Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Armored Legionnaires cannot defeat a Oathsworn?!!!

124678

Comments

  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Medieval armies were feudal and mostly conscripted and as a result were inconsistent in quality as there did not exist a centralized and codified system of training and equipping. Nor would there close quarter fighting be as efficient as the Roman meat grinder.

    What you are saying is the equivalent of one saying: South American drug lords, which are organized in a very feudal manner and well armed and could draw their own army from their subordinates, could defeat an American Infantry Brigade.

    What you're saying has absolutely no basis in reality.

    Come back, man. Come back.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    What you're saying has absolutely no basis in reality.

    Come back, man. Come back.

    I think your love-affair with Barbarians and the Dark Age has clouded your historical judgement. Good luck finding one military historian that would agree with your theory.
  • Mercb3astMercb3ast Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 430
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Medieval armies were feudal and mostly conscripted and as a result were inconsistent in quality as there did not exist a centralized and codified system of training and equipping. Nor would there close quarter fighting be as efficient as the Roman meat grinder.

    What you are saying is the equivalent of one saying: South American drug lords, which are organized in a very feudal manner and well armed and could draw their own army from their subordinates, could defeat an American Infantry Brigade.

    South American Drug Lords in sufficient numbers absolutely could defeat an independent American Infantry Brigade.

    The strength of American military might isn't the infantry, it is the seamless integration of multiple combined arm wings. Artillery, Air, Armour. That Infantry Brigade without any of the other aspects of the US military is just a bunch of well trained guys with finite ammunition.
  • DeciDeci Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 235
    edited October 2013
    Dont forget the byzantians under justinians rule who did fight very much in a classical roman way and were equipped like one when he tried to recounqer western roman territories from the barbarians and did so very swift and effecient. The failure of that campaign wasnt exacly military (aka plauge back home which decimated the population and put economic to a halt
  • SaintDSaintD Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    I think your love-affair with Barbarians and the Dark Age has clouded your historical judgement. Good luck finding one military historian that would agree with your theory.

    Your laughable ignorance has clouded your judgement. By the High Medieval age the standard European army was built around a core of hilariously heavy infantry and cavalry the Romans have literally no answer for. Plate armours, and heaven forbid the likes of 'gothic plate', were so crushingly effective that no-one was using a shield because they were wearing it. Weapons like the poleaxe were developed and used explicitly because defeating such armour was so incredibly difficult.

    This is to say nothing of European heavy shock cavalry for much of the middle to late medieval era. They are literally the heaviest shock cavalry in human history. All of it. Cataphracts did not 'charge' in the manner people think of, they trotted up to the enemy, picked up some speed when close, and basically just beat the enemy to death with maces and such like they were infantry; European heavy cavalry, especially of the late medieval era, is unparalleled shock cavalry.

    This one-two punch would completely and totally laugh at a Roman Legion. The kind of heavy infantry Europe could offer after Europe had stabilised from the collapse of the Roman Empire would have little problem going toe to toe with legionaries (as a note for your monumental ignorance, there is a reason the Byzantines were using various huscarls from northern Europe to form the Varangian Guard), and late medieval men-at-arms wouldn't even give a ****. They'd just go and kill them all. But on top of this is a cavalry force that could singlehandedly eat a Legion and spit it back out. Roman cavalry is universally laughable compared to the growing hordes of heavy shock cavalry that ended up being prevalent in Europe, and after that, a Roman Legion has no answer to being smashed to pieces by such a force....especially when otherwise engaged.

    I've pointed this out before for someone clearly as utterly deluded as you are, but I will do so again; no-one ever, ever, ever reformed the Roman Legions. Ever. Byzantium easily had the money. They did not recreate them. Neither did the Ubayyid Caliphate, the Turks, the Ottoman Empire, the Carolingian Empire, any European state as the Renaissance rolled in. Never. They were never an idea returned to by anyone else who easily had the money, power and organisation to do so. Not even Machiavelli, who worshipped at the altar of Rome and the Roman art of war, was not daft enough to create such a thing when given a free hand to create a military force for Florence. That is because the Legion is not the greatest military formation ever devised. It was relatively sturdy, and served the purposes of the Roman Empire for many centuries, but in the end it became obsolete.

    Late Medieval Europe would effortlessly crush any attempt by the Roman Empire to attack it. Frankly, if Caesar had found himself marching against the very heavy huscarl infantry of around 1000AD, he'd have gotten his face kicked in up until the point he routed the **** around them and proceeded with the outflanking.

    The irony is you accusing others of a 'love affair', when you're the one arguing in monumentally ignorant terms about the potency of Rome....a state which eventually completely collapsed and whose Legions ultimately failed to protect it when organised enemies of similar power came after it. A state that lived on in the Byzantine Empire.....which utterly abandoned the Roman Legion despite easily being able to support such formations.
    "You there, poster, what is your profession?"
    "TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, DRIVE THEM BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THE WOMEN!"

    SaintD was subsequently ordered to return to Sparta.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    I think your love-affair with Barbarians and the Dark Age has clouded your historical judgement. Good luck finding one military historian that would agree with your theory.

    'Medieval armies were feudal and mostly conscripted and as a result were inconsistent in quality as there did not exist a centralized and codified system of training and equipping.'

    Armour did not disappear, but improved to the point by which the Roman gladius was VASTLY less effective. Swords were a standard part of armies by this point and served the role of the katana in Japanese armies: as a side-arm. There was a great emphasis on spears, pikes, halberds, two handed swords and blunt weaponry as well as some axes in response to the increase in availability of armour and the resilience of armour. Knights and heavy horse were a standard part of most fuedal armies and crossbows and longbows as well. This led to a seamless integration of archers, cavalry and infantry.

    A Roman force versus a group of unmounted knights would stand absolutely no chance. A Henry V style army would demolish a Roman legion with relative ease. The Romans had no counter to the longbow.

    They had no counter to the power of a crossbow which could pierce their scutums and their armour. This was the reason why shields were gradually phased out in the medieval period, except for bucklers which gradually became dueling weapons later on.

    Even normal heavy infantry with mail, shields, swords and axes in the medieval period (men-at-arms) would give a Roman legion a hard time.

    Spear/pike formations could perform the task of fixing Roman formations while light infantry could flank along with heavy cavalry.

    The Romans had absolutely no defence against knights, the likes of which were far more formidable than the heavy cavalry they were used to suffering badly from. A charge into the flank of Roman formation or head on into a thinner Roman line would cause a rout almost instantly.

    Medieval armies frequently supplemented their ranks with mercenaries, such as Swiss Pikes and crossbowmen, experienced and devastating troops.

    If a medieval army met a Roman one it would immediately start a barrage of fire from archers. An English army would only need to mop up afterwards. A French army would do a head-on cavalry charge backed by heavy and light infantry that would be unimaginably brutal to those not prepared to face it.

    The ease with which a medieval army can form up, change tactics and adapt is just bewildering. Roman infantry would be completely unprepared to face such an army and their javelins and swords would be laughably ineffective.


    'Nor would there close quarter fighting be as efficient as the Roman meat grinder.'

    Nor would anyone need to engage in such a battle, as the Romans would never get a chance to enter any 'meat grinder'. Even if they somehow endured artillery and archer barrages and made it to the front line, their weapons would be extremely inefficient. You can't just stab when a guy with a billhook is making a mess of your face out of your range and that's light infantry, let alone heavy infantry with shields and broadswords that were far better balanced and with a greater range.
  • SaintDSaintD Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    They had no counter to the power of a crossbow which could pierce their scutums and their armour. This was the reason why shields were gradually phased out in the medieval period, except for bucklers which gradually became dueling weapons later on.

    Shields were phased out because they were pointless. The increasing prevalence of half, three quarter and full plate meant that shields were simply not necessary. The power of bows and crossbows is monumentally overstated; such advanced armour had little trouble dealing with them. The advantage in the massed fire put out by English armies was how it exhausted and disrupted the enemy formation*. By the time their French foes reached their lines, they were not fresh and organised enough to stand up to the already much more disciplined English men-at-arms. Well....and also longbows murdered the hell out of horses so cavalry operations were off the table.

    * Although their armour could relatively easily protect them, soldiery would still have to turn their face downwards to protect their face from catching an arrow through their eyeslits and other weak points, and getting smacked constantly by massive arrows or a hail of bolts is just not exactly fun work even if you're not hurt. By the time you get to the enemy, you're tired and your entire formation has been staring at the cursed ground for the past 300 yards. Relatively few men will die on approach (sheer misfortune is gonna stick an arrow in some vulnerable part of someone), some more will die when they get into the terminal 30-50 yard range where powerful longbows or crossbows can manage to actually penetrate such armour, but otherwise you're going to do nothing to appreciably damage the formation.
    "You there, poster, what is your profession?"
    "TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, DRIVE THEM BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THE WOMEN!"

    SaintD was subsequently ordered to return to Sparta.
  • DeciDeci Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 235
    edited October 2013
    This discussion above is really pointless just because the weapons and armor were vastly improved from the legions primedays to the late medieval. Its just the same from 16th prime army to an average 19th army. The weapons are still the same and so are tactics to some extent but what that earlier army would have no chance. Early medieval is a better start if you want to compare that, orherwise organisations and such.
  • SaintDSaintD Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited October 2013
    Deci wrote: »
    This discussion above is really pointless just because the weapons and armor were vastly improved from the legions primedays to the late medieval. Its just the same from 16th prime army to an average 19th army. The weapons are still the same and so are tactics to some extent but what that earlier army would have no chance. Early medieval is a better start if you want to compare that, orherwise organisations and such.

    Early medieval is still 1000AD. This is the era in which Anglo-Saxon and Norman huscarls were marauding around Europe so unstoppably that the Byzantine Empire decided they needed some of these guys....then proceeded to marvel at how they were psychotic death machines. Normandy, you know, that tiny region in northern France, had been single handedly beating the doo doo out of Byzantium and the Mediterranean in general. To such an extent the Byzantines recruited them to go beat up Turks instead....which they did. This happy relationship stopped when the Normans realised they could just keep the stuff they were taking.

    Charlemagne, of course, secured his southern border with the Caliphate thanks to proper use of...uh...his well disciplined heavy infantry which defended against shock cavalry attacks a Roman Legion would certainly not have wanted to be dealing with.
    "You there, poster, what is your profession?"
    "TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, DRIVE THEM BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THE WOMEN!"

    SaintD was subsequently ordered to return to Sparta.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    SaintD wrote: »
    Shields were phased out because they were pointless. The increasing prevalence of half, three quarter and full plate meant that shields were simply not necessary. The power of bows and crossbows is monumentally overstated; such advanced armour had little trouble dealing with them. The advantage in the massed fire put out by English armies was how it exhausted and disrupted the enemy formation*. By the time their French foes reached their lines, they were not fresh and organised enough to stand up to the already much more disciplined English men-at-arms. Well....and also longbows murdered the hell out of horses so cavalry operations were off the table.

    * Although their armour could relatively easily protect them, soldiery would still have to turn their face downwards to protect their face from catching an arrow through their eyeslits and other weak points, and getting smacked constantly by massive arrows or a hail of bolts is just not exactly fun work even if you're not hurt. By the time you get to the enemy, you're tired and your entire formation has been staring at the cursed ground for the past 300 yards. Relatively few men will die on approach (sheer misfortune is gonna stick an arrow in some vulnerable part of someone), some more will die when they get into the terminal 30-50 yard range where powerful longbows or crossbows can manage to actually penetrate such armour, but otherwise you're going to do nothing to appreciably damage the formation.

    My take on why shields gradually disappeared is due to a combination of four factors:

    -They weren't defending as well from heavy crossbows and longbows; powerful ranged weapons used en masse meant shields were much less effective than earlier times.

    -Armour advancements meant in melee two handed weapons and polearms were becoming more popular in order to deal with heavier and more resilient armour.

    -Heavy cavalry became more prevalent and you needed lots of good polearms to deal with them, so shields became less important when faced with frequent cavalry attacks.

    -Advanced armour meant you didn't need a shield to protect yourself anymore.

    Basically my impression of longbows and crossbows was that they start killing guys in armour when used en masse and gradually deaths increase as the range decrease. I wouldn't downplay their effectiveness though and you have to remember that plate wasn't in use by all infantry, so longbows would have little trouble piercing shield and mail.
  • SaintDSaintD Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    My take on why shields gradually disappeared is due to a combination of four factors:

    -They weren't defending as well from heavy crossbows and longbows; powerful ranged weapons used en masse meant shields were much less effective than earlier times.

    -Armour advancements meant in melee two handed weapons and polearms were becoming more popular in order to deal with heavier and more resilient armour.

    -Heavy cavalry became more prevalent and you needed lots of good polearms to deal with them, so shields became less important when faced with frequent cavalry attacks.

    -Advanced armour meant you didn't need a shield to protect yourself anymore.

    Basically my impression of longbows and crossbows was that they start killing guys in armour when used en masse and gradually deaths increase as the range decrease. I wouldn't downplay their effectiveness though and you have to remember that plate wasn't in use by all infantry, so longbows would have little trouble piercing shield and mail.

    They defend just fine from longbows and crossbows. They're not guns. Or lasers. Or death rays. Know what was a great defence against arrows, even when crossbows and longbows were around? Loads of padding. Chain mail clad crusaders were noted as often coming out of battles with their Turk enemies literally looking like porcupines with arrows sticking out of them. Didn't give a ****.

    Guns were revolutionary for one reason; killing power. Archers could fire faster, and usually more accurately. But when you shot someone with a gun, it was absurdly more likely they'd kill the guy. Arrows are rubbish for killing people. Henry V literally got shot in the face with a longbow. His doctor had to open up the wound with a special tool and wiggle that arrowhead right out his face. If he'd caught a bullet to the face, he wouldn't have a face.

    Shields declined for no more reason than being largely obsolete. Your armour was now your shield, and everyone wearing it could now make use of a vastly more effective polearm. Which everyone had always wanted to do, which is why huscarls armoured themselves up like you wouldn't believe ('kings maille' chain weave is nuts) and carried a shield on their back as a backup and for shieldwalling when they weren't attempting to murder the entire world with a dane axe. When you're all in decent amounts of plate armour, you are the shield wall.
    "You there, poster, what is your profession?"
    "TO CRUSH YOUR ENEMIES, DRIVE THEM BEFORE YOU, AND HEAR THE LAMENTATION OF THE WOMEN!"

    SaintD was subsequently ordered to return to Sparta.
  • BshamBsham Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 439
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Something seriously wrong with the history here. How can Armored Professional Legionaries not be able to beat Oathsworn Gauls? This is not historically accurate. If anything they should be butchered and easily. I've tried every configuration and cannot seem to find one elite unit that can do it.

    I think they made a mistake and exaggerated the Gauls significantly.

    This game never said or tried to be a history simulator. I want barbarian units who can stand up to the best Roman soldiers as it creates better gameplay. I don't want no "oh I'm Roman no unit is allowed to have my stats or beat me 1v1 game". How dam boring.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    SaintD wrote: »
    Early medieval is still 1000AD. This is the era in which Anglo-Saxon and Norman huscarls were marauding around Europe so unstoppably that the Byzantine Empire decided they needed some of these guys....then proceeded to marvel at how they were psychotic death machines. Normandy, you know, that tiny region in northern France, had been single handedly beating the doo doo out of Byzantium and the Mediterranean in general. To such an extent the Byzantines recruited them to go beat up Turks instead....which they did. This happy relationship stopped when the Normans realised they could just keep the stuff they were taking.

    Charlemagne, of course, secured his southern border with the Caliphate thanks to proper use of...uh...his well disciplined heavy infantry which defended against shock cavalry attacks a Roman Legion would certainly not have wanted to be dealing with.

    The Roman Legions did deal with Parthian Cataphract heavy shock cavalry at the battle of Nisibis 217 AD and fought them to a stand still thanks to Roman Light Lanciarii.
  • Mercb3astMercb3ast Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 430
    edited October 2013
    I think I can resolve this debate!

    Strictly speaking the strength of the Roman Legion was the standardization inherent within it and the state backing it up.

    Just like in antiquity there would have been one off battles, or even a short series of battles where medieval armies could have no doubt defeated Roman legions or armies in the height of the Empire. However, I would be hard pressed to come up with any single Kingdom/State/Empire before gunpowder began to dominate warfare during the Medieval period that could have coped with an actual war versus Rome.

    Rome would be better organized, better able to mobilize manpower, better able to field larger numbers of really high quality soldiers. Sure the Byzantines could have perhaps fielded AN army that top to bottom could out perform A SINGLE Roman Army, but you have to remember that during this period no state really had the resources to maintain a standing army the way Rome could. If you look throughout history, a requisite size is required for a state to be able to create large standing armies. Rome EVENTUALLY attained that size, before it was dependent on farmers. During the medieval period few, if any states existed that could rival the Roman Empire at its peak in terms of centralized control and the ability to maintain large standing professional armies.

    Instead you have a very small core of well trained highly motivated soldiers, and around that core you piled in the fodder (conscripted levies). This would resemble more a Gallic army, where the high ranking warriors and nobles would be well equipped, trained and ready to take the worst Rome could offer, but around that Gallic nucleus, you had a bunch of naked dudes who while brave were probably lacking in just about everything else required to be a proficient army.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Deci wrote: »
    This discussion above is really pointless just because the weapons and armor were vastly improved from the legions primedays to the late medieval. Its just the same from 16th prime army to an average 19th army. The weapons are still the same and so are tactics to some extent but what that earlier army would have no chance. Early medieval is a better start if you want to compare that, orherwise organisations and such.

    That is true. However, it has been suggested by many who have written on late medieval armor, that it was overkill and unnecessary. Just more weight and a reduction in movement.

    My whole point is until Gun Powder was introduced, warfare was essentially still sword and shield.

    You are correct, this is a pointless argument as it is an old argument one can find all over the internet among armchair generals.

    I consider the Romans the pinnacle of Pre-Gunpowder warfare and the Dark Ages the antithesis of professionalism and reliability.

    But we'll never know because they never fought each other.
  • SpartiateSpartiate Banned Banned Users Posts: 386
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Something seriously wrong with the history here. How can Armored Professional Legionaries not be able to beat Oathsworn Gauls? This is not historically accurate. If anything they should be butchered and easily. I've tried every configuration and cannot seem to find one elite unit that can do it.

    I think they made a mistake and exaggerated the Gauls significantly.

    Wich history you bull futile sack of potatoes? Stop with this fanboy **** of yours
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    Osbot wrote: »
    I think I can resolve this debate!

    Strictly speaking the strength of the Roman Legion was the standardization inherent within it and the state backing it up.

    Just like in antiquity there would have been one off battles, or even a short series of battles where medieval armies could have no doubt defeated Roman legions or armies in the height of the Empire. However, I would be hard pressed to come up with any single Kingdom/State/Empire before gunpowder began to dominate warfare during the Medieval period that could have coped with an actual war versus Rome.

    Rome would be better organized, better able to mobilize manpower, better able to field larger numbers of really high quality soldiers. Sure the Byzantines could have perhaps fielded AN army that top to bottom could out perform A SINGLE Roman Army, but you have to remember that during this period no state really had the resources to maintain a standing army the way Rome could. If you look throughout history, a requisite size is required for a state to be able to create large standing armies. Rome EVENTUALLY attained that size, before it was dependent on farmers. During the medieval period few, if any states existed that could rival the Roman Empire at its peak in terms of centralized control and the ability to maintain large standing professional armies.

    Instead you have a very small core of well trained highly motivated soldiers, and around that core you piled in the fodder (conscripted levies). This would resemble more a Gallic army, where the high ranking warriors and nobles would be well equipped, trained and ready to take the worst Rome could offer, but around that Gallic nucleus, you had a bunch of naked dudes who while brave were probably lacking in just about everything else required to be a proficient army.

    A medieval army has a lot of well trained soldiers backed up by some levies that are reasonably well equipped and knights with the best armour and lances as well as archers and/or crossbowmen, pikes and/or spears and mercenaries. It's much more capable than a Roman army.

    Also, think of what the gladius is. It's a piercing short sword that relies on getting in close in formation. Medieval armies were made up of a lot of polearms, weapons with a lot of reach and power that could smash a Roman formation to bits while taking very little damage from the short sword.

    If the Romans were all equipped with axes, they might stand a better chance, but not with the short sword, which was obsolete by this point. Everyone had a sword at this time anyway, which was superior to the gladius in pretty much every respect and better made.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Osbot wrote: »
    I think I can resolve this debate!

    Strictly speaking the strength of the Roman Legion was the standardization inherent within it and the state backing it up.

    Just like in antiquity there would have been one off battles, or even a short series of battles where medieval armies could have no doubt defeated Roman legions or armies in the height of the Empire. However, I would be hard pressed to come up with any single Kingdom/State/Empire before gunpowder began to dominate warfare during the Medieval period that could have coped with an actual war versus Rome.

    Rome would be better organized, better able to mobilize manpower, better able to field larger numbers of really high quality soldiers. Sure the Byzantines could have perhaps fielded AN army that top to bottom could out perform A SINGLE Roman Army, but you have to remember that during this period no state really had the resources to maintain a standing army the way Rome could. If you look throughout history, a requisite size is required for a state to be able to create large standing armies. Rome EVENTUALLY attained that size, before it was dependent on farmers. During the medieval period few, if any states existed that could rival the Roman Empire at its peak in terms of centralized control and the ability to maintain large standing professional armies.

    Instead you have a very small core of well trained highly motivated soldiers, and around that core you piled in the fodder (conscripted levies). This would resemble more a Gallic army, where the high ranking warriors and nobles would be well equipped, trained and ready to take the worst Rome could offer, but around that Gallic nucleus, you had a bunch of naked dudes who while brave were probably lacking in just about everything else required to be a proficient army.

    Very well said and on point. You grasped the direction and point I was trying to make earlier.

    Instead others just started mindlessly yammering about Billhooks and plate armor and broadswords. Really Billhooks?!! As that really your guy's trump card? Billhooks! Please...
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Spartiate wrote: »
    Wich history you bull futile sack of potatoes? Stop with this fanboy **** of yours

    Huh?! Lol!
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Very well said and on point. You grasped the direction and point I was trying to make earlier.

    Instead others just started mindlessly yammering about Billhooks and plate armor and broadswords. Really Billhooks?!! As that really your guy's trump card? Billhooks! Please...

    I'd take a billhook over a gladius any day.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    A medieval army has a lot of well trained soldiers backed up by some levies that are reasonably well equipped and knights with the best armour and lances as well as archers and/or crossbowmen, pikes and/or spears and mercenaries. It's much more capable than a Roman army.

    Also, think of what the gladius is. It's a piercing short sword that relies on getting in close in formation. Medieval armies were made up of a lot of polearms, weapons with a lot of reach and power that could smash a Roman formation to bits while taking very little damage from the short sword.

    If the Romans were all equipped with axes, they might stand a better chance, but not with the short sword, which was obsolete by this point. Everyone had a sword at this time anyway, which was superior to the gladius in pretty much every respect and better made.

    There you go again with Pikes and spears as though that's a convincing argument. Did you conveniently forget that the Roman legions smashed the Phalanx, using a Gladius!?
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    I'd take a billhook over a gladius any day.
    For what to go up against a Legionary that is not on a horse? You know that it was employed against mounted not intended for infantry.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    There you go again with Pikes and spears as though that's a convincing argument. Did you conveniently forget that the Roman legions smashed the Phalanx, using a Gladius!?

    The armour the Macedonians and Greeks were using was vastly inferior to Medieval heavy armour pikemen and spearmen would have been using, making the gladius completely redundant.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    For what to go up against a Legionary that is not on a horse? You know that it was employed against mounted not intended for infantry.

    It would be enough to take on a Roman legion if I had a bit of chest armour and a helmet. Catching scutums with the hook and pulling legionaries to their death in the formation, using it as a spear to keep legionaries at a distance, using it as a bashing implement...

    Imagine now some unmounted knights with this:

    halberd_04.jpgf82f8a55-ca99-44d2-b826-c057d3e075c9Larger.jpg

    Say goodbye to the legion. Good luck with penetrating the armour of this guy with a gladius or pilum:

    Deluxe_Knights_Armor-Wearable-KE-6223.jpg
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    The armour the Macedonians and Greeks were using was vastly inferior to Medieval heavy armour pikemen and spearmen would have been using, making the gladius completely redundant.

    What armor were pikemen using?

    I would love to see a heavy Pila tested against late Medieval plate.
  • Mercb3astMercb3ast Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 430
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    It would be enough to take on a Roman legion if I had a bit of chest armour and a helmet. Catching scutums with the hook and pulling legionaries to their death in the formation, using it as a spear to keep legionaries at a distance, using it as a bashing implement...

    Imagine now some unmounted knights with this:

    halberd_04.jpgf82f8a55-ca99-44d2-b826-c057d3e075c9Larger.jpg

    Say goodbye to the legion. Good luck with penetrating the armour of this guy with a gladius or pilum:

    Deluxe_Knights_Armor-Wearable-KE-6223.jpg

    Yep. The few hundred men you had equipped like that would surely handle the 80 thousand legionaries and auxiliaries that Rome would field. Oh, and if somehow that Medieval army somehow won (not likely), Rome would just send another half dozen legions.

    I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to argue here. The absolute elite soldiers of the medieval period were obviously going to be better man for man than Rome simply due to equipment. However, those elite soldiers would have numbers in the HUNDREDS, maybe a few thousand. The armies fielded in the medieval period were laughably small and they were comprised primarily out of conscripted peasants.

    The tactics used by Medieval armies were laughably simplistic comparatively speaking. Combat typically revolved around a heavy cavalry charge. Medieval armies were not more flexible, nor where they more tactically adept. They were typically a mass of poorly armed and poorly equiped peasants supporting a smaller, well trained and well armed nucleus.

    How can you think that in an open field battle a medieval army would be more flexible than a professional Roman army during the Empire? An army composed top to bottom of PROFESSIONAL soldiers equipped with weapons and armor that on average far exceeded anything the medieval army was going to be using.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    What armor were pikemen using?

    I would love to see a heavy Pila tested against late Medieval plate.

    Would be nice for a good laugh.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    It would be enough to take on a Roman legion if I had a bit of chest armour and a helmet. Catching scutums with the hook and pulling legionaries to their death in the formation, using it as a spear to keep legionaries at a distance, using it as a bashing implement...

    Imagine now some unmounted knights with this:

    halberd_04.jpgf82f8a55-ca99-44d2-b826-c057d3e075c9Larger.jpg

    Say goodbye to the legion. Good luck with penetrating the armour of this guy with a gladius or pilum:

    Deluxe_Knights_Armor-Wearable-KE-6223.jpg




    Ridiculous! Roman Legions destroyed the Phalanx by maneuvering to the flanks which they would likely do against overloaded dismounted knights trying to form a halberd wall. In addition, the Legionaries were experts in precision accurate thrusts at the abdomen, neck, face and underarm.

    There are gaps in the armor especially the underarm where the Gladius could and likely would do it's dirty work.

    Where do you think Medieval infantry tried to aim for?

    This armor I think has been judged, and rightfully so by experts, as overkill and a sign of ego rather than battlefield necessity.

    Keep it simple and to the point! Just the way the Romans did.
  • Bolt-ThrowerBolt-Thrower Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 266
    edited October 2013
    jesus rylege just **** stop i will test a pilum on you **** it
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    Osbot wrote: »
    Yep. The few hundred men you had equipped like that would surely handle the 80 thousand legionaries and auxiliaries that Rome would field. Oh, and if somehow that Medieval army somehow won (not likely), Rome would just send another half dozen legions.

    I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to argue here. The absolute elite soldiers of the medieval period were obviously going to be better man for man than Rome simply due to equipment. However, those elite soldiers would have numbers in the HUNDREDS, maybe a few thousand. The armies fielded in the medieval period were laughably small and they were comprised primarily out of conscripted peasants.

    The tactics used by Medieval armies were laughably simplistic comparatively speaking. Combat typically revolved around a heavy cavalry charge. Medieval armies were not more flexible, nor where they more tactically adept. They were typically a mass of poorly armed and poorly equiped peasants supporting a smaller, well trained and well armed nucleus.

    How can you think that in an open field battle a medieval army would be more flexible than a professional Roman army during the Empire? An army composed top to bottom of PROFESSIONAL soldiers equipped with weapons and armor that on average far exceeded anything the medieval army was going to be using.

    Ok now you're just trolling. Plus, we're talking about a Roman Legion vs a Medieval Army of similar strength, not the entire Roman Empire vs a single Medieval army.
Sign In or Register to comment.