Roman tactics in the Middle Ages question.

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.



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.

The amusing thing is that the Sassanids or even a Germanic tribe might use gunpowder before the Romans do.
 
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.
A Roman Empire that's remained adaptable enough to survive on top for another 1,000 years isn't going to be as inflexible as you think.

Roman nobility? What? The army dominated the Empire and were always a threat to the Senate and whatever civilians had political power. If the Emperor who is primarily a general thinks that army needs muskets, or even more importantly hears that the army wants muskets, the army will get muskets.

So, a legion gets smashed, so what? That's the point of the Empire, there's another 40 legions which can be equipped with muskets. Crassus and his legions were annihilated by the Parthians, but the Romans adapated their tactics and arms and ran roughshod over Mesopotamia in the 2nd century.
 
The Sassanids will be far more resistant to military reform, especially with gunpowder which essentially makes the Noble cavalry obsolete, than Rome.
 
Also a little note, I disagree with the idea that the term 'professional army is anachronistic for the Imperial Roman Period.
The Roman army was paid for, permanent, drilled (in engineering as well as warfare), equipped by the state and was a profession rather than a temporary levy.

The same can be said for large components of the Assyrian and Achaemenid states.

The same cannot be said for Medieval European states. Not every warrior was levied of course, but the ones that were not are usually pretty noteworthy. I will also point out that the scale of Roman armies dwarfed those of Medieval ones where we have a realistic estimate.

I think we might need to restate the terms of the inquiry- is this whether or not the Roman army, 700,000 strong, could have dealt with the armies of Feudal Europe, or whether a Roman force of equivalent size would have defeated a Medieval one?

Also a world with surviving Romans has implications for technological development and the transmission of ideas throughout Europe anyway, don't assume the introduction of gunpowder to Europe would be an indentical process.
 

Clibanarius

Banned
The Sassanids will be far more resistant to military reform, especially with gunpowder which essentially makes the Noble cavalry obsolete, than Rome.

Actually they were very much for reform, at least under Khosrau, who introduced heavy infantry, engineers and siege engines to the Sassanian Army.

As for the Cavalry, not nessecarily, the golden age of the noble heavy cavalryman was during the 1500s and he coexisted alongside guns for centuries.
 
Actually they were very much for reform, at least under Khosrau, who introduced heavy infantry, engineers and siege engines to the Sassanian Army.

As for the Cavalry, not nessecarily, the golden age of the noble heavy cavalryman was during the 1500s and he coexisted alongside guns for centuries.

Not really. Khosrau's reforms were a very temporary adjustment that in the end needed more powerful rulers to be upheld against the nobles. Even then, Khosrau's heavy infantry was mainly dismounted Cataphracts. The vast majority of the infantry were levies and other light infantry.

As for the cavalry, the Golden age was not the 1500s. Where did you get that idea :confused:
 

RousseauX

Donor
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).
This wasn't really true of Roman armies pre-Marius. But then again, you would need a yeomen class for -that- particular model to work.
 

Clibanarius

Banned
As for the cavalry, the Golden age was not the 1500s. Where did you get that idea :confused:

Heavy Cavalry made up about 50% of the entire French Army at the time and every other country was trying to get their hands on as many men-at-arms as possible and Heavy Cavalry at the time were better protected than they had ever been and they decided the day.

At Marignano the French Artillery forced the advancing Swiss Pikes to bunch up and the French Gendarmes charged head-on into their front about 38 times stopping them cold.

At Ravenna they tore right the front of a sold square of Landsknechts and then they did the same thing at Ceresole and then tore right a solid Swiss square (Something no one had managed before) and out the other, multiple times.

Arqubuses were still slow, lost velocity quickly, and they were tempermental. Military commanders of the time agreed that 1500 arqubusiers in the open would be swept off the field by 500 Gendarmes.

Their real threats were other heavy cavalry and Pikes which diminished when faced by Artillery and Gendarmes.

Check out l-clausewitz on LJ, he has some excellent articles on the subject and myarmoury.com also some great stuff on the great subject.

Cheers! :)
 

While in the middle east Ottoman field artillery and better soldiers ripped through the Mamluk cavalry. It was still important, no doubt, but its use was being supplanted by Infantry. It became an arm of the forces rather than the center.
 
The Persian heavy cavalry (essentially knights in armor) were successful enough against the Roman infantry legions that the Romans were forced to adopt their own heavy cavalry, the cataphracts.
 

Clibanarius

Banned
While in the middle east Ottoman field artillery and better soldiers ripped through the Mamluk cavalry. It was still important, no doubt, but its use was being supplanted by Infantry. It became an arm of the forces rather than the center.

I never said the days of heavy cavalry weren't drawing to an end, however during most of the 1500s they were still the dominant arm and in Poland noble heavy cavalry continued on with great success.
 
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.

I don't recall Charles Martel being overthrown and yet he confiscated church lands to sustain a standing infantry army that was able to break the charge of the Arab cavalry rather than the other way around.
 
I don't recall Charles Martel being overthrown and yet he confiscated church lands to sustain a standing infantry army that was able to break the charge of the Arab cavalry rather than the other way around.

The Frankish cavalry broke the Arabs at Poiters, not his infantry.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

The account here is that the Arabs beat their heads against the Frankish infantry. There doesn't appear to be any reference to Frankish cavalry at all.

And that's really beside the point. Charles had heavy infantry and that didn't lead to a nobles' revolt.

That's because Wikipedia's article is fanciful. What actually happened is after six or seven days of skirmishing the Frankish soldiers holed themselves up on a plateau overlooking the old Roman road to Tours. They then adopted a Testedo formation and the Arab cavalry was not able to break their formation regardless of the weakness of the Franks. Then the Frankish cavalry surprised them from the rear. This is noted by the Mozarbic Chronicle of 754. In actuality al-Ghafqi had begun to gain the upperhand regardless of the Surprise Frankish cavalry charge but his life was cut short by an arrow and the Arabs collapsed. The Aquitainians also assisted as Odo made several attacks on the Arabs. See Charles Martel by Mercier and Seguin, page 20.

As for Charles' success, it was more a product of the fact that the nobles of Frankland were a Warrior aristocracy and were in his army.
 
A Roman Empire that's remained adaptable enough to survive on top for another 1,000 years isn't going to be as inflexible as you think.

Roman nobility? What? The army dominated the Empire and were always a threat to the Senate and whatever civilians had political power. If the Emperor who is primarily a general thinks that army needs muskets, or even more importantly hears that the army wants muskets, the army will get muskets.

So, a legion gets smashed, so what? That's the point of the Empire, there's another 40 legions which can be equipped with muskets. Crassus and his legions were annihilated by the Parthians, but the Romans adapated their tactics and arms and ran roughshod over Mesopotamia in the 2nd century.

Yes, because to last 1,000 years it will have had such a different history (it meaning the super-empire that it won't really matter). If every power vacuum ever produces a major civil war, that works until all the generals are evenly matched, then things fall apart. If it stays in the classical form that system will self-destruct because generals who win wars are usually bad politicians, even by that standard.

I might also note that your statement that the legions being smashed and this not-mattering ignores that Roman manpower *was* exhausted by the endless civil wars. There's a reason they hired Foederati, and it wasn't that the Roman ethnos did not like war. It was that it liked war too much....
 
I`d like to point out that Norman heavy cavaly defeated Anglo-Saxon heavy infantry at Hastings and again at Dyrrhachium. I`d consider that AS heavy infantry was the linieal descendant of the Roman heavy infantry, the differences would be details rather than concepts.
 
I`d like to point out that Norman heavy cavaly defeated Anglo-Saxon heavy infantry at Hastings and again at Dyrrhachium. I`d consider that AS heavy infantry was the linieal descendant of the Roman heavy infantry, the differences would be details rather than concepts.

I wouldn't consider those to be very good examples. At Hastings the Normans won mainly through smarter tactics and a lucky arrow shot. At Dyrrachium, the Varangian Guard was actually pushing back the Norman cavalry. It wasn't until Robert Guiscard brought up his crossbowmen, who combined with Varangian exhaustion and overextension, stopped the Guard.
 
I wouldn't consider those to be very good examples. At Hastings the Normans won mainly through smarter tactics and a lucky arrow shot. At Dyrrachium, the Varangian Guard was actually pushing back the Norman cavalry. It wasn't until Robert Guiscard brought up his crossbowmen, who combined with Varangian exhaustion and overextension, stopped the Guard.

So, the lesson is that tactics and combined arms matter more than simple tactical rock-paper-scissors?

;)
 
Isn't the Byzantine army what the WESTERN Roman Empire's army would have been like, pretty much? Sure, the nomenclature would have been in Latin and not Greek, but why would the formations and tactics be significantly different, especially considering that if the West had survived it would have remained in some sort of close relationship with the East, every now and then sharing campaigns etc?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top