In battle how would an Imperial Roman legion do against a 11th century medieval army?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
Depends the situation, but keep in mind that neither legions represented your "average" Roman army, and that classical medieval armies never really reached the same numbers than a classical or late roman army.
Assuming we're talking about "elites" of both sides in similar numbers, it's still going to be hugely different when it come to situations.
In open battle, the main problem of Romans would be the medieval cavalry : IOTL cavalries were already a reason for Roman army to evolve, but there they would have to deal with an heavy cavalry using stirrups.
That's not going to be pretty. At all.
Romans may beneficy from tactical superiority (which may not be obvious : they would never have encountered such tactics or equipment), but at best, it would be a stalemate forcing them to withdraw in order, IMO.
When it'd come to siege warfare, however...Medieval armies in the XIth still didn't beneficied from the experience of Crusades or fully get the Arabo-Islamic transmission of hellenistic poliorcetic. Whatever as attackers or defenders, Romans would have the tactical and material advantage.
Would have been an army of the XIIIth or even the XIIth, things may have been different (more balanced), but there Romans are clear winners, not even a challenge.
Assuming we're talking about "elites" of both sides in similar numbers, it's still going to be hugely different when it come to situations.
In open battle, the main problem of Romans would be the medieval cavalry : IOTL cavalries were already a reason for Roman army to evolve, but there they would have to deal with an heavy cavalry using stirrups.
That's not going to be pretty. At all.
Romans may beneficy from tactical superiority (which may not be obvious : they would never have encountered such tactics or equipment), but at best, it would be a stalemate forcing them to withdraw in order, IMO.
When it'd come to siege warfare, however...Medieval armies in the XIth still didn't beneficied from the experience of Crusades or fully get the Arabo-Islamic transmission of hellenistic poliorcetic. Whatever as attackers or defenders, Romans would have the tactical and material advantage.
Would have been an army of the XIIIth or even the XIIth, things may have been different (more balanced), but there Romans are clear winners, not even a challenge.
RodentRevolution
Banned
The first rule of shock cavalry against formed infantry who don't intend to run away is don't. The second rule of shock cavalry against formed infantry who don't intend to run away is seriously don't. The third rule of shock cavalry against formed infantry who don't intend to run away is...really who do you think you are Custer?
In theory at least a professional, moderately veteran legion of the Principate should have the advantage over...well to be blunt a hell of a lot of opponents. That said the 11th Century on Earth did see several reasonably well disciplined and effective infantry forces plus a wide variety of missile armed cavalry.
A good 11th Century commander playing to the strengths of their forces has a reasonable chance in a campaign of manoeuvre. If however he was required by circumstances to break them in a single battle it would be problematic. If there was one thing the legions of the Principate lacked it was leadership experience at the highest level of command but they had (literally in the form of military manuals) a really good play book and had encountered early versions of all the troops they would meet in the 11th Century.
Essentially apart from a improvements in the manufacture of weapons and armour the weapons themselves were the same and thus the tactics and stratagems were the same. However the Roman legions were never invincible just very, very tough to break down most days. An 11th century army with the right tools and which tools those were varies depending on the terrain and the objectives of the competing forces would have a perfectly good chance of victory but the long service experience and discipline of the legionaries would count for a lot and keep them competitive.
Actually, it should be "don't, unless you go for the flanks or that you're sure enough about "opening the can"". Given the tactical flexibility of XIth heavy cavalry, it's something largely doable.
It may be shocking, but Romans weren't supermen. Again, the steppe cavalry and persians cataphracts proved being a serious issue for Romans (there's exemple of legions being routed, as in Carrhae) and eventually asked them to adapt.
XIth cavalry is basically cataphracts on steroids (stirrup, heavy armor, charge tactics), and I can't really say how they would be less effective to deal with Romans than Persian were.
In its time, that's certain. However, we're talking of opposing an army that beneficied from technological (material and immaterial) advences, there. As much XIth cavalry could have experience of heavy infantry (while not generally, of course), Romans would have little from XIth tactics for the good reason they weren't technically doable in ther time.
It wasn't much of a problem in medieval battles (or was, depending on your point of view). Open battles were rare, even more so decisive open battles where siege warfare was at least 2/3 of a war. Hence why I said it was heavily situation-dependent.
And that's where Romans could get the obvious advantage : XIth poliorcetic didn't advanced much since Roman times in western Middle Ages, and generally lacked the experience that Romans had. You really have to wait Crusades to see something more skilled in Western Europe. (Of course, if we're talking about the very late XIth century, you had people as Gaston de Bearn, that became some sort of specialist of siege engines, but I think it's better if we talk about mid-XIth)
Would it be for only one thing, the stirrup, your statement would be wrong. Opponents of classical Roman armies never had the stability and strength penetration XIth cavalry had.
One could mention tactical advances as well, with a more important polyvalence, as great battles of the XIth can point out, than classical cavalry.
RodentRevolution
Banned
No my statement is correct. The key area of both strength and weakness in cavalry is the horse. Horses are not stupid, you cannot appeal to their patriotism they will not impale themselves on spikes willing at all. There is no strength of penetration as penetration does not occur at all. This is why the bayonet was an effective weapon. The lance still had by far the greatest reach of any melee weapon save the pike and yet lancers could not drive into the face of formed infantry wielding bayonets.
You are correct that the flanks of a formation are more vulnerable but again this down as much to psychology as to physical factors. The infantry square worked against cavalry because the infantry presented no apparent flank to the horses. Horses will charge where they see a gap.
However the Romans travelled across battlefields in deeper formations than C19th infantry and so can form more quickly to face apparent threats from a new direction. That said neither side is perfectly sure of the outcome here, canny cavalry commander could catch legionaries by (tactical) surprise but neither is he guaranteed a flank to exploit especially given the likely contraints of terrain.
Knights were no more immune to the constraints of horse psychology than any other cavalry force as they found on numerous occasion such as Hastings or later even heavier cavalry against the Flemish pikemen. If infantry hold their formation and do not run away then cavalry cannot break them. The infantry must be lured into over extending themselves and breaking their own formation if cavalry are to win by using their superior mobility.
RodentRevolution
Banned
Save there the USians would speak the same language Basil spoke Greek, however yes his would be one of the armies that ought to do well against a legion depending on circumstances.
His infantry were of lesser quality due to inferior training and likely experience but they did have the means to put up an adequate fight, his cavalry though were good and disciplined and he had lots of various kinds of missile troops. All in all he should be able to force circumstances where by a legion would break. Combined arms was the great strength of the Byzantine armies when they worked well.
One thing that comes to mind, is Catalan infantry serving in the Byzantine Empire were supposedly armed in a similar manner to Roman infantry, with short swords and javelins, though fighting as skirmishers and light infantry. They made a decent enough showing in the 14th century to conquer a duchy.
Though again, light infantry and completely different background. Not a perfect comparison by any means. Just something that might have bared mentioning.
Though again, light infantry and completely different background. Not a perfect comparison by any means. Just something that might have bared mentioning.
I'm sorry, but in spite of (good) arguments, you're simply handwaving what basically made cavalry dominating the battlefield for centuries, while Romans prooved not being immune to heavy charges, with arguing that they saw that before.
And still, you have countless charges of cavalery on infantry, or spiked fortifications trough History. I could mention, for the XIth century, Norman cavalry at Hastings against a shieldwall with spears : the charges were unsuccessful when it came to break it, but the fact is horses didn't stopped to wonder "hey, am I doing something I wouldn't want to" before, and it was done several times.
You could make a comparison with the Persian cataphract charge at Carrhae as well, and how it ended for Romans, as well although it highlight the need of preparing the charges.
I think you eventually underestimate the importance of horse training there : even if it's not "its interest", it can be trained relatively easily to still charge.
It should be pointed out, furthermore, that the classical Roman army stopped widely used pikes (the late Roman army would turn back to these, mostly because of a more important cavalry used by its opponents), but projecting spears (that could be used, as saturation, against a charge, of course but I'd think it would be less efficient overall.).
The point is less would horses charge against projecting spears, but how many charges could be attempted before one or the other side decide to call it a day.
Giving that, if we're talking about classical Roman army, there's still no bayonets, I'm not sure I see the point.
Not that this absence is a radical weakness for Romans : if the battle of Civitate is any indication, it points that swordmanship could be a real problem even for horsemen, with any dedication.
And that's where harassment by cavalry plays its role : giving enough time (critically if prepared), it can "open the can", would it be only by forcing horsemen to get dismounted and surrounding the testudo or the orbis (the main problem of these formations).
The problem of Roman anti-cavalry formations were their lack of tactical flexibility. No matter how disciplined the troops were, it simply takes enough time to re-organize it for that feints can be a real issue on this matter.
And I think it's actually the point that should be debated : how long this formation could be held. Shield walls formations are essentially defensive and can't be held forever.
How long until one side calls it a day before his army breaks : Romans being more dependent on their formation to make a stalemate, it's going to be more problematic for them.
These are important elements, I agree, but harassment and shock, for the aformentioned reason, are to play as well. As long Romans can't take the initiative, they won't really be able to push for victory, while they can reach a stalemate.
All depends of the composition of the army and who leads them : are we going for the best of the best of each army, including command? Then it's gonna be hard for both sides, admittedly.
Are we going for the "average" for each side, including command? Things would be significantly less balanced, IMO.
RodentRevolution
Banned
We started off talking about stiruups
If I am handwaving why have I been able to cite an example that proves my point and you have been able to cite an example that proves my point rather than an example that shows cavalry (with stirrups) riding down formed infantry in their ranks?
Why not?
Because there is not one.
The point of the bayonet is clearly lost on LSCatilina but surely most folks should see that if a shorter weapon could provide defence against a longer weapon then something was going other than the purely mechanical. Plus the fact that the Romans legionaries had pila which were long and spiky too and look a lot like spears to most folks. Failing that though a gladius will have roughly the same apparent reach as a bayonet.
The key factor is discipline, training and the objective being sought. If the Roman legionaries are able to manoeuvre in good order to reach their objective they will typically win. If not then the other side has the better chance.
As to staying power infantry typically have greater staying power than horses due to the impact of human biology versus horse biology, humans having descended from part predators can go much longer without feeding before suffering deleterious results. Again though the exact circumstances will depend on the supply/forage situation of the rival forces.
What we have is a situation ruled by the circumstances on the battlefield and not by any super weapon, certainly not heavy cavalry. Shock action by cavalry remained effective where disciplined infantry were lacking and against cavalry. Once infantry trained in formation and manoeuvre returned to the battlefield of western Europe cavalry was quickly marginalised again. Funnily enough though throughout the period of supposed cavalry dominance we come across instances of formed infantry beating heavy cavalry.
It was the discipline and cohesion of the Roman legion that made it dangerous not its particular weapons. It success will depend on the circumstances and most importantly upon the discipline, effective and timely deployment and cohesion of its enemies. The stirrup's presence will have nothing to do with it.
If I am handwaving why have I been able to cite an example that proves my point and you have been able to cite an example that proves my point rather than an example that shows cavalry (with stirrups) riding down formed infantry in their ranks?
Why not?
Because there is not one.
The point of the bayonet is clearly lost on LSCatilina but surely most folks should see that if a shorter weapon could provide defence against a longer weapon then something was going other than the purely mechanical. Plus the fact that the Romans legionaries had pila which were long and spiky too and look a lot like spears to most folks. Failing that though a gladius will have roughly the same apparent reach as a bayonet.
The key factor is discipline, training and the objective being sought. If the Roman legionaries are able to manoeuvre in good order to reach their objective they will typically win. If not then the other side has the better chance.
As to staying power infantry typically have greater staying power than horses due to the impact of human biology versus horse biology, humans having descended from part predators can go much longer without feeding before suffering deleterious results. Again though the exact circumstances will depend on the supply/forage situation of the rival forces.
What we have is a situation ruled by the circumstances on the battlefield and not by any super weapon, certainly not heavy cavalry. Shock action by cavalry remained effective where disciplined infantry were lacking and against cavalry. Once infantry trained in formation and manoeuvre returned to the battlefield of western Europe cavalry was quickly marginalised again. Funnily enough though throughout the period of supposed cavalry dominance we come across instances of formed infantry beating heavy cavalry.
It was the discipline and cohesion of the Roman legion that made it dangerous not its particular weapons. It success will depend on the circumstances and most importantly upon the discipline, effective and timely deployment and cohesion of its enemies. The stirrup's presence will have nothing to do with it.
You didn't : you said Roman infantry encountered such tactic before, and that regardless of equipment, horses wouldn't charge which still happened historically.
You then mentioned Flemish militias, which are a different case, giving they were actually equiped with pikes and specifically built to an anti-cavalry warfare.
Again, you said that cavalry couldn't charge ranked infantry because horses would never do such thing. I pointed that there was no such issue with horses in Hastings or Carrhae.
But again, please explain how bayonets apply to the classical Roman army, that at my knowledge weren't equipped with such thing.
Bayonet's use mostly appeared with the final decline (if not disappearance) of heavy cavalry's lancers at the benefit of dragoons, light cavalry and heavy cavalry fighting with short weapons.
Looking like a spear doesn't mean being a spear : namely the weight of the pilum, and its propension to break off easily (which is actually the whole point of the pilum : once broken by the middle not only the ennemy couldn't send it back, but it still handicapped greatly if planted on a shield or armor, and even more in a body)
Actually longer, if we're talking of the imperial gladius (50/70 cm against 30cm for the bayonet).
But there's some difficulties : imperial gladii were more slashing weapons than piercing (even if it was doable technically speaking, but the usage if the weapon wouldn't make it as easy), and the bayonet beneficied from a longer reach thanks to a staff or weapon it was placed onto.
Not that swords couldn't be used efficiently against cavalry, I pointed that above, but to say they can replace a pike tactic...That's a leap of faith.
Which bring an interesting question, when it comes to this ideal battle : what would be the objective? A given number of losses? Total takeover?
It may be true, but can I ask for sources about this?
I'd point, furthermore, that battles involving charges against ranked infantry (again, Hastings is a good exemple) had pauses for both sides for "eating time".
So far, nobody having argued that : I agree. But the nature of such OP makes contextualisation hard.
That's actually a mistake : heavy cavalry never really went in disfavour with with the reintroduction of heavy infantry by the XIIIth century. In fact, you have period where heavy cavalry returned to numerical dominance on battlefields (namely the late XIVth century and XVth centuries : even in places traditionally associated with urban militias, such as Italy)
Or the reverse. We could list all occurences of each case all day.
True, but you can't wholly separate them : even the most disciplined of legionnaries would have an hard time adapting fully with a set of weapons that are more polyvalent than specialized.
It allows more reactive tactical adaptation for the attacker, as well as more quick sudden move (as for feints) : for a battle that would be based on tactics, it's far from being a minor point.
In such a situation, I would imagine that in 9 out of 10 situations the first thing the western European knights would do would be to launch a head-long charge into the enemy formation, as was custom (and with a predictable outcome). Surely those demon-worshipers are no match for the warriors of Christ, right?
Saphroneth
Banned
Given how Richard the Lionheart's major tactical innovation was managing to get his knights to NOT charge... probably.
Deleted member 1487
Clearly you've never heard of a zombie or skeleton army. They were critically important in history
RodentRevolution
Banned
If you can say that cavalry dominated for centuries I can describe them as being marginalised.
The key problem here is you have one notion of what went on, on a battlefield and I have another but there is an easy way to test this. If you are right then the Polish lancers should have swept a significant number of infantry squares from the battlefield and the Curassiers of the Guard adopted the lance.
There was actually a method of breaking the square. If the cavalry could time their charge so that the infantry fired too late then dead and injured horses would collide with the troops of the square. No human can physically resist a half ton of horse flesh impacting into them and thus the ranks would be broken and cavalry who were uninjured could break into the square.
Cavalry of the KGL did it on at least one occasion in the Peninsula campaign. Aficionados of cavalry can probably cite other events
Yet why did this require dead horses when you maintain live ones will do it. They did so at Hastings you claim. How then could the Saxons stand?
Perhaps what rather happened is the cavalry charged up to the position of the Saxons and then lost momentum as their horses shied away from contact. There was no penetration but instead a fairly static melee fight in which the footsoldiers, despite mostly comprising under equipped fyrd had the advantage.
My explanation has the advantage of explaining why the infantry square worked and was not simply countered by giving the Curassiers of the Guard lances as they were as effectively armoured as most 11th century knights.
It explains what happened at Carrhae where horse archers were employed to harass the legionaries until they broke formation and then and only then were they ridden down by lance armed cataphracts.
It explains Hasting where the Saxons held Senlac Hill but suffered their first loses when they were induced to come forwards in disordered detachments from the main army.
Now as to the rest of your argument I think we are in alignment an awful lot of will depend on the exact circumstances as we do have records of cavalry catching infantry in disorder and the results are not pretty.
I will see if I can find a good specific source on how long a working horse can go without feeding and probably will need to find another for humans. It is true that fodder can be brought up for the horses but one disadvantage of cavalry is that a horse will need roughly three times the weight in food as a man for a given time frame.
Do not get me wrong, shock cavalry can beat legionaries given the right chance...my objection is that there was no new cavalry super power to simply blast them off the battlefield.
Saphroneth
Banned
I think I would sum it up thusly:
For an infantry force to stand against a heavy cavalry charge requires iron discipline - any weakness in the line and the charge will smash right through.
The pike makes it much easier to hold, the stirrup lowers the threshold at which the charge can bite. The lance means that an attack that does NOT go right through can still do some damage because the lance will hit before the horse falters.
The contention, then, is if the Roman Principate infantry are sufficiently disciplined that they can hold against the charge - AND, separately, if they're well enough armed and equipped that they can hold out in the standing fight. (A four metre well braced lance is potentially quite dangerous in a standing fight.)
The heavy cavalry can also charge in again and again. Tricky one.
For an infantry force to stand against a heavy cavalry charge requires iron discipline - any weakness in the line and the charge will smash right through.
The pike makes it much easier to hold, the stirrup lowers the threshold at which the charge can bite. The lance means that an attack that does NOT go right through can still do some damage because the lance will hit before the horse falters.
The contention, then, is if the Roman Principate infantry are sufficiently disciplined that they can hold against the charge - AND, separately, if they're well enough armed and equipped that they can hold out in the standing fight. (A four metre well braced lance is potentially quite dangerous in a standing fight.)
The heavy cavalry can also charge in again and again. Tricky one.
RodentRevolution
Banned
If the fight becomes a standing one at any point then it not a question of the legionaries holding off but of how many horsemen can break loose? Cavalry without momentum is vulnerable, the legions would as happily chop horses up as men and did so. A deep formation would actually work against the cavalry force here as it means that the ranks in contact would be unable to disengage until those behind them had retired.
A cavalry force with the discipline and morale and moreover the command and control and drill required to initiate a series of mobile actions would be significantly dangerous to a legion type array even if it should expect the majority, up and including all of them potentially, to be rebuffed. That however required an awful lot of skilled handling by its commander.