Professional Roman Army Vs Gunpowder Army

[Unconsensual]

This is part curiosity and part brainstorming for my TL Terra Nova Viridis (A Roman New World) yes shameless advertising, I know .

So the question is how would a professional Iron Age army stand against a 15th century European gunpowder army? Given that: the battle is inland where sea power has no effect , the countryside has ample food, and that disease is not a consideration. To start off discussion let's assume that the combatants are the Roman Legion and the Spanish Army.

 

[Orry]

Do the Romans get any introduction to the concept of gunpowder weapons first?

If not the first volley might have a significant morale effect....

 

[TheKnightIrish]

Bear in mind these gunpowder units are slow to reload. A equal number of Balearic slingers, slinging lead bullets (how ironic), have the potential to be more lethal.

Once the Romans get over the smoke and noise (and what veteran won't be familiar with those) I actually think the Romans will go through the gunpowder units for a short cut.

However Romans vulnerabilities will be the same i.e. mounted missile units.

 

[carlton_bach]

The problem for the Romans is not going to be gunpowder (unless it comes as a total surprise, which might - might - lead to a panic). The problem will be that any reasonably well-run european 15th century army will be their equal in terms of discipline and unit cohesion. Balearic slingers or Syrian archers would not run from a confrontation with Genoese crossbowmen, but neither would their foes. The clash of a legionary formation with a Swiss Gewalthaufen would be epic, and incredibly bloody. Guns are just a minor thing to get used to by comparison (the Romans would quickly adapt).

 

[Willmatron]

How big are the armies we're dealing with?

 

[Superwes]

Way to spoil your TL.

Nah I already knew you were going in that direction. So is the Old World going to essentially be the same as OTL except for the Romans in the new world?

I wonder how shocked the descendants of Sertortius would feel once they find out that Rome descended into an empire.

 

[Unconsensual]

Way to spoil your TL.

Nah I already knew you were going in that direction. So is the Old World going to essentially be the same as OTL except for the Romans in the new world?

Yes I believe I said that in a post somewhere. I don't feel like writting a thousand years of Old World history and even if I did the result would be so alien from OTL that it'll be no fun.

I wonder how shocked the descendants of Sertortius would feel once they find out that Rome descended into an empire.

Well maybe, I can tell you that the knowledge would survive. But who knows, maybe they'll be Aztecs who adopted the legion's methods.

 

[Xgentis]

Roman shield are really thin thar arow can pierce them. And gun are one thing but how are they going to deal with cannon?

 

[Awilla the Hun]

If it's a fully trained, armed and disciplined Roman army against a relatively small number of conquistador equivalents (including a number of sailors and adventurers-not quite first rank troops), the Romans haven't died of disease yet, and have been disciplined enough to get rid of "gunpowder shock", then they could stand a chance. It wouldn't be that favourable-Roman metallurgy isn't as good as European metallurgy, European cavalry with stirrups, Roman archers (and short swords, and javelins, and most things that aren't ballistae or slings, two-handed cataphract lances, or mobbing the knight when he's on the ground) would be ineffective against plate armour and 15th century troops were themselves becoming increasingly professional-but a canny Roman general (with field fortifications and a bit of luck) could win through.

 

[veni vidi vici]

I think that the romans would win unless a moron Like publius Varus or Crassus was in charge or the Roman army is from after say the second or so century THe omptimal performance by the Romans would proably be Ceasar's army from the Gallic wars just after the seige of Alesia, with supporting Gallic and Germanic Cavalary, which was after the Parthians was the best Calavary that the ROmans knew about. I also think that for the Veterans gunpowder would not be a big deal as, when the Romans first we introduced to Elephants, the gunpowder of their time, they were not scare what so ever.
I came, I saw, I conquered Veni, vidi, vici Gaius Iulius CEasar

 

[Elfwine]

I think that the romans would win unless a moron Like publius Varus or Crassus was in charge or the Roman army is from after say the second or so century THe omptimal performance by the Romans would proably be Ceasar's army from the Gallic wars just after the seige of Alesia, with supporting Gallic and Germanic Cavalary, which was after the Parthians was the best Calavary that the ROmans knew about. I also think that for the Veterans gunpowder would not be a big deal as, when the Romans first we introduced to Elephants, the gunpowder of their time, they were not scare what so ever.
I came, I saw, I conquered Veni, vidi, vici Gaius Iulius CEasar

So the Romans, vs. opponents inferior to a 15th century gunpowder army, won, therefore they'd win here?



Not sure the Romans reacted that well to elephants, either - not on first contact, at least.

 

[Esopo]

So the Romans, vs. opponents inferior to a 15th century gunpowder army, won, therefore they'd win here?



Not sure the Romans reacted that well to elephants, either - not on first contact, at least.

romans didnt react well to elephants. They were actually pretty shocked. But they were fast understanding the new weapon and neutralizing it in the following battles.

 

[Elfwine]

romans didnt react well to elephants. They were actually pretty shocked. But they were fast understanding the new weapon and neutralizing it in the following battles.

Wonder how they'd try to neutralize gunpowder weapons. Fighting in the rain is bad for their weapons of choice, too.

 

[9 Fanged Hummingbird]

Gauls and Parthians really aren't that comparable to late 15th Century Spaniards. Just letting you know.

 

[Space Oddity]

Yeah. Given that he SPECIFICALLY stated 15th century Spain... Indeed, the 15th century Spanish army...

Well, there's no getting around this. The Romans get slaughtered. Slaughtered. The Spainards kill the lot of them, and then pose the corpses for a laugh.

 

[Xavier]

Wonder how they'd try to neutralize gunpowder weapons. Fighting in the rain is bad for their weapons of choice, too.

I wouldn't quite call composite bows a Roman weapon of choice. Not unless they had a lot more archers than I imagine. Pila & gladii OTH... (both of whom would suck against men at arms in plate armour...)

 

[Elfwine]

I wouldn't quite call composite bows a Roman weapon of choice. Not unless they had a lot more archers than I imagine. Pila & gladii OTH... (both of whom would suck against men at arms in plate armour...)

It's not just composite bows that don't work well in the rain. Slings don't either, for instance. And I have a recollection of reading something else in regards to Teutonburg Wald seeing rain+Roman equipment=sucks to be Roman.

 

[RGB]

vs. an actual army, on the European mainland:

1. 15th c. plate stops every weapon the Romans use short of scorpions. While this in itself may not be decisive, geared-up men at arms on foot in front of 15th c. infantry would be a tremendous force multiplier.

By contrast Roman armour never had to deal with two-handed warhammers or opponents whose training heavily emphasised wrestling and joint control against men similarly armed to themselves. I don't doubt for a moment that a knight on foot would be a better brawler than an average Roman ranker, so even dropping your shield and trying to drag him down is not guaranteed success.

These guys would be inside pike or halberd units.

2. Roman missiles might actually be dangerous to horses and lighter troops, though most would have to get pretty close.

Slingers might actually be dangerous at range too and would be a good way to draw European cavalry out: to try to run them down. Canny roman general could then devise some trap to neutralise European cav. Dunno.

3. Roman cavalry is in trouble. It can't stand up in a fight, it has smaller, slower horses, and Europeans would wreck it if it attempted to engage European infantry. This is presumably early Imperial army?

If it's something like the 5th-7th c. then sure, Roman cav might also be good but it's a completely different army we're talking about.

4. 15th c. has the first field guns appearing. Romans like tight formations moving forward at a modest pace to retain cohesion. They would be identical, as an opponent, to European infantry as far as gunners are concerned.

5. Gunpowder isn't universal, however. Europeans used more crossbows at the time. Longbows also, as mercenaries, potentially. So volleys mowing down ranks in smoke and flash might be more of a 16th/17th c. thing.

Same with reitars. They haven't come on to the scene very heavily yet.

 

[Superwes]

Yes I believe I said that in a post somewhere. I don't feel like writting a thousand years of Old World history and even if I did the result would be so alien from OTL that it'll be no fun.



Well maybe, I can tell you that the knowledge would survive. But who knows, maybe they'll be Aztecs who adopted the legion's methods.

Gee I hope not.

So will there at least be minor changes?

 

[frlmerrin]

1) How many on each side?
2) Is Cajamarca meant to be the model the OP was thinking of or was it Tenochtitlan?
3) Might Blood river and Isandalwana be models worth considering?