A Perfect Army...?

This is simply not true. On the whole Roman armies were far, far superior to the late horde armies. The problem was that the upkeep on those armies was more than Rome could afford to pay.

And Marian legions are generally considered to have been better trained, organised, and motivated than later legions, which relied far more heavily on conscripts and barbarians. One could even argue that the legionnaires of Augustus' day were better equipped than the late legions- for example the former had lorica segmentata, and the latter did not.

Afraid it is, instead.
Main advantage of the roman army in the I centurt was a better organization .
If you read later historians (e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus), you often read disconcert at seeing "barbarian" armies (goths for example) behaving in an ordered and regulated manner "as if they were trained".
The point is that rough I century tribes had evolved in more complex structures and their army, too: you do not fight 300 years without learning something.

Both in terms of combat efficiency and versatility, IVth century smaller legions (1000 soldiers or so) were much better than Ist century 5000 men Marian phalanxes, but I admit that the Marian ones were cooler.

in term of equipment, too.
Lorica segmentata is the classical error of perspective: you should not think of an ancient sword as lasersabre able to cut through stone and steel, but rather as badly-sharpened cutlass which often was used almost as a club
If most of the blows you have to protect against are smashing rather than cutting in nature, then pressed linen is a better protection than segmented armour (anyway, even if these-days actors tend to wear Lorica segmentata, in roman times it was quite rare: most of the soldiers had Lorica hamata instead)
 
Don't tell me that, tell that Rex Romanum guy who came up with this challenge.
I didn't come up with this, I have just interpreted it as best I can.

Who? Me? :p
Alright guys, it looks like that I have to change my OP question:
A NEARLY perfect army (from a COMBINATION of elements of the existing army) that could win against ALMOST all of another army from the SAME era (IGNORE environment, etc, just like Todyo have said)
 
The modern age?

Well for special forces could I suggest a combination of the the Spetznaz, SAS, the US Marines and the Irish Army Rangers.

I suppose the Irish boys will get the most questioning. If I may explain. During the Congo Crisis of 1961, around 150 Irish regulars defended the town of Jadotville for 6 days against 3,000-4,000 Katanga troops. No casualties.

Thats just regulars, imagine what the Specials could achieve?

they had 6 or 7 wounded no dead. thing is they were up against more or less rabble so was not as impressive as it sounds.
 
they had 6 or 7 wounded no dead. thing is they were up against more or less rabble so was not as impressive as it sounds.

Yes, no dead. However if you take in the fact that there were many professional mercenaries and also the unfamiliar terrain.

It's still rather immpressive regardless.
 
Hmmm, for pre-gunpowder age army I'd think I might want a force composed of Welsh longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, Japanese light cavalry (Samurai) and English/French heavy cavalry (knights) with Iroquois warriors as scouts/skirmishers. I'd imagine that'd quite a formidable force to reckon with.
 
Hmmm, for pre-gunpowder age army I'd think I might want a force composed of Welsh longbowmen, Swiss pikemen, Japanese light cavalry (Samurai) and English/French heavy cavalry (knights) with Iroquois warriors as scouts/skirmishers. I'd imagine that'd quite a formidable force to reckon with.

I'd just simply go with the Ottomans.
 
Well, if we can combine forces from different (pre-gunpowder) times, I would go with:

Heavy infantry -- Spartan hoplites (pre-Leuctra)
Medium infantry -- Roman legionaries (Marian to Augustan)
Heavy cavalry -- Sassanid elite cataphracts (Pushtigban bodyguards)
Medium cavalry -- Mongol elite warriors (Imperial guard)
Archers -- Welsh bowmen, but the Mongols were also outstanding archers
Engineers -- Romans again
 

Flame

Banned
Well, if we can combine forces from different (pre-gunpowder) times, I would go with:

Heavy infantry -- Spartan hoplites (pre-Leuctra)
Medium infantry -- Roman legionaries (Marian to Augustan)
Heavy cavalry -- Sassanid elite cataphracts (Pushtigban bodyguards)
Medium cavalry -- Mongol elite warriors (Imperial guard)
Archers -- Welsh bowmen, but the Mongols were also outstanding archers
Engineers -- Romans again

Hmmmm........ :rolleyes:
 
Well, if we can combine forces from different (pre-gunpowder) times, I would go with:

Heavy infantry -- Spartan hoplites (pre-Leuctra)
Medium infantry -- Roman legionaries (Marian to Augustan)
Heavy cavalry -- Sassanid elite cataphracts (Pushtigban bodyguards)
Medium cavalry -- Mongol elite warriors (Imperial guard)
Archers -- Welsh bowmen, but the Mongols were also outstanding archers
Engineers -- Romans again

what about the top brass?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, Caesar's Legion(s) would absolutely be a guaranteed for my heavy inf (pre-gunpowder, obv) Supported by some Macedonian Kataphractoi. If I were choosing gunpowder-era it would naturally have to be a regiment of Napoleon's Old Guard. Past that as far as 19th.ca units I would say any of the Canadian units who fought at Vimy :D

I'd like to see black powder split into breech loading and muzzle loading.

Polish Lancers(Chevau-Legers-Lanciers de la Garde Impériale), Chasseurs a Cheval, Empress' Dragoons and Horse Grenadiers?

The Austrian cavalry was pretty good.

Russian Imperial 1st and 2nd Guards Cavalry divisions?

The British cavalry, no... hear me out....were good in single units (poorly led, brigades+). A light dragoon unit even took out a SQUARE of French Imperial Guard at Waterloo.
 
Last edited:
Also, you seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between off-the-battlefield assassination (which nobody was talking about) and battlefield tactics that attempt to target the enemy commander. The latter, as stated in previous post, was one of Alexander's favorite tactical gambits, and one that would not work nearly as well against a Roman army as it did against the Persians of OTL.


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Alexander's common tactic was to hold the enemy with Phalanx and then use Hetairoi/Companion Cavalry for a wedge-shaped charge, and smashed into the center of the enemy line.
If Phillip V, Antiochus III, or Perseus used that tactic, the Romans won't have any chance to win, like their initial battles against Hannibal...
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Alexander's common tactic was to hold the enemy with Phalanx and then use Hetairoi/Companion Cavalry for a wedge-shaped charge, and smashed into the center of the enemy line.
the charge was generally on the left side (of the opposing army), not in the center.

If Phillip V, Antiochus III, or Perseus used that tactic, the Romans won't have any chance to win, like their initial battles against Hannibal...
But those were the post-Hannibalian Romans.
As a matter of fact, in one occasion (cynoscefale, I think) they defeated the phalanx exactly that way, reserving a contingent (of infantry, not cavalry) to attack the phalanx on a side while it was engaged frontally with the legions
 
Well, if we can combine forces from different (pre-gunpowder) times, I would go with:

Heavy cavalry -- Sassanid elite cataphracts (Pushtigban bodyguards)
Personally, I would not use any heavy cavalry that was around before the invention of the stirrup.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Alexander's common tactic was to hold the enemy with Phalanx and then use Hetairoi/Companion Cavalry for a wedge-shaped charge, and smashed into the center of the enemy line.
And said cavalry charge was frequently directed at the enemy commander's position and/or had decapitating the enemy force's command structure as one of its main objectives as at the battles of Gaugamela, Issus and to a lesser extent, Granicus. Against any army with a highly centralized command structure, that can be a very effective tactic; armies like the Persians did not have things like redundant command structures or well-trained NCO's. The Romans, on the other hand, did.
 

Don Grey

Banned
I'd just simply go with the Ottomans.

I have to agree even though rome was my favorite empire and i think the roman legions were cool. There are lots of people picking armies from the middle ages even though the ottos fought and outperformed almost all of them but the ottos are hardly chosen.

My choices would as seen below.

Medium to heavy infantry: janissaries all the way(lighter then knights but just as deadly if not more). If i must deversify i would be holy roman knights heavy armourd teutonics.

Heavy cavalry (shock troops): ottoman Qapukulu Gaurd if i must deversify then french heavy cavalry (knights) aswell.

Medium to heavy cavalry duel role cavalry: Sipahis all the way little known fact they were also very deadly horse archers one of the finest in there age if not the finest. hence the duel role.

Horse archers: see above. If i must diversify then mongol horse archers.

Light cavalry : Akıncılar (raiders) Turkish light cavalry comes with duel role also very deadly horse archers. Can also act as scouts mainly used as scouts harrasing enemies and fast raiders for raiding parties hence the name.

foot archers: janissary archers (composit bows).

Fear facter unites: Neftçiler (naffatuns) throws something similer to a molitov cocktail perposly designed to seep through joints in knights armour and cook them alive .

Now i need something to replace the gahzies and azabs so i will go with roman legions (i know over kill) but i dont know if they can go toe to toe with midevil soldiers ? Could roman legions and pretorian gaurds still be usefull in the middle ages? If some one can tell me that would be great.

Plus ive seen people put hoplite and phalanaxies. I a big fan of those if not just for there cool head gear but isnt there a reason those styles died out because they were to inflexible and become tacticaly useless. Arnt phalanaxies easy to defeat aslong as you arnt stupid enough to run straight into it i mean with cavalry flanking them and throwing spears or arrows beating a phalanax is like shooting fish in a berral. Correct me if im wrong guyz.
 
Plus ive seen people put hoplite and phalanaxies. I a big fan of those if not just for there cool head gear but isnt there a reason those styles died out because they were to inflexible and become tacticaly useless. Arnt phalanaxies easy to defeat aslong as you arnt stupid enough to run straight into it i mean with cavalry flanking them and throwing spears or arrows beating a phalanax is like shooting fish in a berral. Correct me if im wrong guyz.

No, you're absolutely right. Greece hoplites did have great difficulty maintaining unit cohesion, especially when advancing through broken terrain or performing complex maneuvers, mainly due to the heavy, cumbersome armour and limited to no peripheral vision. As a result, their 'tactics' consisted for the most part of lining up opposite each other and charging straight at the opposing force. (The one exception to this general rule were the Spartans, who through constant drill were able to perform relatively complex tactical maneuvers while still maintaining unit cohesion. This was one of the main reasons they were so feared by the other Greeks.) On the other hand, once they were face-to-face with any non-Greek enemy, the Greeks, with their heavy hoplite armour, were virtually untouchable.

That is why they would be best used as a part of a combined arms force in this thread, with both ends of their line protected by other, more mobile forces. In my own mix, they would act as a relatively immobile but very strong 'anvil' to the more mobile 'hammers' of the Romans and cataphracts.
 
Top