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

[Saphroneth]

The problem comes that both "Imperial Roman Legion" and "11th century medieval army" are very fluid terms.

If one assumes that one of the armies is incompetent or poor quality, then that one loses.
If one assumes both are incompetent or poor quality, then it's a bloody but inconclusive battle.
And if one assumes neither is incompetent or poor quality... then both sides refuse to engage unless they have a clear superiority in positioning.

 

[Caesar Biden]

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.

The funny thing is, as I remember it that Legion didn't even get to fight in a pitched battle. Maybe it's been updated since I last checked it, but people were certainly arguing about it well before they fought any medieval formations.

The problem comes that both "Imperial Roman Legion" and "11th century medieval army" are very fluid terms.

If one assumes that one of the armies is incompetent or poor quality, then that one loses.
If one assumes both are incompetent or poor quality, then it's a bloody but inconclusive battle.
And if one assumes neither is incompetent or poor quality... then both sides refuse to engage unless they have a clear superiority in positioning.

I'd mostly agree with this. Thing is, the Roman army would be much more likely to be of superior quality and generalship than the Medieval one. If they are the same in terms of quality and leadership, the medieval army is going to win.

 

[Saphroneth]

The funny thing is, as I remember it that Legion didn't even get to fight in a pitched battle. Maybe it's been updated since I last checked it, but people were certainly arguing about it well before they fought any medieval formations.



I'd mostly agree with this. Thing is, the Roman army would be much more likely to be of superior quality and generalship than the Medieval one. If they are the same in terms of quality and leadership, the medieval army is going to win.

It's certainly true that the average Roman force was made up of long service professionals and therefore by default higher quality.

It's also true that the Medieval force has essentially got all the tricks of the Roman one if they have the need for them (the equipment might be a money issue, the tactics might be a training issue... but neither is insurmountable) and also has a number of tricks the Romans simply did not have access to (devastating heavy cavalry, crossbows, possibly longbows, a few more subtle things).

So that sounds about right. The non-Roman force has a broader toolkit, the Romans will be better with the tools they have as a general rule.

In terms of cavalry - the Romans have a clear inferiority in cavalry. Their mounted support isn't going to last long.
That will give the Medieval commander a possible advantage in manoeuvre, which could turn the trick.

 

[Russian]

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.

True.
Actually it is even more than that.
I mean we do not have any descriptions of lance armed cataphracts fighting or riding down Roman infantry at Carrhae. No data, not a single witness.
So a heavy armed lanced cataphract killing a (demoralized) Roman legionary at Carrhae is our imagination.
I mean that might happen at Carrhae. But we do not have any proof or evidence.
We know that cataphracts defeated the Roman cavalry, that's a fact. And after that we do not hear about cataphracts.

That's an interesting fact which together with other similar encounters made some historians think that the main purpose of the Parthian cataphracts was annihilating the enemy's cavalry.
After that the enemy's infantry was doomed against mounted archers. It seems that when a foot soldier was properly demoralized by the mounted archers even a little girl could kill him or take him prisoner

p.s. I mean there's an opinion that cataphracts of antiquity were invented against cavalry. That was their only role on the field of battle. The cataphracts were not shock troops against infantry, that was not their purpose, not their aim, that was not what they were created for.
Their use against infantry (if there) was occasional and secondary. As an exception maybe.

 

[RGB]

p.s. I mean there's an opinion that cataphracts of antiquity were invented against cavalry. That was their only role on the field of battle. The cataphracts were not shock troops against infantry, that was not their purpose, not their aim, that was not what they were created for.
Their use against infantry (if there) was occasional and secondary. As an exception maybe.

Byzantine-era cataphracts also turn up in various battle accounts as engaging their opposite numbers on the other side (and their most common lance has a square cross-section meant for armour, rather than a broader all-purpose blade), so you may be onto something there. In fact you see them generally engaging the enemy's command and bodyguard, usually made up of cavalry as well.

However, when it comes to the 11th c. at least, neither the Roman nor the Muslim heavy cavalry of the period found the notion of having to receive a Norman charge a pleasant proposition. Anna Comnina and Usama ibn Munqidh both speak about the potency of the Norman knights compared to their opposite numbers with some anxiety.

That said, there are definite 11th c. examples where heavy cavalry carried the day by engaging infantry directly: the Normans at Dyrrachium for example, with a frontal charge through three lines into the Byzantine centre, and Mstislav's retinue made up of Alan and Turc horse that hit Yaroslav's Varangians in the flanks at Listven. I don't know if Rus-employed horsemen of the period couched their lance like a Norman or fenced with the lance like a cataphract.

 

[Russian]

However, when it comes to the 11th c. at least, neither the Roman nor the Muslim heavy cavalry of the period found the notion of having to receive a Norman charge a pleasant proposition...

...That said, there are definite 11th c. examples where heavy cavalry carried the day by engaging infantry directly

Well, I am far from saying that the guys on horseback cannot win against the infantry engaging them directly.
But I seriously doubt that them being mounted is an advantage.
Actually I think that mostly in such cases the cavalry won in spite of being mounted, not because of being on horseback.

The cavalry charging a disciplined steady fresh infantry (without being demoralized by missile troops or something) directly and winning is a rare thing in the history of the humankind.
So if I had to bet I would have always bet on infantry win in such conditions (with all other things being equal).

 

[RGB]

The cavalry charging a disciplined steady fresh infantry (without being demoralized by missile troops or something) directly and winning is a rare thing in the history of the humankind.

I really dislike this argument. It's got No True Scotsman written all over it.

Here is how it usually goes:

1. Cavalry hits engaged infantry and collapses it (Cannae, Listven, Ravenna, La Brosinniere)? Well, apparently the infantry holding it in place did all the work. Wouldn't it be easier to you know, just use more infantry then? Why pay ten times more for a horseman if you can get ten footmen who are just as good for a fraction of the price?

If cavalry is better at this task than infantry, the answer is obvious. Infantry being better than cavalry? No explanation at all. But infantry proponents have no problems assuming everyone back in the day wasn't very clever.

2. Cavalry hits light infantry and runs them over (Dyrrachium, Seminara); obviously frontal charges work!

But no, says the infantry proponent, these troops were poor quality and broke mentally and anyone could have overrun them. If only they had been quality troops!

3. Okay, how about when cavalry goes up and smashes the best infantry of the period (Patay, Brienne (1814), Crevola) - oh, well, they weren't prepared! Digging in and such is very very important etc., wouldn't be fair to evaluate the worth of infantry on the march (which they are most of the time) as opposed to the very narrow set of circumstances when they are perfectly prepared!

4. Okay, how about when they are prepared and of good quality (Garcia Fernandez) - well, apparently, someone got lucky with a dead horse.

There's never any counterexamples to satisfy the infantry types, and always some excuse. Not good enough, not fresh enough, not drilled enough, too tired, too wet, too hungry, too demoralised, too unlucky.

Whereas cavalry strengths and flexibility are apparently nothing much at all; including the ability to carry secondary weapons for ranged combat, and of course the dismounting examples.

Yes, the French fared poorly in mud on occasion leading to some notable losses, but generally speaking men at arms always had the option of dismounting and fighting on foot and beating their infantry opponents (Arbedo, Mons-en-Pevele). But that's just apparently more proof they'd have been better off fighting on foot in the first place. Except when they dismounted and then lost, in which case it's not proof of anything at all (Sempach, Agincourt) except apparently how cavalry isn't very good.

 

[PanzerCommander]

The funny thing is, as I remember it that Legion didn't even get to fight in a pitched battle. Maybe it's been updated since I last checked it, but people were certainly arguing about it well before they fought any medieval formations.

Oh, that argument lasted for page after page, it was either a Romanwank or a massacre.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think the infantry-versus-cavalry debate has an important caveat - in order to be anti-cavalry as the best infantry could be, they have to be free to adopt anti-cavalry tactics.
Cavalry and infantry are combined-arms weapons and have been ever since the first horse sturdy enough that the man on it could fight on horseback - the hammer-and-anvil tactic is important here, and it's why armies with cavalry so often beat armies without it.

 

[RGB]

Oh, that argument lasted for page after page, it was either a Romanwank or a massacre.

It also pitted them against a weird 15th c. army with no powder arms of any kind (so maybe most comparable to War of the Roses armies except ten times as large because ASoIaF), so the conditions were slightly different.

 

[Namayan]

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.

Yes, this is correct if we base 11th century army during or after Manzikert.

But 11th Century isnt limited to mid or end of 11th century nor the OP specified it. Since we are comparing army based on time, Basil 2 would qualify as the best example still existing during 11th century but on the earlier periods of that century.

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.
.

Except the best military aint coming from them in the 11th century European Army. The Romans still existed in the 11th century. that is why I find it entertaining that everyone keeps going back to Western European Armies rather than the more powerful Roman Armies in the 11th century.

I'd mostly agree with this. Thing is, the Roman army would be much more likely to be of superior quality and generalship than the Medieval one. If they are the same in terms of quality and leadership, the medieval army is going to win.

If you limit yourself to Western Europe, Yes, this may be true. But since the OP said 11th Century European army, that means 11th century army can be anyone in Europe.

Roman legions in 100 AD have military treatise limited to their generals and Vegetius wasnt alive yet although they got Trajan. If you limit yourself to western Europe 11th century, you got only Vegetius as the basis. While the Romans in the 11th Century already got mulititudes of military treatise due to them having also the knowledge of the Romans legions, Vegetius and centuries after the fall of the Western Empire with also multitudes of competent generals.

 

[Caesar Biden]

If you limit yourself to Western Europe, Yes, this may be true. But since the OP said 11th Century European army, that means 11th century army can be anyone in Europe.

Roman legions in 100 AD have military treatise limited to their generals and Vegetius wasnt alive yet although they got Trajan. If you limit yourself to western Europe 11th century, you got only Vegetius as the basis. While the Romans in the 11th Century already got mulititudes of military treatise due to them having also the knowledge of the Romans legions, Vegetius and centuries after the fall of the Western Empire with also multitudes of competent generals.

Of course. And not even merely Western Europe.

The Norse and Anglo-Saxons, for example, are going to be fighting a fair bit differently than the rest of Europe, much more in line with the Romans as a matter of fact. Then there are Muslims in Spain, and hell, even Steppe Nomads to fight the Roman army.

I believe I already made my stance on an 11th century v 1st century fight clear: The "Byzantines" are every bit as disciplined and motivated as the Romans, with better tactics and one of the best cavalry forces in the world. So if, for some reason, the Romans come to blows, the uptimers would win pretty handily.

 

[RGB]

Except the best military aint coming from them in the 11th century European Army. The Romans still existed in the 11th century. that is why I find it entertaining that everyone keeps going back to Western European Armies rather than the more powerful Roman Armies in the 11th century.

I keep going back the the Normans because they generally had a decent record against everyone they fought, the contemporary Romans especially, in every kind of theatre and every kind of battle setup.

If, however, you want an 11th c. Byzantine army as a comparison, well, that works too. It doesn't have to be Normans.

 

[usertron2020]

Not knowledgeable at all in this arena. Asking for the education value.

When was the long bow introduced?

Didn't the XIth have the advantage of:

Better armor?
Horse mounted archers?
Better archery overall?
Better swords?
Better weapons overall?

It seems to me that it would be best for the XIth to just stand off and wear down the Romans until they are too few to stand against heavy cavalry-lancer charges.

 

[RGB]

When was the long bow introduced?

Warbows of comparable size and of high poundage are very very old and predate the middle ages and in fact the Romans themselves. There are only so many ways to make a bow that can kill an armoured man.

Specifically the British longbow (made of say, Spanish yew) that everyone knows and loves, that's from the 13th c. onwards through to end of 16th.

 

[usertron2020]

Warbows of comparable size and of high poundage are very very old and predate the middle ages and in fact the Romans themselves. There are only so many ways to make a bow that can kill an armoured man.

Specifically the British longbow (made of say, Spanish yew) that everyone knows and loves, that's from the 13th c. onwards through to end of 16th.

You're forgetting that the Duchy of Grand Fenwick's armed forces still put them to good use to this very day

 

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

It also pitted them against a weird 15th c. army with no powder arms of any kind (so maybe most comparable to War of the Roses armies except ten times as large because ASoIaF), so the conditions were slightly different.

ASOIAF is broadly modeled after the War of the Roses, so it's your best comparison, and most of the descriptions from the books match it, in terms of equipment, discipline, and training. Given 15th century England as a model, with levies being more trained professionals and quite well-armed, a Roman legion without additional training or equipment upgrade is bound for a rough time, as...well, yeah, I don't think there's realistically anything that'll allow a Principate legion without modifications to beat an army with so many qualitative advantages (equipment, overwhelming cavalry advantage, significant missile advantage, etc).

 

[Russian]

1. Cavalry hits engaged infantry and collapses it (Cannae...

Here we go again.
Use of cavalry in antiquity is full of myths and misconceptions.
There was no cavalry hitting infantry at Cannae. At least we have no evidence, no proof for it.

What we had at Cannae was:
1) Carthaginian cavalry defeated Roman cavalry on both flanks
2) Carthaginian cavalry started to throw darts into the Roman infantry, mostly in the rear.
3) Carthaginian infantry following the success of their cavalry fully encircled the Romans.
4) The Romans collapsed.

So, here when we hear of the Carthaginian cavalry attacking the Roman infantry - it is in the rear. And mostly it is not charging, it is mostly throwing darts.
That was how the Numidian, Iberian and Gaulish horsemen of Hannibal fought. It was not shock cavalry, they were not knights in shining armor with spears.

 

[Namayan]

Of course. And not even merely Western Europe.

The Norse and Anglo-Saxons, for example, are going to be fighting a fair bit differently than the rest of Europe, much more in line with the Romans as a matter of fact. Then there are Muslims in Spain, and hell, even Steppe Nomads to fight the Roman army.

I believe I already made my stance on an 11th century v 1st century fight clear: The "Byzantines" are every bit as disciplined and motivated as the Romans, with better tactics and one of the best cavalry forces in the world. So if, for some reason, the Romans come to blows, the uptimers would win pretty handily.

I keep going back the the Normans because they generally had a decent record against everyone they fought, the contemporary Romans especially, in every kind of theatre and every kind of battle setup.

If, however, you want an 11th c. Byzantine army as a comparison, well, that works too. It doesn't have to be Normans.

I dont even see the OP wants as an apple to apple comparison.

The OP specified 100 A.D. Roman Legion. Not, Suebi nor any other Barbarian in Europe. Specific date, specific army.

While the OP wants to compare them vs Medieval 11th Century European army, which is very vague. That is so vast with date spanning 100 years to base upon.

 

[RGB]

Here we go again.
Use of cavalry in antiquity is full of myths and misconceptions.
There was no cavalry hitting infantry at Cannae. At least we have no evidence, no proof for it.

Alright, I'll concede that one isn't a great example within your narrow requirements. If you're not happy with Cannae (which, granted, is entirely defensible as an argument), I did also provide you with a dozen other less iffy examples from the middle ages onward. I could provide a couple dozen more. And some more on top. They aren't actually that hard to find.

So if anything, all this line of argumentation potentially tells me is that (provided it's correct) the Romans likely never fought proper shock cavalry and are therefore no more likely to withstand an actual charge than any given infantry outfit that could and did get beaten by horse in later centuries.

So if cataphracts and Hellenistic agema were not meant to attack infantry but only other cavalry and the Roman foot never properly faced them, instead of a close-fought hypothetical battle we could end up with something like the Peasants' War in Germany: one good charge that carries through and then the Romans quickly find out what it's like trying to outrun a lancer with that scutum to weigh you down.

I mean that's also possible.