Flintlocks and Roman legions?

[dgharis]

How would armor have been affected? Most European states saw the gradual reduction of armoring their forces as guns became more prevalent. Would the romans have kept their traditional armors, modified or just got rid of them?

The Romans will keep their armor as long as it's effective against their enemies' weapons and tactics. OTL saw them gradually abandon the use of heavy armor for footsoldiers in the face of enemies with effective cavalry and horse archers in an attempt to remain as mobile as their opponents. The same will occur when their enemies start using firearms.

And if the Romans use firearms, their enemies will as well; they're not stupid. The same thing happened IOTL as the "barbarians" adopted Roman weapons and tactics; so much so that in battles fought in the fifth century an outside observer would have been hard pressed to tell the Roman army from its opponents.

 

[dgharis]

Incredibly unlikely given the way the tech works. Maybe for skirmishers before a crush begins, but it takes to long to reload properly for anything like the volley fire of Napoleonic Europe. They'd be more for effect than devastating power. Sure they'll kill people, maybe scare some into running, but not a game changer in and of itself. Closing and battling with enemy infantry will still be the rule of the day.

The Roman's developing the concept of the pistol just doesn't match with their stance in innovation and proper warfare. They might see it as a neat auxillery idea, but would be unlikely to adapt it beyond that for some time or until someone else came up with a better idea.

The Romans are not going to stand in neat lines and exchange musket fire with their opponents, no. That is not the Roman way. More the Highland way; fire your musket or pistol and then charge home with sword and shield. The Romans would fire a single volley at short range and then close in with their gladii. The advantage firearms give them is that at those ranges their musket and pistol balls will go right through the enemy's shield and armor, which will be extremely demoralizing to the survivors. (In many cultures the front line was the place of honor reserved for the best warriors, who were also the best armed and armored. Seeing them mowed down in a matter of seconds will definitely be unnerving to the men behind them.)

It's not that they allow the Romans to kill more efficiently; the Roman legion is already an efficient killing machine. It's the moral effect produced by their use that makes them desirable.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

The Romans are not going to stand in neat lines and exchange musket fire with their opponents, no. That is not the Roman way. More the Highland way; fire your musket or pistol and then charge home with sword and shield. The Romans would fire a single volley at short range and then close in with their gladii. The advantage firearms give them is that at those ranges their musket and pistol balls will go right through the enemy's shield and armor, which will be extremely demoralizing to the survivors. (In many cultures the front line was the place of honor reserved for the best warriors, who were also the best armed and armored. Seeing them mowed down in a matter of seconds will definitely be unnerving to the men behind them.)

It's not that they allow the Romans to kill more efficiently; the Roman legion is already an efficient killing machine. It's the moral effect produced by their use that makes them desirable.

The problem is that they will most likely not have developed that concept until their enemies have already adopted some of their tactics. They will probably be accepting the idea of hand cannon type weapons (making pistols is beyond them) only if someone else uses it first.

The second someone does that the Romans will want that edge. They'll refine and hone it till they have the best of it, and they certainly won't let it go. They just probably won't be the first to use it I think.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

A while back there was a discussion of Roman infantry vs Napoleonic era infantry. With only bayonets and a linen or woolen coat/shirt the Guardsmen had best not let the Roman cohort get within pilum throwing range.

 

[dgharis]

A while back there was a discussion of Roman infantry vs Napoleonic era infantry. With only bayonets and a linen or woolen coat/shirt the Guardsmen had best not let the Roman cohort get within pilum throwing range.

Or pistol/musket range in this case; once the Romans close in they have all the advantages. It would take well-trained and steady troops with plenty of ammunition (and decent artillery support) to defeat the Romans with firepower alone.

Bayonets? That effectively makes your musket double as a spear, and the Romans know how to defeat spearmen. The first rank pins the spears with their shields and the second rank passes through the first to attack the now defenseless spearmen.

Of course it wouldn't work out quite that neatly in practice, but once the Romans close in to melee range your musketeers will be slaughtered. Their only chance is to inflict enough casualties at range to deter the Romans from closing, which given their mindset is no easy task.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The problem is that they will most likely not have developed that concept until their enemies have already adopted some of their tactics. They will probably be accepting the idea of hand cannon type weapons (making pistols is beyond them) only if someone else uses it first.

The second someone does that the Romans will want that edge. They'll refine and hone it till they have the best of it, and they certainly won't let it go. They just probably won't be the first to use it I think.

So we give it to the Persians first. The Persians massacre a Roman army. The Roman army copies them. And vuala.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I wonder how steep a angle a Roman style shield would need to deflect a musket ball at 50 or 75 meters? The Brits made good use of the technique of keeping their ranks sitting or prone to reduce casualties from artillery and longer range musket fire. The Romans might try a variaton of the Testudo by kneeling with the shields acutely angled. That would also make it easier for archers or gunners with cannon to their rear to do their thing. When the enemy volleys the Romans sprint forward to pilum tossing range.

 

[dgharis]

I wonder how steep a angle a Roman style shield would need to deflect a musket ball at 50 or 75 meters? The Brits made good use of the technique of keeping their ranks sitting or prone to reduce casualties from artillery and longer range musket fire. The Romans might try a variaton of the Testudo by kneeling with the shields acutely angled. That would also make it easier for archers or gunners with cannon to their rear to do their thing. When the enemy volleys the Romans sprint forward to pilum tossing range.

The Roman scutum does not really need to be angled to deflect missiles; it's half an inch thick and curved to fit around the body.

http://legvi.tripod.com/id112.html

At longer ranges (100m or more) it would deflect missiles, including musket balls, very nicely. At short ranges the musket balls will penetrate, but then you're only going to get one shot before the Romans are on top of you.

And that is just what would happen; the Romans aren't going to bother with waiting for the musketeers to fire before charging in. That is not the Roman way. They will charge in, take the enemy's volley, answer with one of their own, then close in with their gladii to finish the job. Once they do the matter is already decided.

And that's a frontal assault over open ground, which gives the musketeers their best chance. If the Romans can approach from cover, or attack from the flank or rear, the result will be even more in their favor.

So how do you defend against the Romans?

Option one: Prepared defenses. If the Romans can't get across your ditch or over your wall they can't close in and the battle becomes a firefight in which your musketeers have the advantage.

Option two: Cavalry, preferably heavily armed and armored. The Romans cannot just charge straight in if there is a force of cavalry waiting to attack their flank or rear once they are engaged; they will have to deal with the cavalry first, which gives the musketeers more time to do their work.

Option three: Field artillery; lots of field artillery. With canister/grapeshot. Attacking over open ground against that would decimate the Romans before they got close enough to engage. They would have to maneuver to approach from cover or from a direction not covered by the artillery, which again gives the musketeers time to do their work.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

.... They would have to maneuver to approach from cover or from a direction not covered by the artillery, which again gives the musketeers time to do their work.

The Romans did learn the value of tactical manuver. One of the reasons the Centurion became a important leader in the legion.

 

[katchen]

I read somewhere that the Romans were working on steam siphons (sort of a boiler to build up a head of steam, then release abruptly). THAT could fire a projectile, though not as efficiently as gunpowder.
Siphons were used with petroleum (naptha) and wood resin to make Greek Fire. With some experimenting in carbeuration, what amounts to a crude gasoline cannon capable of firing a projectile rather than just the flame might be created. The Romans certainly had enough crude oil. They had deposits of crude in what is now Albania that are only now being redeveloped for modern oil production. So accelerated production of and experimentation with Greek Fire would probably be the quickest Roman path to something like gunpowder.
And a hand held weapon might actually be faster than a musket. Instead of the laborious dropping of the powder charge, drop the ball, ram it home, then set the slow match to the touch hole and hope it hasn't gone out, a naptha weapon would simply be drop the ball in, pump and trigger. Hard on the soldier if the gasoline can caught fire though.

 

[dgharis]

I read somewhere that the Romans were working on steam siphons (sort of a boiler to build up a head of steam, then release abruptly). THAT could fire a projectile, though not as efficiently as gunpowder.
Siphons were used with petroleum (naptha) and wood resin to make Greek Fire. With some experimenting in carbeuration, what amounts to a crude gasoline cannon capable of firing a projectile rather than just the flame might be created. The Romans certainly had enough crude oil. They had deposits of crude in what is now Albania that are only now being redeveloped for modern oil production. So accelerated production of and experimentation with Greek Fire would probably be the quickest Roman path to something like gunpowder.
And a hand held weapon might actually be faster than a musket. Instead of the laborious dropping of the powder charge, drop the ball, ram it home, then set the slow match to the touch hole and hope it hasn't gone out, a naptha weapon would simply be drop the ball in, pump and trigger. Hard on the soldier if the gasoline can caught fire though.

Such a weapon would be complex, expensive, and as dangerous to the user as to the enemy; next to that a black powder musket is a model of safety, efficiency, and reliability. The Romans are unlikely to develop, let alone use, something like that for a battlefield weapon.

There is also the problem that refining and transporting the fuel is no trivial task; next to that the production of gunpowder is child's play. Petroleum refining, even at its simplest, requires bulky and complex equipment; gunpowder can be produced with kitchen utensils.

The only thing stopping the Romans from using gunpowder weapons is the knowledge needed; once they have that, the weapons and tactics will follow.

 

[Kongzilla]

How would the Romans perform against the Barbarian invasions that ended the Western Empire if their legions were armed with Muskets.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

How would the Romans perform against the Barbarian invasions that ended the Western Empire if their legions were armed with Muskets.

Bought the same as before since the political and economic turmoil that brought them down wasn't going to be staved off by black powder

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Bought the same as before since the political and economic turmoil that brought them down wasn't going to be staved off by black powder

Yeah, but the Romans would have weapons capable of scaring the shit out of them. That alone might be good enough to keep them on the other side of the Rhine.

 

[katchen]

The best experimental chemist in the Late Ancient World, and someone who might have figured out gunpowder (a real butterfly if he had) was MithraditesIV, the Poison King of Pontus, who fought against and lost to Sulla. If he had puzzled out gunpowder, he most likely would have first used it against the Romans in crude land mines and mortars, setting them off after getting Sulla's legion to walk on top of them.

 

[Alex1guy]

Bought the same as before since the political and economic turmoil that brought them down wasn't going to be staved off by black powder

This basically, probably means the legions fighting each other during the strife would inflict more casualties one each other.

 

[Elfwine]

Yeah, but the Romans would have weapons capable of scaring the shit out of them. That alone might be good enough to keep them on the other side of the Rhine.

Do you really think that if the Romans can keep the "barbarians" from having muskets of their own?

Either built on their own or stolen/bought from Rome.

The scare factor of guns is also only an issue when its a strange weapon - if the legions have had guns for two centuries, it won't shock anyone any more (might scare horses, but not warriors).

 

[Kongzilla]

The best experimental chemist in the Late Ancient World, and someone who might have figured out gunpowder (a real butterfly if he had) was MithraditesIV, the Poison King of Pontus, who fought against and lost to Sulla. If he had puzzled out gunpowder, he most likely would have first used it against the Romans in crude land mines and mortars, setting them off after getting Sulla's legion to walk on top of them.

Does that mean that black powder is immediately seen as useful and militarily valuable instead of puttering around with it on their own.

 

[Basileus444]

The Roman scutum does not really need to be angled to deflect missiles; it's half an inch thick and curved to fit around the body.

http://legvi.tripod.com/id112.html

At longer ranges (100m or more) it would deflect missiles, including musket balls, very nicely. At short ranges the musket balls will penetrate, but then you're only going to get one shot before the Romans are on top of you.

And that is just what would happen; the Romans aren't going to bother with waiting for the musketeers to fire before charging in. That is not the Roman way. They will charge in, take the enemy's volley, answer with one of their own, then close in with their gladii to finish the job. Once they do the matter is already decided.

And that's a frontal assault over open ground, which gives the musketeers their best chance. If the Romans can approach from cover, or attack from the flank or rear, the result will be even more in their favor.

So how do you defend against the Romans?

Option one: Prepared defenses. If the Romans can't get across your ditch or over your wall they can't close in and the battle becomes a firefight in which your musketeers have the advantage.

Option two: Cavalry, preferably heavily armed and armored. The Romans cannot just charge straight in if there is a force of cavalry waiting to attack their flank or rear once they are engaged; they will have to deal with the cavalry first, which gives the musketeers more time to do their work.

Option three: Field artillery; lots of field artillery. With canister/grapeshot. Attacking over open ground against that would decimate the Romans before they got close enough to engage. They would have to maneuver to approach from cover or from a direction not covered by the artillery, which again gives the musketeers time to do their work.

So a Roman army against an actual Napoleonic army gets its butt handed to it.

 

[Kongzilla]

Can the Romans use some kind of Fireworks to communicate. Red Means barbarian invasion, Green means raiding party etc etc so that they can communicate faster.