Roman tactics in the Middle Ages question.

The Mongol thread has got me wondering.

Could the Roman military system of the Late Republic and Early Empire, i.e. the organization, weapons, etc. have worked in the context of the Middle Ages with the technology available around say 1000 A.D.?
 
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.
 

Clibanarius

Banned
Yeah, you just need money.

The problem for most medieval kingdoms was the funding (Hence the lack of standing armies for most people) Medieval Men-at-arms aka 'Knights' often had their own land and could supply and equip themselves that was one of reasons they were used so much, the government didn't have to pay for them.
 
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.
 
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.

You have to understand that, for all intents and purposes, the Medieval way of doing things was a severely watered down version of what the Romans did anyway.

Think about it this way, in the context of a simple standing army vs. seasonal levies. The Standing Army (i.e. Roman) has the full funding of the state behind them, so they have 1) better weapons, 2) better training - since they don't need to supplement their position with a 'profession', 3) better pay (usually read: loot). Meanwhile, the Seasonal Levies (i.e. Medieval Europe) were funded by nobles (the King being the biggest, sure, but still a noble who relied on the rest) and they didn't have the funding to provide the 1, 2, and 3 from above. Their weapons were not standard, thus never of 'better' quality usually; their training was hampered by the fact that only a select few (i.e. "knights") could afford to train year round as opposed to going back to the fields for harvest at the end of the season; and they relied almost entirely on loot since there was nothing really approaching a true 'salary' in Medieval armies.

Look at the Byzantine armies of the Middle Ages - they ran basically the same as the previous Roman armies in general logistics and whatnot - they only lost out due to external trends and internal intrigue. Had they been better led and more adaptable on the world stage, their system wouldn't have died-out/been absorbed by the Ottomans - indeed... why do you think the Ottomans were the big bogeyman of Europe for so long? They have the professional armies that Europe didn't.
 
Some things could have survived and made a difference. For example, the early Anglo-Saxons used the angon, which was a javelin quite similar to the pilum, in addition to their main weapon, the thrusting spear. But they didn't use it in the Roman manner...i.e. thrown in massed vollies just prior to impact with the enemy line. Instead, they used it primarily for duels between champions. This may have been because the Anglo-Saxons were one of the least Romanized groups among the Germanics, but oddly enough, the old Roman way doesn't seem to have survived among the other barbarians either. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for this.

The Anglo-Saxons already fought in a shield wall. It would not have taken much training to teach people to throw their javelins at a signal...at the blast of the horn, for example. But they never did that, and the angon went out of use by the end of the pre-Viking period. If somehow the Roman manner of use of the angon/pilum had survived among the Anglo-Saxons, however, Duke William and his cavalry would have had a rude shock at Hastings.
 
The feudal system makes sure that such a thing is impossible. It would be seen as undercutting the nobles, and wham, dead ruler. But in theory, well equipped professional armies would have been lovely.
 
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 Almorgavars seem like a good representation of a successor to the Roman military. They had a pretty good military track record so yeah, i'll say that in terms of tactics and weapons the Romans would do just fine.
 
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.
 
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.

Well, that would require it to find a means of succession that's not "General X raises the flag of rebellion and wins and is now Emperor Romanicus."
 

Clibanarius

Banned
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...

IIRC while the romans did win their legions did get cut up pretty good the first couple of times they took the pikes on and the troops that were supposed to support the Hellenistic Pikes had declined in quality.

Whereas in the Middle Ages and the Ren when pikes got big they had halberdiers, arqubusiers and swordsmen.
 
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 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. ;)
 
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 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.
 
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...

Macedonian Phalanges were extraordinarily slow, and were as inflexible as any of the Greek formations. The tactics of the late Middle Ages, by comparison, are much faster and much more difficult to overcome with a properly disciplined force.

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.

The Roman Empire has as much chance of successfully adopting use of them as the Kingdom of Italy does adopting a European superpower. The Roman nobility that controlled the armies will see muskets as a threat to its political power right up until artillery and musketry smashes the everloving hell out of a legion.
 
Top