In battle how would an Imperial Roman legion do against a 11th century medieval army?

[Richter von Manthofen]

I get the Feeling than some of you don't know what makes up a 11th century European army.

Hastings was brought up, so I get there too.

The army oy William (no definite numbers known) is estimated around 7000+ (12.000?) men - probably half infantry, a quarter Archers and a quarter cavalry. THose are not Knights in full plate, but mostly chainmail (elbow length) and helmet -same for infantry. Weapons included a Lance and sword + shield for cavalry, sometimes a mace. Infantry sword, shield and Javelins and spear. Bowmen were not armored and had usually a simple bow (no Longbow or Composite bow).

The Anglo-Saxon army (7000-8000) was all infantry split into Carls and fyrd. Carls had usually also chainmail and helmet and most used the saxon axe. the fyrd was usually lightly armoured and used a wide range of different weapons inluding swords, spears, javelins and bows. They usually formed a shieldwall.

The similar sized Roman Legion (5500 men core Legion + like number of auxillary troops) was equipped with chain- or scale mail or a segmented cuirass - + helmet + shield. Weapons were the Gladius and usually 2 pilae.

Auxillary Units were more different and included archers.

Based on this the Equipment and numbers matched for both sides (Romans vs "Knights").

I favor the Legion based on the ability to "dig in" and discipline.

 

[Karolus Rex]

A roman legion alone couldn't be part of a military campaign, because of their lack of missile, cavalry and spear troops, so i'm considering the Roman Army on this field would be like this:
-a full legion
-two alae quingenaria of batavian cavalry
-3 auxiliary cohorts
-2 sagitarii cohorts

That makes a total of 5300 legionaries, 120 scouts, 960 cavalry, 1440 auxiliary and 960 archers making a total of 8860 men, which would be the force that you could find available to a legatus on the border of the empire. I'm considering that the number of men in the auxiliary units is 480 per unit.

The medieval army of the middle-late 11th century would be a bit like this (i'm using the Normand army on this section since it would probably be the best one in the late 11th century, i think that because of their ability to have conquered England, south Italy/Sicily and their achievements in the crusades)

-3000 cavalry
-3000 missile troops
-6000 infantry

That makes a total of 12000 men, the same force the duke of Normandy put on the field to conquer England.


So we have a roman army of 8860 men against a medieval army of 12000 men.

Roman advantages: equipment with better quality, best disciplined infantry, aggressive tactics design to destroy the enemy, experience, having more infantry than the enemy.

Medieval advantages: better cavalry with better equipment (stirrup), advantage in numbers of cavalry and missile troops;

Lets assume the romans are forced to give battle in the open ground.

The first thing they would do is form a double line with their infantry, cavalry in the flanks, inf auxiliary hidden behind the cavalry and the archers would be behind the auxiliary lines.

The opposition would probably deploy like this archers in the front, followed by the infantry formed in one single line, with cavalry in the flanks.

The first move would be from the the normand cavalry, that would advance in a disciplined 2 line formation ready to face their roman counterparts, while the rest of the army would advance to face the roman infantry.

The legion would form a testudo to protect themselves from the archers, while their own archers would be saving their ammunition.

After the missile attack i guess the romans would lose probably less then 400 men thanks to their formation and the heavy armor, but lets say they lose 500-700 men, a full cohort plus one or two centuries. Now the medieval infantry would advance, the romans would reorganized themselves to and would use their pilum to break the charging infantry. Now half a legion, 2300 men counting the 700 losses, trowing two pilum each men would, make 4600 spears shoot at the enemy, at point-blank range, considering that half would it the enemy, and form that half, half would it the enemy shields, that makes 1150 casualties, either wounded or dead.

While the roman infantry begins their confrontation with the enemy infantry, the normand cavalry would easily disband the alae of axuliary cavalry, only to find a wall of spears behind their foe, and a hail of arrows coming from the roman auxiliary archers, and retreat to reorganize themselves to another charge.

The medieval infantry quickly routs, after facing the roman legionaries. The auxiliary form a hollow square to face the normand cavalry while the archers would hide inside the square (considering that 2000 normands remain, on horseback of course), while the normands try to break the square, what they achieve after suffering high casualties, only to find the legionaries on their rear.

The battle ends with a roman victory.

Casualties:

Roman - 1000-1300 legionaries dead or wounded, all their cavalry his either dead, wounded or routed, the auxiliary infantry suffers 800-1000 casualties and the archers lose 400-600 men, making a total of 3160-3860 casualties.

Medieval army - 2300-3000 infantry killed or wounded, the archers suffer light casualties for not having engage in pitched battle so most dead archers would be near to 0, the normands are either all dead or wounded, making a total of 5300-6000 deaths.

If i made any mistake please point it out, and i hope this helps.


P.S. i could have used the byzantine army, but they considered themselves Romans, and when you said medieval i assumed it is an western European army

 

[Saphroneth]

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.

I'm not so sure - in a melee the cavalryman has advantages to offset his disadvantages, and I think this is the point horses were large enough to armour. More to the point, though, "standing fight" here refers to the armoured horsemen attacking the front of the formation with things like maces or longswords or even lances - not riding into the Legionary mass.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I'm not so sure - in a melee the cavalryman has advantages to offset his disadvantages, and I think this is the point horses were large enough to armour. More to the point, though, "standing fight" here refers to the armoured horsemen attacking the front of the formation with things like maces or longswords or even lances - not riding into the Legionary mass.

You know how rude boys lift up women's skirts? Well the Legionaries would be equally rude to the horse. Which is not say our 11th century clibanarii/cataphracts would be doing nothing while this was going but once they have lost their momentum they would be on the defensive until they could break away. Otherwise any gap would be closed as legion infantry or as some people are pointing out their auxiliaries if the ISOTed Romans are allowed in divisional strength or simply recruit from the new natives, know full well the weaknesses of cavalry.

 

[Saphroneth]

You know how rude boys lift up women's skirts? Well the Legionaries would be equally rude to the horse. Which is not say our 11th century clibanarii/cataphracts would be doing nothing while this was going but once they have lost their momentum they would be on the defensive until they could break away. Otherwise any gap would be closed as legion infantry or as some people are pointing out their auxiliaries if the ISOTed Romans are allowed in divisional strength or simply recruit from the new natives, know full well the weaknesses of cavalry.

I'm sure they would do. It's just that it wouldn't be a one way street - in fact, given the way that lances basically involve imparting the momentum of a charging horse and rider (call it over half a ton at thirty miles an hour?) to some poor sap, that's going to cause disruption to the line.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I'm sure they would do. It's just that it wouldn't be a one way street - in fact, given the way that lances basically involve imparting the momentum of a charging horse and rider (call it over half a ton at thirty miles an hour?) to some poor sap, that's going to cause disruption to the line.

Well the lance is the sticking point...or lack of it. As I pointed out Polish lancers in the C18th/19th did not automatically break squares and yet they were facing unarmoured men armed with essentially sharp pointy sticks (okay iron tipped sharp pointy sticks but nothing like the reach of a twelve foot lance). This strongly suggests that the natural point at which a horse decides to slow down its charge is somewhere beyond the culmination point of the lance. Which would suggest it would have an effect on 11th century cavalry too.

Now the key question would be would the infantry be able to come forwards once the cavalry had stopped but before they retired? Or would the cavalry men being sporting types try and edge their horses closer to the line to clash steel (or at least case hardened iron) ?

In an attritional fight then the numbers and moral on both sides are the decisive issues but in all likelihood the infantry have the advantage because they came cram two or more cutters or stabbers for every cavalryman at the contact point, the horses are not completely useless as by the 11th Century warhorse breeds are well established but not the equal of an extra man in a fight.

 

[ennobee]

Of course we're assuming the Romans would be up against 100 knights innshining armor.

...while we're actually talking about the 11th century. A more realistic image would be the battle of Hastings either being fought between William the Conqueror and his Normans making landfall in front of ...let's say Hadrian and his V-th Legion... Or otherwise, Hadrian and his V-th Legion invading Britain and being welcomed by Harald Godwinson and his huscarls.

 

[Namayan]

The medieval army of the middle-late 11th century would be a bit like this (i'm using the Normand army on this section since it would probably be the best one in the late 11th century, i think that because of their ability to have conquered England, south Italy/Sicily and their achievements in the crusades)

Isnt the best army in Europe during that time, Roman as well?

I find it entertaining that the OP never specified to be Western European Army but rather European army. However, everyone keeps going back to Western European army.

 

[takerma]

Biggest Roman strength is flexibility, their best bet is not seeking a on open field battle but attacking on the move seeking utilize their far superior unit organization to catch Medieval army before it can form for battle.

In a standup battle gear will probably favour Medieval army somewhat. However Roman units can act as actual units. They are a completely professional army, while their medieval counterpart is only partially professional they lack NCOs and low rank officers to control smaller units of men. Still both sides(if this is Normans we are talking about) would be hugely experienced and nothing will be easy. A lot of will depend on individual commanders, terrain and luck.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Isnt the best army in Europe during that time, Roman as well?

I find it entertaining that the OP never specified to be Western European Army but rather European army. However, everyone keeps going back to Western European army.

Cos everyone knows the Byzanrtines would cheat, they probably would not fight at all but bribe the ISOTed Legionaries over to their side or if they were the ones ISOTed then they would sign up for the Roman army...of course if it came down to an argument over who was more Roman then all bets are off

 

[RGB]

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.

The bayonet was overall a pretty poor compromise weapon. The real strength of Napoleonic infantry was inter-supporting musketry (where a lancer coming in, one man deep in a line, would face about ten musket balls each, typically). Napoleonic cavalry in echelons could and did break through into squares, sometimes spectacularly, especially in battles where it was raining heavily (which impacted musketry) - and when they did it became slaughter, because outside the psychological effect the bayonet is a poor individual weapon.

I mean, hell, having one guy run too close to the musket line and then have his dead horse tumble through the defending ranks was occasionally enough to smash up a square even with muskets working just fine. Of course that means you'd need someone suicidal on a horse facing infantry with poor fire control, but it happens.

Not to mention that 11th c. heavy cavalry, just like you'd expect, rarely committed themselves all at once, instead doing multiple charges and retreats until they saw a real opening, as well as aiming on hitting corners of the formation (where the horsemen come closest to 1:1 in numbers to infantry). If 4th/5th c. cavalry found ways to smash up the Romans, I'm sure it's not too much to ask from 11th c. counterparts.

Is it guaranteed? No. Is it possible? Very.

 

[RodentRevolution]

The bayonet was overall a pretty poor compromise weapon. The real strength of Napoleonic infantry was inter-supporting musketry (where a lancer coming in, one man deep in a line, would face about ten musket balls each, typically). Napoleonic cavalry in echelons could and did break through into squares, sometimes spectacularly, especially in battles where it was raining heavily (which impacted musketry) - and when they did it became slaughter, because outside the psychological effect the bayonet is a poor individual weapon.

I mean, hell, having one guy run too close to the musket line and then have his dead horse tumble through the defending ranks was occasionally enough to smash up a square even with muskets working just fine. Of course that means you'd need someone suicidal on a horse facing infantry with poor fire control, but it happens.

Not to mention that 11th c. heavy cavalry, just like you'd expect, rarely committed themselves all at once, instead doing multiple charges and retreats until they saw a real opening, as well as aiming on hitting corners of the formation (where the horsemen come closest to 1:1 in numbers to infantry). If 4th/5th c. cavalry found ways to smash up the Romans, I'm sure it's not too much to ask from 11th c. counterparts.

Is it guaranteed? No. Is it possible? Very.

I don't think we are in disagreement, you need to go back and read my earlier posts in this thread.

 

[Namayan]

Not to mention that 11th c. heavy cavalry, just like you'd expect, rarely committed themselves all at once, instead doing multiple charges and retreats until they saw a real opening, as well as aiming on hitting corners of the formation (where the horsemen come closest to 1:1 in numbers to infantry). If 4th/5th c. cavalry found ways to smash up the Romans, I'm sure it's not too much to ask from 11th c. counterparts.

Is it guaranteed? No. Is it possible? Very.

Very disciplined of the cavalry you have there. And very tactical and strategic of someone to do that. Since the OP is talking about European army not Western European army. I agree with you.

 

[eliphas8]

Isnt the best army in Europe during that time, Roman as well?

I find it entertaining that the OP never specified to be Western European Army but rather European army. However, everyone keeps going back to Western European army.

For most of the eleventh century the eastern Roman army was filled with questionable foreign mercenaries and weakened so as to eliminate its political influence. The fortunes of the empire rose and fell many times over the course of its history, this was a waning period for roman military power, where they permanently lost control of large sections of their Anatolian heartland.

 

[Agricola]

Roman imperial legion almost never fought a battle. It was almost always a roman exercitus, which is a mixed force of heavy infantry (legio), light infantry including archers and light cavalry (auxilia). Well, medival cavalry armies were also supported by light infantry but the archery part was not that strong in the 11th century.

The superior role of medieval cavalry army started to vanish beginning in the 13th century: the reasons were the rise of heavy infantry (starting in Switzerland), the mass deployment of archers and increasingly the introduction of firearms.

But the time of the medival cavalries superiority was already over, when firearms became usual and used on a broader basis. So the downfall of the medival cavalry started, when heavy disciplined infantry came back to the battlefield supported by well trained and equipped archers.

I guess this answers the question, how big the chances of a typical medieval army could have been against the typical roman army, which was exactly the type of army which led to the downfall of medievals cavalry. Not taking into account, that the usual roman army was much bigger than even bigger medival armies. And a roman army of 100 AD was used to fight cavalry armies, as we can read in Arrians report about the war against the Alans. The Alans were even more dangerous, because they brought more horsed archers to the battlefield, than medieval cavlary armies (except the byzantine empire).

 

[RGB]

Very disciplined of the cavalry you have there. And very tactical and strategic of someone to do that. Since the OP is talking about European army not Western European army. I agree with you.

The Huns did it. The Goths did it. The Sassanids did it. The Avars did it. The Arabs did it. All of them did it from horseback. Late Romans had nothing special to reply with: sometimes things clicked for them, sometimes they didn't. Mostly it was a question of massively better logistics on the Roman side that allowed them to survive and come back to claim victory.

Would 11th c. Spanish cavalry (for example) be less disciplined and less capable than 5th c. Goths? Would the Normans?

I don't think I'm asking that much, really.

It's a wholly separate question when you consider the state that is supporting the army: even the best army is worthless without logisic support. If a Roman exercitus is plucked out of whenever and thrown into the 11th c. then chances are the local lords don't even engage it and just wait for it to eat through their food supplies (a couple of weeks at most), then go to accept surrender.

Also, I find the notion that there was a real decline of cavalry from the 12th c. bizarre and unfounded. They declined relatively to numbers of other men under arms, true, but that has to do with population structures, costs of maintaining armies, encastellation, and recruiting techniques like ordnonnances and cantonements.

The golden age of fully armoured cavalry was not the 11th or 12th, but rather the 15th/16th c. where large amounts of drilled professionals in shot-proof plate could and did strike at whoever they wanted, provided they had the foresight not ride into a swamp like at Pavia.

Even 17th c. "light cavalry" was much heavier than anything that existed in the 11th c. and fought far more directly for most part.

The golden age of cavalry in general, as opposed to knights, was probably the 19th c. where from the Napoleonic wars to the colonial era, European powers could field TENS of thousands of men on horseback each.

The pikeman didn't kill cavalry, the machine gun did.

Roman - 1000-1300 legionaries dead or wounded, all their cavalry his either dead, wounded or routed, the auxiliary infantry suffers 800-1000 casualties and the archers lose 400-600 men, making a total of 3160-3860 casualties.

Medieval army - 2300-3000 infantry killed or wounded, the archers suffer light casualties for not having engage in pitched battle so most dead archers would be near to 0, the normands are either all dead or wounded, making a total of 5300-6000 deaths.

That is a crazy kill count.

Very atypical for a medieval engagement considering you claim most of it didn't happen during a pursuit of a rout. I mean it's not a bad description all and all and just as messy as real battles of the 11th c. (see Dyrrachium for an example), but it seems that everyone is causing too many casualties on everyone. Also, 2000 knights is pretty goddamn impressive, Robert Guiscard never had that many in one spot.

 

[Karolus Rex]

Also, 2000 knights is pretty goddamn impressive, Robert Guiscard never had that many in one spot.

I used the max number for Hastings, considering that the cav and archers together would be the same number has the inf, so 12000 men that makes a total of 6000 inf, 3000 cav, 3000 archers.

That is a crazy kill count.

That's not a dead count, is a casualty count, so i would say one third of those would be killed, probably less and the rest would just be wounded, and in the loser side most casualties would be captured men, after all the romans did like to get slaves to sell.

So that would make 1000 roman deaths, probably less, with the rest wounded, and the normads would have 1700, again most likely less, deaths and the same amount of wounded and the rest would be capture, post battle.

 

[RGB]

I used the max number for Hastings, considering that the cav and archers together would be the same number has the inf, so 12000 men that makes a total of 6000 inf, 3000 cav, 3000 archers.

I think they had maybe 3000 men on horse in Italy like once, and about half of that was German allies. It's a pretty exceptional situation all in all (granted we are talking about an ASB Roman ISOT so...)

That's not a dead count, is a casualty count, so i would say one third of those would be killed, probably less and the rest would just be wounded, and in the loser side most casualties would be captured men, after all the romans did like to get slaves to sell.

So that would make 1000 roman deaths, probably less, with the rest wounded, and the normads would have 1700, again most likely less, deaths and the same amount of wounded and the rest would be capture, post battle.

With captures and wounded, fair enough

To summarize: it's an interesting question, really. I'd say my money is slightly on the Romans (simply due to the fact that we're assuming the exercitus has actually drilled and trained together far more than most large medieval armies) but one mustn't underestimate either the medieval fighting men or the tactical and material innovations that happened in the meanwhile.

 

[Caesar Biden]

Medieval formations evolved pretty much specifically to break Roman-style formations. The "Shield Wall" of Northern Europe wasn't too much different than the Roman model, and by the 11th century, most armies were willing to break that.

It all depends on which army we're talking about.

An 11th century Roman army (as long as they don't have a commander who's trying to betray the Emperor) would absolutely crush a 1st century Imperial Legion. The infantry quality is perhaps a little poorer, however the Old Romans wouldn't know how to react to uptimer cavalry and combined arms tactics that were incorporated from Rome's old foes. Knowing 11th century Rome and the Strategikon, of course, the two armies seem unlikely to go to blows.

End result: The uptimers would buy off the legion and convince them to help the Romans fight in Italy.

What about a standard European formation? I'm mostly thinking of the Franks/French, with a standard army they could muster. Well, their cavalry would certainly beat out anything the Romans could throw at them, but their infantry would not stand up very well against the Romans. I'd say this battle goes to Rome, but it's going to be a fight.

 

[PanzerCommander]

Here we go again...

This is just like High Plains Drifter's IX Legion to Westeros all over again. "The Romans had material and tactical superiority!" "They would break in the face of heavy cavalry!" "No, the cavalry wouldn't even charge them, if they did, they would be massacred" on and on.