Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Late Medieval Army VS Roman Imperial Army" video.

  1. oscar romario florez camargo civil wars could be considered carrying on the Roman tradition lol
    17
  2. The Byzantine army was an amazing engine of war with one serious flaw; it relied heavily on the skill of its commanders to bring out its potential more than just about any other other army fielded at the time, effectively trading consistency of performance for maximizing potential performance under great leadership. The result was an army that was notoriously inconsistent in how well it performed when leadership changed hands. The leadership problems are even evident in the manuals (of which I think the fact thar there are multiple is significant) with, for example, how often one of them repeats "do not pursue Bedouin (read light) cavalry" such that you can tell that people being baited into pursuing such forces and breaking formation/running into ambushes was an ongoing problem. I would argue against the idea that they were less well equipped than the Romans is flawed. The Byzantine army just allocated its resources differently. So again, it comes down to the generals.
    12
  3. Agree to disagree there, but it's much more Roman.
    3
  4. Every soldier in every army carries a dagger (or equivalent) and every armor can be defeated by such after some grappling. That said, the antiarmor weapons are going to be a serious issue until equipment can be changed
    1