Why wouldn't the Romans' tactics, armament, etc. have evolved? They certainly did historically. Positing a Roman Empire that remains unchanged in any meaningful way for a millennium is ridiculous.
I am not talking about a Roman Empire that hasn't changed, I am asking whether it could have worked in the Middle Ages, purely as informational not as the basis of a surviving Roman Empire scenario.
Just want to add to this discussion the idea that the migration period and declining populations from plague and financial problems meant that the organized unified state in Rome eventually started to fracture into these smaller feudalistic divisions as a source of protection from raiding germanic tribes and other such armed groups that would seek plunder from a weak region with money and stuff to take.
If the Roman state had not faced economic problems or plague or new levels of a new migration period during its weakened state, then there may indeed have been no need for such drastic changes.
If Rome had remained at least a fairly strong city state based in Italy with much of its old structure, but not the same unified defenses from its legions and not as strong of an economy, it too may have strengthened defenses even more during the migration period with stone castles and such.
The question in part is how strong is the state? How healthy its economy and ability to fund its military? I think Roman legions and foederati cavalry did do much to turn away many armed invasions and assimilate others into its culture and society. Constantinople continued in an adapted Roman fashion for example.
The same system that in it's early days made minced meat of Hellenistic Sarissa armed phalanxes have trouble with pikes? I wouldn't be so sure about that...Against the era of pikes it starts having problems.
The same system that in it's early days made minced meat of Hellenistic Sarissa armed phalanxes have trouble with pikes? I wouldn't be so sure about that...
The same system that in it's early days made minced meat of Hellenistic Sarissa armed phalanxes have trouble with pikes? I wouldn't be so sure about that...
In theory, yes. The problem is that the Romans had a heavy-infantry system that's rather transparently pre-gunpowder. Their system is built to favor close-in combat with javelins and short-swords, so against early Medieval armies it'd still run over most anything that challenges it. Against the era of pikes it starts having problems. When we get to musketeers of the Janissary and Swedish and Streltsy sort, the Roman days of hegemony are over.
I think he implied pike and shot tactics. Let's just say that the Hellenistic armies would kill to have crossbows and/or muskets supporting them.![]()
The same system that in it's early days made minced meat of Hellenistic Sarissa armed phalanxes have trouble with pikes? I wouldn't be so sure about that...
I assume the Romans wouldn't just stand by and ignore the military applications of muskets.
Actually, Maurice of Nassau used very Romanesque tactics to overcome the Tercios. I could see them adapting muskets better then any of their opponents.