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?!!!

123578

Comments

  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    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.

    What?!?!
  • Tr0stskYTr0stskY Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 708
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    Swiss Pikes?

    It's not really about one unit as it is about the organization of Medieval armies and their battle plans that were way more flexible and powerful than a Roman legion.

    Ok now I know for a fact you are just spewing all sorts of nonsense without any idea of what you are talking about!

    Well not quite, but still, Roman Legions were noted for their flexibility. I would argue more that the development and variance of new warfare-technology was the real difference.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    Tr0stskY wrote: »
    Ok now I know for a fact you are just spewing all sorts of nonsense without any idea of what you are talking about.

    Please enlighten me then.

    Frankly this entire derailment has gotten to the point of ridiculousness, with one side pointlessly trying to argue that a military force is somehow magically superior to its descendant 1000 years later.
  • Tr0stskYTr0stskY Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 708
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    Please enlighten me then.

    Frankly this entire derailment has gotten to the point of ridiculousness, with one side pointlessly trying to argue that a military force is somehow magically superior to its descendant 1000 years later.
    I changed my post a bit after I realised how it came across.
    I still disagree that medieval battle plans weren't as flexible as Romans. Flexiblity comes down to the command chain.
  • Mercb3astMercb3ast Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 430
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    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.

    I'm trolling? People are stupid these days. Confronted with an opinion they can't resolve they say "YOU'RE TROLLING".

    Your error here, is that you think you can separate a single Roman army from a single Medieval army. The Roman army is a REFLECTION of the wealth, power and size of the Roman Empire. I've already explained this, but I will again.

    Rome would field an army larger than any medieval state could, and that ENTIRE ARMY would be composed of men who would be superior to perhaps 95% of the Medieval Army.

    You might have 5, or 10% of the Medieval army that is equipped with superior equipment, but 90 or 95% of that army is not going to be ANYWHERE NEAR the standard of a Legionary. That isn't even comparing training. The mass of that army is not professional, they are conscripted part timers, they are peasants.

    On top of that, you're comparing an Empire that is primarily a MERITOCRACY with a feudalism. Feudalism is the anti-thesis of meritocracy. Top to bottom the Legion is going to be better armed, better trained and perhaps most importantly it is going to be better led. Positions of command and leadership are going to be occupied by GIFTED, CAPABLE individuals. Not a prestige seeking inbred screw ups as so many medieval Kings were.
  • Mercb3astMercb3ast Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 430
    edited October 2013
    Astalano wrote: »
    Please enlighten me then.

    Frankly this entire derailment has gotten to the point of ridiculousness, with one side pointlessly trying to argue that a military force is somehow magically superior to its descendant 1000 years later.

    Medieval Warfare was not the descendent of Rome. There is a reason why there is a period called the Dark Ages. There is a reason WHY Western Civilization did not return to the levels Rome had attained until the Renaissance. It's because Rome was lost, the knowledge, the organization, pretty much EVERYTHING was lost.

    It took over a thousand years for the knowledge of Rome to be returned back to Western Europe via Islam.
  • Tr0stskYTr0stskY Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 708
    edited October 2013
    it's all irrelevant anyway since we aren't trying to compare the Roman army to a Medieval Army.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited October 2013
    Tr0stskY wrote: »
    it's all irrelevant anyway since we aren't trying to compare the Roman army to a Medieval Army.

    HERESY!

    But really. Keep going. I like this. My popcorn is tasty.
  • MorgothicMorgothic Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,166
    edited October 2013
    Ah, Papal Propaganda has yet to leave us, it seems.

    So yes, the Romans were the epitome of society and warfare, and even modern soldiers would be hard pressed to beat them.
    Fast like the wind,
    Silent like a forest,
    Intrusive like the fire,
    Immobile like a mountain,
    Under heaven and earth, I alone am feared.
    -Takeda Shingen
    My Movie and Music review blog
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    Osbot wrote: »
    I'm trolling? People are stupid these days. Confronted with an opinion they can't resolve they say "YOU'RE TROLLING".

    Your error here, is that you think you can separate a single Roman army from a single Medieval army. The Roman army is a REFLECTION of the wealth, power and size of the Roman Empire. I've already explained this, but I will again.

    Rome would field an army larger than any medieval state could, and that ENTIRE ARMY would be composed of men who would be superior to perhaps 95% of the Medieval Army.

    You might have 5, or 10% of the Medieval army that is equipped with superior equipment, but 90 or 95% of that army is not going to be ANYWHERE NEAR the standard of a Legionary. That isn't even comparing training. The mass of that army is not professional, they are conscripted part timers, they are peasants.

    On top of that, you're comparing an Empire that is primarily a MERITOCRACY with a feudalism. Feudalism is the anti-thesis of meritocracy. Top to bottom the Legion is going to be better armed, better trained and perhaps most importantly it is going to be better led. Positions of command and leadership are going to be occupied by GIFTED, CAPABLE individuals. Not a prestige seeking inbred screw ups as so many medieval Kings were.

    Again, why can't we talk about a legion against a medieval army? The wealth of Rome depends on its empire. If we put a legion in a medieval setting then that empire is non-existent. Maybe that will clear things up.

    A medieval army is not 95% peasants. If you're talking about an Anglo-Saxon or Celtic army then I would agree with you. I can't agree on that 'figure' as you set it out.

    If you're talking about early medieval times then armies are less advanced with shields still very much in use and the army mostly made up of peasants led by knights and retainers.

    If you go into middle medieval and late medieval times, things change drastically, with peasants receiving much better equipment, a lot of mercenaries being used, many more professional soldiers and use of heavy cavalry, fewer and fewer shields, more two handed weapons and polearms and such. This is what we mean when we generally refer to the medieval period.

    It's the concept of the levy system, which was modified as the medieval period progressed, so more professional troops were available as time progressed.

    Moreover, even the lowliest peasants had some padded armour, with many more in mail (and padded underneath) and the vanguard of the army using the most advanced armour it could find.

    You have clear distinctions between archers, cavalry and infantry, with a recognized use of combined arms tactics. The Romans used auxiliaries, but archers and cavalry were by no means standard for the Romans, which is why I say they're less flexible in battle. They only really have a good core of infantry and since there is no clear standard for auxiliaries it can leave a Roman army at a disadvantage.

    'the Legion is going to be better armed'

    No. Pilum and gladius has nothing on medieval weapons.

    'prestige seeking inbred screw ups as so many medieval Kings were'

    Ouch.

    A. There were a lot of good medieval commanders.

    B. The King would not always lead the army.

    C. Kings weren't all insane.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited October 2013
    Morgothic wrote: »
    Ah, Papal Propaganda has yet to leave us, it seems.

    So yes, the Romans were the epitome of society and warfare, and even modern soldiers would be hard pressed to beat them.

    At least say something productive and quantifiable rather than than simply seek to inflame if you are going to postulate an opinion for one side or the next.
  • MorgothicMorgothic Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,166
    edited October 2013
    At least say something productive and quantifiable rather than than simply seek to inflame if you are going to postulate an opinion for one side or the next.

    If you really think any of the above argument about Medieval vs. Classical warfare is productive, then I will concede to your better judgement.
    Fast like the wind,
    Silent like a forest,
    Intrusive like the fire,
    Immobile like a mountain,
    Under heaven and earth, I alone am feared.
    -Takeda Shingen
    My Movie and Music review blog
  • AzzakFeedAzzakFeed Member Registered Users Posts: 48
    edited October 2013
    Well, if you take the eastern roman empire who did not collapsed, the tactics of the roman legions stopped. Why did they put an emphasis on heavy cavalry and horse archers ? Equipped the legionnaries of spears and backed them up with archers ? It's up to you to imagine why.

    And for the fiction of roman vs medieval, then some questions what medieval times are you refering to ? 8th century or 14th century ? A lot of changes here. And what about the romans ? The legionnaries weren't a fixed force, they knew a lot of evolution over time.

    But let's pick the best romans legions against the best medieval troops, in equal number in an open battle.
    Problems for the roman : first the medieval cavalry. I'm pretty sure a knight charge backed up with lighter cav will make a mess of the legionnaries and the auxiliary cav. Second : the ranged weapons. If you have crossbows and longbows in front of you, you are going to be very vulnerable at long distance. I suspect heavy losses for the romans approaching. Third : medieval army used a lot of long polearms. I'm not sure how legionnaires with their gladius would react when facing such forces. Fourth : medieval armor. You're going to have trouble to bring them down in a battle with massed troops where it's more difficult to aim than a duel.

    So yeah, I think a legion would get crushed by a medieval army of equal forces, especially the heavy cavalry.
    The question is different is you oppose the whole Roman Empire against a feudal kingdom. Then it's of course the roman empire, by it's size and organization.

    The romans were not invincible fighters, they lost countless legions. Why did they won ? Because that they had a modern, efficientmilitary organization and infrastucture. Thus every defeat was just making another legion come back. The medieval army didn't made wars to gain territories. They would essentially wage war to ransom prisoners. That's a totally different concept of warfare.
  • AstalanoAstalano Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 994
    edited October 2013
    Morgothic wrote: »
    Ah, Papal Propaganda has yet to leave us, it seems.

    So yes, the Romans were the epitome of society and warfare, and even modern soldiers would be hard pressed to beat them.

    Battle-poitiers(1356).jpg

    Apparently a Roman legion could have wiped out both these armies with magnetic gladius that instantly find gaps in armour.
  • SaintDSaintD Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    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.

    No they didn't, because as I explicitly pointed out, you laughable dunce, Cataphracts are not shock cavalry. Shock cavalry smash an enemy formation with a full tilt charge. By the mid-Medieval era this is what basically every Medieval army was subsisting on. The impact of their charge is, man for man, literally beyond any other horseman on the face of planet, in human history. This rather culminated after centuries of development with the Winged Hussars, who were like the mounted form of Swiss Pikemen in terms of utter insanity, and carried a lance longer than a pike. Which they then used to charge and break pike blocks.
    rylege wrote: »
    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.

    Give your sources. Because this is a bald faced lie.
    I consider the Romans the pinnacle of Pre-Gunpowder warfare and the Dark Ages the antithesis of professionalism and reliability.

    Yes, we know this, because you are utterly ignorant, and furthermore, don't actually know anything about the so-called 'Dark Ages'.
    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!?

    They got their face kicked in by the pike phalanxes they faced. They outflanked it, genius. And they could only outflank it because the pike phalanxes used by Pyrrhus and Greece at this point were hugely devolved from their Alexandrian conception; under his design, they were supported by large amounts of skirmishers and looser heavy infantry that prevent any such thing happening. The phalanx is free to completely obliterate whatever is stupid enough to be in front of it. Which was the inevitable fate of a Roman army if it failed to outflank one. Then there's the finisher that Alexander also used what was, in the day, massively capable shock cavalry. Doing this without stirrups is an epic achievement.

    Alexander would have squashed Rome like a bug, and it wouldn't even have been difficult.
    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.

    Depends on the era. Very early medieval era, like I described with the hilarious amounts of bum kicking the Normans were dishing out to all and sundry, would be as you describe. A core of very heavy infantry, like huscarls, who are the direct bodyguard of a noble, with a levy of freemen capable of equipping themselves with spear, shield, and rudimentary armour.

    Get much beyond that and it's all 'professional' soldiery. This was the whole point of the feudal system. It allowed kings to be able to call up large armies of proper soldiers without the problem of actually maintaining that large standing army. You ended up with knights and their best equipped men forming a brutally powerful heavy cavalry force, with the rest of their retinues on foot. The nobles who were called to battle were expected to bring men with them, who would be hired for the campaign season (or whole campaign) by said noble. Or perhaps, pay may be whatever you loot. Whatever.

    No-one brought peasants to the field. It's a tactic of utter stupidity or utter desperation. They can't equip themselves, and they'll run under the slightest duress. Levies consisted of men of means. Means enough to equip themselves. Often, levies aren't even taken on invasion campaigns in great numbers, they're defensive only and that's the only reason they'll be fighting; to protect their home and lands from what'll happen if the enemy are victorious. They're going to be very unhappy leaving those lands behind without good reason (like a big sack of money).

    As a note on the size and strength of mid-Medieval armies, the French brought over 30,000 men to the field of Agincourt. They were all professional soldiers of every stripe, all fully equipped with full or three quarter plate for the men-at-arms, and even after enduring the English longbows whilst wading through mud, the impact of their charge literally smashed the entire English line six feet backwards with its sheer force. This infantry launching a well ordered charge on the relatively loose formation of Roman legionaries, would smash it to pieces almost immediately. They would not be required however, since the Romans have no answer whatsoever for Medieval heavy shock cavalry, which would singlehandedly tear apart their army over the course of the day.

    The given declaration that provoked this whole 'debate', that Roman Legions were the finest military force up until the mass use of gunpowder, is idiotic in every detail, even right down to the basic, and obviously entirely unanswered, fact that every single kingdom and empire in history since the Roman Empire which would have been easily capable of creating them, simply did not do so. For obvious reason; they were no longer useful. Early medieval armies could have easily contested legionaries, by mid-Medieval era, they'd have been chewing up and spitting out legionaries like they were amateurs.

    And of course, this idiotic assertion itself stems from the hilarious idea that Roman legionaries should be hilarious doom machines who could mash up Oathsworn easily. Uh....no. Many times Romans were contested directly, and many times they won through tactics or just plain numbers. Caesar almost got himself killed by angry Belgians. Belgians people. Belgians.
    "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.
  • Deacon412Deacon412 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 806
    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 isnt a bout unit v unit you need strategy and army composition oathsworn, furthermore should not be making up an enemy force its an elite unit.
  • SirJonCSirJonC Member Registered Users Posts: 60
    edited October 2013
    where is deadliest warrior when we need them lol
    maybe if they add legionnaires in Chivalry: Deadliest Warrior then we could see who would win out of a knight and a legionnaire :P
  • AmbigatosAmbigatos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,077
    edited October 2013
    We shouldn't expect Romans to steamroll Oaths or "butcher them easily." Romans had a tough time against the barbarians until they learned how to effectively counter them. Same applies in this game. If you can negate or counter their charge bonus then you basically take away their advantage.

    Why would you want to steamroll them anyways? I thought people felt that this game could use more depth and strategy, instead of being able to just right click for the win. Playing as the Romans, shouldn't we want to use the tactics, formations, and strategies that made them great? It sounds like some people want the Romans to play like berserkers and steamroll through everything.
    Team Boii
    - Mutina (218 BC) : Boii ambush. 800 Roman soldiers and six standards lost.
    - Litana Forest (216 BC) : Boii ambush. 25,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with consul-elect Lucius Postumius Albinus.
    - Mutilum (201 BC) : Boii ambush. 7,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with Legate Caius Oppius.
    - Near Cuomo (196 BC) : Boii ambush. Claudius Marcellus and 3,000 of his men are slain.
    - Hercynia (114 BC) : Boii repel the Cimbri
  • corebitcorebit Member Registered Users Posts: 68
    edited October 2013
    Ambigatos wrote: »
    We shouldn't expect Romans to steamroll Oaths or "butcher them easily." Romans had a tough time against the barbarians until they learned how to effectively counter them. Same applies in this game. If you can negate or counter their charge bonus then you basically take away their advantage.

    Why would you want to steamroll them anyways? I thought people felt that this game could use more depth and strategy, instead of being able to just right click for the win. Playing as the Romans, shouldn't we want to use the tactics, formations, and strategies that

    made them great? It sounds like some people want the Romans to play like berserkers and steamroll through everything.

    This. And people really need to lay off the ridiculous historical argument. R2 is a game first and foremost. Balance plays a role. If everything was based upon historical accuracy, CA might as well not bother making factions other than Rome playable.

    Other than the Oathsworn and Noble Cav, the Arverni really have a pathetic unit selection. In fact ALL barbarian factions' unit selection is pathetic. If you want to nerf Oathsworn you better beef up the barbarians in other ways.

    On the forums, I see people complain about barbarians having artillery, barbarians units are OP, etc, etc. I think they just want **** barbarians to steamroll with their roman army. Not a single suggestion from them to balance barbarians fairly and make them fun to play.
  • MckillroyMckillroy Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 330
    edited October 2013
    Yarfy wrote: »
    Romans are supposed to use engineering and pella to counter charging heavy barbarian infantry... good luck doing that in Rome 2.
    ROFL true...
    The addition of the "throwing weapon on charge" system for (almost) all troops, not just Roman, really messes up the battle mechanics.
    "Strength, its in ones character"

    "Mods should only add; They should never only fix"

    "DLC released the same day as the game; is a jab at the intellect of the consumer"

    I do not trust CA/SEGA after the release of Rome 2. Nor do I trust those that represent them, or work for them. But I do feel sorry for them, kind off.

    "Will rally point ever stop lying ?"
  • AmbigatosAmbigatos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,077
    edited October 2013
    Mckillroy wrote: »
    ROFL true...
    The addition of the "throwing weapon on charge" system for (almost) all troops, not just Roman, really messes up the battle mechanics.

    I like the fact that javelins are used by more units. It seems more appropriate IMO. I just wish there was a way to differentiate the Roman pillum from the typical javelin somehow in the game mechanics.
    Team Boii
    - Mutina (218 BC) : Boii ambush. 800 Roman soldiers and six standards lost.
    - Litana Forest (216 BC) : Boii ambush. 25,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with consul-elect Lucius Postumius Albinus.
    - Mutilum (201 BC) : Boii ambush. 7,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with Legate Caius Oppius.
    - Near Cuomo (196 BC) : Boii ambush. Claudius Marcellus and 3,000 of his men are slain.
    - Hercynia (114 BC) : Boii repel the Cimbri
  • MhydrianMhydrian Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 239
    edited October 2013
    Ambigatos wrote: »
    There is no reason to believe that the best equipped Gauls couldn't go toe-to toe with their Roman counterparts, or even beat them. The problem was that they were a minority in their armies. Meanwhile, the Romans had the advantage of having entire Roman legions highly trained and equipped like the Gallic Noble.

    Most of the Gallic infantry get wiped out fairly easily by the Romans in this game, aside from their nobles. Oaths/Nobles might be a little OP, but the rest of their infantry can't hang. Some might suggest putting a cap on the elite units to reflect a more accurate representation of the ratio in their armies. Then again, people don't seem to like how Spartans are capped, so I don't know. It sort of takes away the ability of the player to build his armies the way he/she wants, but I can understand both sides of the argument.


    I'm not sure why Oaths are the only ones singled out to take the heat all of the time. There are other units too, like Hellenic Royal Guard and Royal Galatian Guard. And when Lusitan and Thracian Nobles are released...watch out.


    Well if all elites were capped then it would be no problem but only capping Sparta because its silly they field so many elite units is contradictory. That is the issue I had, to say Spartan elite hoplites were in limited number is one thing but to allow Germanic tribes assemble entire armies of "nobles" is now something that sounds quite ridiculous.
  • wulfgarwulfgar Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 361
    edited October 2013
    The Roman legionary cohort was a very hard but also "brittle" unit. The shock charge of good Barbarian infantry or cavalry could break them even before they sustained meaningful casualties. Once the shock of impact waned though, the hard quality of the legion would gain it the upper hand in the slogging match that followed where it would suffer surprisingly few casualties.
    An answer seems to have been making the auxiliary infantry the first line who were "softer" but also more "flexible" and could adsorb a violent charge better.

    However "Oathsworn" were the personal bodyguards of Gallic and Celtiberian lords who swore not to survive their master in battle. Not some special independent unit.
  • FarisFaris Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 574
    edited October 2013
    Ambigatos wrote: »
    I like the fact that javelins are used by more units. It seems more appropriate IMO. I just wish there was a way to differentiate the Roman pillum from the typical javelin somehow in the game mechanics.

    Your last point is spot on and what I was going to suggest because unlike what other people are proposing of just robbing other cultures of javelins which doesn't make sense.

    Do people realise javelins are easier to make than bows? javelins have been around since cavemen times in fact its probably actually no IS one of the first 4 weapons ever made.

    Club
    Spear
    Javelin
    Stone knife

    .......... and you want CA to take away javelins from other cultures??? my good god.
  • AmbigatosAmbigatos Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,077
    edited October 2013
    Mhydrian wrote: »
    Well if all elites were capped then it would be no problem but only capping Sparta because its silly they field so many elite units is contradictory. That is the issue I had, to say Spartan elite hoplites were in limited number is one thing but to allow Germanic tribes assemble entire armies of "nobles" is now something that sounds quite ridiculous.

    I agree. It's not fair to limit Sparta yet give all other factions no limits on elites. They should go one way or the other.
    Team Boii
    - Mutina (218 BC) : Boii ambush. 800 Roman soldiers and six standards lost.
    - Litana Forest (216 BC) : Boii ambush. 25,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with consul-elect Lucius Postumius Albinus.
    - Mutilum (201 BC) : Boii ambush. 7,000 Roman soldiers slain, along with Legate Caius Oppius.
    - Near Cuomo (196 BC) : Boii ambush. Claudius Marcellus and 3,000 of his men are slain.
    - Hercynia (114 BC) : Boii repel the Cimbri
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    AzzakFeed wrote: »
    Well, if you take the eastern roman empire who did not collapsed, the tactics of the roman legions stopped. Why did they put an emphasis on heavy cavalry and horse archers ? Equipped the legionnaries of spears and backed them up with archers ? It's up to you to imagine why.

    And for the fiction of roman vs medieval, then some questions what medieval times are you refering to ? 8th century or 14th century ? A lot of changes here. And what about the romans ? The legionnaries weren't a fixed force, they knew a lot of evolution over time.

    But let's pick the best romans legions against the best medieval troops, in equal number in an open battle.
    Problems for the roman : first the medieval cavalry. I'm pretty sure a knight charge backed up with lighter cav will make a mess of the legionnaries and the auxiliary cav. Second : the ranged weapons. If you have crossbows and longbows in front of you, you are going to be very vulnerable at long distance. I suspect heavy losses for the romans approaching. Third : medieval army used a lot of long polearms. I'm not sure how legionnaires with their gladius would react when facing such forces. Fourth : medieval armor. You're going to have trouble to bring them down in a battle with massed troops where it's more difficult to aim than a duel.

    So yeah, I think a legion would get crushed by a medieval army of equal forces, especially the heavy cavalry.
    The question is different is you oppose the whole Roman Empire against a feudal kingdom. Then it's of course the roman empire, by it's size and organization.

    The romans were not invincible fighters, they lost countless legions. Why did they won ? Because that they had a modern, efficientmilitary organization and infrastucture. Thus every defeat was just making another legion come back. The medieval army didn't made wars to gain territories. They would essentially wage war to ransom prisoners. That's a totally different concept of warfare.

    Not entirely true, the Byzantines probably fielded the best infantry throughout the Dark Ages. However, they did put a lot of emphasis on heavy cavalry this is true. Unfortunately, they mismanaged the Empire and were fiscally irresponsible destroying any ability to maintain such a force.

    Byzantine tactics were different because Roman tactics had evolved to deal with Heavy Shock cavalry of the Parthians in the 3rd century. In addition, Dark Age military theory was that it was superior to infantry and more powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth as well trained disciplined infantry can and had defeated Heavy Cavalry on many occasions before. But once again it comes down to wealth. Nobody in the Dark ages could afford to maintain a fully outfitted professional military.

    Armored horse was usually paid for by the actually rider, like a noble, not the King.
  • rylegerylege Member Registered Users Posts: 51
    edited October 2013
    SaintD wrote: »
    Cataphracts are not shock cavalry. Shock cavalry smash an enemy formation with a full tilt charge.[/I].

    Persian Cataphracts were not Heavy Shock cavalry? Are you smoking crack?

    They most certainly are!

    I think you need head back to the classroom and get remedial training on the development of armored horse. Oh...and be sure to grab yourself a juice box on your way there junior!
  • Orange JoeOrange Joe Member Registered Users Posts: 52
    edited October 2013
    I dont think oathsworn are op at all, there just big mofoing barbarians with big swords who rush into you like they know no fear, rome is op, impossible to lose once u get wardogs, ballista, heavy shock cavalry and legionaires, just recruit some auxilliary elephants and easy snowballing the whole map. Wardogs are the most op of all btw, if u time the release of dogs right your infantry will destroy the enemy center infantry line, those dogs get between enemy units and behind them and wreak chaos in their ranks while your elite legions have a relax time fighting their front units.
  • ArilouArilou Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 646
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Not entirely true, the Byzantines probably fielded the best infantry throughout the Dark Ages. However, they did put a lot of emphasis on heavy cavalry this is true. Unfortunately, they mismanaged the Empire and were fiscally irresponsible destroying any ability to maintain such a force.

    Byzantine tactics were different because Roman tactics had evolved to deal with Heavy Shock cavalry of the Parthians in the 3rd century. In addition, Dark Age military theory was that it was superior to infantry and more powerful. Nothing could be further from the truth as well trained disciplined infantry can and had defeated Heavy Cavalry on many occasions before. But once again it comes down to wealth. Nobody in the Dark ages could afford to maintain a fully outfitted professional military.

    Armored horse was usually paid for by the actually rider, like a noble, not the King.

    People too often tends to confuse warfar with "fighting battles" nothing could be further from the truth.

    Yes, a disciplined force of infantry can stand against heavy cavalry in a pitched battle, but the cavalry can spread out and burn down every farm within a few miles radius then move away leaving your infantry to either starve or try to follow.

    The role of cavalry is as much strategic (raiding/foraging) as it is tactical.
  • Knight of HeavenKnight of Heaven Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 225
    edited October 2013
    rylege wrote: »
    Persian Cataphracts were not Heavy Shock cavalry? Are you smoking crack?

    They most certainly are!

    I think you need head back to the classroom and get remedial training on the development of armored horse. Oh...and be sure to grab yourself a juice box on your way there junior!

    Actualy you are the one that needs education. Cataphracts werent actualy shock troops at all. You are miss informed. Companions for example were shock troops, cavalry with hit and run tactics fast deployment on the battlefield and strike were is needed, it lived from the momentum of the charge to cause a moral impact on the enemy by aprearing fast on the most unusual places.
    Cataphracts were actualy too slow to do that properly, there is accounts of parthian cataphracts of advancing to the enemy slowly and in formation with their kontos raised, not unlike a makedonian phalanx . They were strong melee troops, thats why they used maces and other heavy weapons, they were meant to be in close quarters, the strike and charge wasnt their main asset. On the account of armored horses, and men, they were able to be more mobile, but not much due to the sheer weight of the armor, either by the men and by the horse.

    They were heavy assault troops, not shock troops. Once comited, it was hard to pull them back.
    "You see in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend.
    Those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
    You dig."
Sign In or Register to comment.