legions conquer Westeros.
This question has probably been asked before, but how would an early-mid empire Roman legion (with auxiliaries) fair against medieval men-at-arms and soldiers?
Let's assume that the Romans have access to the same steel that the medieval army has. In terms of equipment, how would the scutum, short sword, pilum, and lorica segmentata stack up against medieval gear like brigandines, halberds, spears, arming swords, kite shields, etc.?
And what about tactics? The Romans generally fought in tight formations by medieval standards, but were also flexible and could loosen up.
I figure there's no way Roman cavalry could match medieval knights (maybe some of their cataphract auxiliaries could?), and their archers probably had a shorter range. But what about Rome's heavy infantry legionaries vs non-men-at- arms? Do you think they could be effective or even superior if used properly?
>>
Seems like an apples-to-oranges comparison desu senpai. Most of the Roman army's strength came through its organization capacity (the ability to put together a well-fortified camp, maintaining supply lines, etc). All of which would wreck most other armies of the period. At the same time, I think it would take them a couple battlefield losses before they were able to adapt to heavy cavalry
>>
I imagine later crossbows would fuck shit up
>>
>>29724459
>hurr what's testudo
>>
>>29724394
Heavy cavalry would fuck up their infantry formations pretty badly and from there they'd be largely outmatched in both equipment and training.
Professional armies were a thing after the First Crusade, so while the levels of training would vary depending on where they came from, it could generally be considered on par or superior to the Romans.
Artillery would definitely go to the later period soldiers. Better bows, artillery that evolved from the Roman designs, and then there were the wild cards like the trebuchet and gunpowder.
>>29724480
Fucked up by cavalry, I imagine.
>>
English longbows would dominate, and higher quality steel would make a difference. That said the specialization and training of a Roman Legion was no joke. Their javilins were designed to break up shield formations, too.
>>
>>29724394
The Romans win via logistics and organization. The game of thrones ppl would probably implode as X fucked Y and murdered Z who was really the son of W imprisoned by V for being an opponent of X.
>>
>>29724524
Well that much is definitely true: Westeros as it stands right now would be crushed by any large nation with a unified military. They are all at each other's throats, and have already fought some pretty big battles and lost tons of men and military leaders.
>>
>>29724394
I'll assume you want to use the Legions of Trajan, in which case the Romans would utterly stomp any comparable medieval nations military. The logistics, dsicipline, and leadership of the Romans at that time was a league above that of European armies for at least 1000 years.
>>
Here's a question: would it be feasible/would it be beneficial to give these legionaries the spatha or an arming sword? I feel like it could still work with the scutum and would give them a greater ability to fight medieval infantry.
>>
>>29724904
They started to use the Spatha once the AD's rolled around iirc
>>
>>29725685
What?
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1