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

[Russian]

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.

There goes a comparison, an analogy:

Do (did) you go in for boxing? Or any other hand-to-hand martial arts like karate, kung fu, whatever?
If not try to ask a friend of yours who does: "Can a small guy beat a big guy with bare hands?"
Your friend will provide you with a dozen of examples when small guys swept the floor with big guys. And then he'll provide a couple dozen more (when a small guy kicked big guy's ass). And some more on top (when a small guy gave a dusting to a big guy).

But in the end he'll confess that with all other things being equal a big guy always has an advantage over a small guy.

The same with cavalry frontal charge against prepared disciplined infantry - with all other things being equal in such situations infantry always has an advantage.

 

[RGB]

There goes a comparison, an analogy:

Do (did) you go in for boxing? Or any other hand-to-hand martial arts like karate, kung fu, whatever?
If not try to ask a friend of yours who does: "Can a small guy beat a big guy with bare hands?"
Your friend will provide you with a dozen of examples when small guys swept the floor with big guys. And then he'll provide a couple dozen more (when a small guy kicked big guy's ass). And some more on top (when a small guy gave a dusting to a big guy).

But in the end he'll confess that with all other things being equal a big guy always has an advantage over a small guy.

The same with cavalry frontal charge against prepared disciplined infantry - with all other things being equal in such situations infantry always has an advantage.

The bigger man generally has a pronounced advantage with (close combat) weapons too, actually, not just bare hands. But that's not really that great an analogy.

The very fact that you have to qualify the infantry as being prepared and disciplined makes me question the usefulness of the whole comparison exercise. Why don't we talk about cavalry needing to be perfectly prepared and disciplined? If anything there's a lot more that needs to be managed in a cavalry troop.

Here's what I need answered:

What was the point of investing so much resources into mounted warriors? Not only mounted warriors but mounted warriors specifically armed with shock weapons?

Every culture that had access to horses did it, without exception. Some cultures (the Saheli kingdoms, China, Japan etc.) did not have easy access to horses and yet they spent huge money and effort acquiring them and training fighting men on horseback, generally armed primarily with lances or swords.

Why?

What would be the point of spending all this effort on something that wins *despite* being mounted, when "all things being equal" infantry has the advantage?

Why did the entire world - the entire world - throughout the entire human history - decide to spend so much effort on the less efficient option?

Well, two answers are possible:

1. Everyone was irrational everywhere until the invention of machine guns and trucks...or,

2. Cavalry is a viable independent arm on top of being a tremendous force multiplier, and so well worth the investment, and in the real world "disciplined and prepared" infantry is far from being common enough to alter that calculation.

I know which one makes sense to me.

 

[usertron2020]

How about this, if we are not rigidly fixed to a 100 AD date for the Romans:

Suetonius' legions in Britannia circa Boudicca's Rebellion

versus

William the Conqueror's invasion army circa the Battle of Hastings

Who wins? Assume equal numbers and William has his heavy cavalry

 

[RodentRevolution]

Sigh cavalry does not beat formed and disciplined infantry that is a fact. A fact demonstrated time and time again. This does not make cavalry useless.

Horses confer mobility, mobility in warfare is indeed what is known as a force multiplier. Horsed cavalry can threaten to strike anywhere while an opponents forces cannot be everywhere they are often forced to detach troops against the mere 'chance' of raiding parties.

In battle even well disciplined infantry may expose a flank or find itself otherwise disordered, if cavalry can exploit it the effect will often be dramatic and potentially decisive. Further for a long time the level of training and the kind of constant active service experienced by the Legions was simply not available in less centrally funded states. In fact even Rome struggled to maintain the quality of its infantry after the 3rd century. These meant that cavalry often found themselves up against footsoldiers wtih lacked training, lacked cohesion (the ability to work together as individuals, units and multiple units) and lacked discipline which increased the opportunities for a successful charge.

Even so many armies were combined arms affairs such as the Norman (also Flemish and Breton) army that William took to England. Archers and other infantry were useful. Indeed it was crossbowmen and foot spearmen who saved the day for the Normans at Dyrachium after the knights facing the elite infantry of the Varangian guard had been routed.

However where disciplined infantry trained to move in formation took the field, time and time and time again the cavalry found itself in trouble. Even relatively untrained infantry could inflict defeats on cavalry so long as they held together. We see examples of this in the Scottish wars and in Flanders.

Funnily enough though the recommended percentage of cavalry to other arms first espoused by Roman writers was fairly commonly observed throughout the middle ages the Norman armies often having only about a quarter of their force mounted for battle.

Battle of course it is worth pointing out often only a small part of warfare. Cavalry are useful for scouting, flank security, mounting patrols to control large areas of territory and of course raiding. Economic warfare via the destruction of an opponent's agricultural resources was often a big part of medieval warfare, it is also where the money is to be made...no doubt one of the reasons the aristocracy were attracted to the job.

The fact that the cavalry had a better chance of running away than the poor bloody infantry when things went wrong was surely incidental.

 

[Russian]

The very fact that you have to qualify the infantry as being prepared and disciplined makes me question the usefulness of the whole comparison exercise. Why don't we talk about cavalry needing to be perfectly prepared and disciplined? If anything there's a lot more that needs to be managed in a cavalry troop.

Here's what I need answered:

What was the point of investing so much resources into mounted warriors? Not only mounted warriors but mounted warriors specifically armed with shock weapons?

Every culture that had access to horses did it, without exception. Some cultures (the Saheli kingdoms, China, Japan etc.) did not have easy access to horses and yet they spent huge money and effort acquiring them and training fighting men on horseback, generally armed primarily with lances or swords.

Why?

What would be the point of spending all this effort on something that wins *despite* being mounted, when "all things being equal" infantry has the advantage?

Why did the entire world - the entire world - throughout the entire human history - decide to spend so much effort on the less efficient option?

Well, two answers are possible:

1. Everyone was irrational everywhere until the invention of machine guns and trucks...or,

2. Cavalry is a viable independent arm on top of being a tremendous force multiplier, and so well worth the investment, and in the real world "disciplined and prepared" infantry is far from being common enough to alter that calculation.

I know which one makes sense to me.

You know what? You gave me some hope.
You never mentioned the F Word in this post of yours - meaning the 'Frontal cavalry charge against disciplined infantry'.

I am not against cavalry in general as such. I am against the frontal charge of cavalry against disciplined infantry. The only exception when frontal cavalry charge makes sense is when infantry is disorganized by the missile troops or something.

 

[Agricola]

William the Conqueror's invasion army circa the Battle of Hastings

Did Williams army not contain a lot of heavy infantry? And his cavalry was a bit different, to the usual medieval Hollywood Cavalry. The stirrups were longer and the saddles were not fully optimized yet for a crouched lance fight.

It looks more like Karl Martells army against the arabs in the 8th century. The frankish army like almost every army of the western german tribes since the Völkerwanderung was more based on infantry and increasingly used well equipped heavy infantry. Vice versa the eastern german tribes like the Goths, which had more cavalry and often operated together with sarmatian allies.

Karls army looked rather like a roman army than the typical medieval army. And they defeated the arabs. Arabs usually used a lot of light cavalry.

Actually, what does "typical medival army" means at all? When was it really fully developed? 12th century, 13th century? And as mentioned above, with the rebirth of heavy infantry in the 14th century its downfall already started.

 

[Saphroneth]

You know what? You gave me some hope.
You never mentioned the F Word in this post of yours - meaning the 'Frontal cavalry charge against disciplined infantry'.

I am not against cavalry in general as such. I am against the frontal charge of cavalry against disciplined infantry. The only exception when frontal cavalry charge makes sense is when infantry is disorganized by the missile troops or something.

Indeed - Infantry are unbreakable on their terms against Cavalry.
The much harder thing is getting "their terms".

 

[Agricola]

Indeed - Infantry are unbreakable on their terms against Cavalry.
The much harder thing is getting "their terms".

Thats why heavy infantry against heavy cavalry should never happen in reality, if not by accident or under very weird circumstances. If it happens, the heavy cavalry cannot attack the infantry and vice versa. But in open areas the cavalry can flank the infantry. If the infantry got enough numbers, it could build a square formation and we have a deadlock situation. The infantry can't succesfully attack the heavy cavalry without the support of at least light cavalry and light infantry. And the heavy cavalry needs at least light cavalry to prepare the enemies infantry for a shock attack. They both have to wait for reinforcemnts. Well, with potential advantages for the "sieging" heavy cavalry army in terms of water and food supply.

Usually mixed forces fought against mixed forces. Every mixed force had its own strengths and weaknesses. So both armies tried to establish a beneficial situation (on their terms), where their strenghts come into play and the weaknesses of the enemy. Therefore superior tactics and a lot of luck played often a biger role than numbers or army composition.

 

[jahenders]

All too true. However, a Roman legion certainly was not a phalanx or schiltron. They had pilum, but they were designed to be thrown, not to take a cavalry charge or to go to "push-of-pike."

A Roman army would, thus, have a very hard time against medieval cavalry. A Macedonian or Greek phalanx would likely fare better if they kept their cohesion -- it would be more like the French trying to "break the British square."

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.

 

[Agricola]

All too true. However, a Roman legion certainly was not a phalanx or schiltron. They had pilum, but they were designed to be thrown, not to take a cavalry charge or to go to "push-of-pike."

Arrian proves you wrong. Tacitus proves you wrong. And some other ancient authors, too. Wrong about formations and wrong about the possible armaments. A roman army was very flexible and adaptable. And most military historians agree, that the chessboard formation, which was a kind of interupted shieldwall of multiple subunits fighting each as a small shieldwall, was not often used anymore after the wars against the greek phalanxes, when it was useful and appropriate. Against rather uncoordinated barbarian hordes, the chessboard formation can't work due to its gaps. Therefore the cohorts certainly fought in pahalanx formation. Same against cavalry as Arrian describes precilsely. Still flexible, if possible and needed, and with multiple lines of course. Furthermore the romans around 100 AD had already some experience with cavalry armies. And usually these battles went much better than Crassus' defeat 150 years earlier.

 

[Sior]

Sigh cavalry does not beat formed and disciplined infantry that is a fact. A fact demonstrated time and time again. This does not make cavalry useless.

Horses confer mobility, mobility in warfare is indeed what is known as a force multiplier. Horsed cavalry can threaten to strike anywhere while an opponents forces cannot be everywhere they are often forced to detach troops against the mere 'chance' of raiding parties.

In battle even well disciplined infantry may expose a flank or find itself otherwise disordered, if cavalry can exploit it the effect will often be dramatic and potentially decisive. Further for a long time the level of training and the kind of constant active service experienced by the Legions was simply not available in less centrally funded states. In fact even Rome struggled to maintain the quality of its infantry after the 3rd century. These meant that cavalry often found themselves up against footsoldiers wtih lacked training, lacked cohesion (the ability to work together as individuals, units and multiple units) and lacked discipline which increased the opportunities for a successful charge.

Even so many armies were combined arms affairs such as the Norman (also Flemish and Breton) army that William took to England. Archers and other infantry were useful. Indeed it was crossbowmen and foot spearmen who saved the day for the Normans at Dyrachium after the knights facing the elite infantry of the Varangian guard had been routed.

However where disciplined infantry trained to move in formation took the field, time and time and time again the cavalry found itself in trouble. Even relatively untrained infantry could inflict defeats on cavalry so long as they held together. We see examples of this in the Scottish wars and in Flanders.

Funnily enough though the recommended percentage of cavalry to other arms first espoused by Roman writers was fairly commonly observed throughout the middle ages the Norman armies often having only about a quarter of their force mounted for battle.

Battle of course it is worth pointing out often only a small part of warfare. Cavalry are useful for scouting, flank security, mounting patrols to control large areas of territory and of course raiding. Economic warfare via the destruction of an opponent's agricultural resources was often a big part of medieval warfare, it is also where the money is to be made...no doubt one of the reasons the aristocracy were attracted to the job.

The fact that the cavalry had a better chance of running away than the poor bloody infantry when things went wrong was surely incidental.

To be a cavalry man in those times you had to own your own horse (usually 2 or 3 for remounts) and provide for its feed and upkeep so only the wealthy were mounted.

 

[Agricola]

To be a cavalry man in those times you had to own your own horse (usually 2 or 3 for remounts) and provide for its feed and upkeep so only the wealthy were mounted.

That was not that much different in ancient times. The parthian cavalry was probably just 10% cataphracts and the rest horsed archers. Supported by some rather 2nd class light infantry. Its is a good guess, that also in sarmatian armies just the nobles could afford to become cataphracts. The percentage of cataphracts in the roman army was comparable low. But roman cataphracts were payed by the state and not only nobles but the most professional cavalrists of the army.

Nevertheless such a parthian cavalry army, which was beaten more than once by the romans, was about 50,000 men strong. So already a parthian army would have been a strong challenge for every usual medieval army. Not just in terms of numbers, but also due to the deadly mix of horsed archers and cataphracts.