Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Crusader Army VS Roman Legion" video.

  1. The Normans not even smashed the English shield wall at Hastings. They lured them to pursue them. Even without putting ditches and field traps (a thing where the romans excelled) into the equation, Romans knew, and used, the anti cavalry "square" (only it was round in their case) formation, using the pila as spears. Historically, medieval knights have been stopped several times (IE at Legnano) by infantrymen that were fare less disciplined and, on average, worse armed than ancient Romans. Regardless on how well armored their rider is, horses don't crash into tight formations of spear bristling infantry. Frontal cavalry charges were usually effective in middle age only because knights usually faced ill-disciplined and ill-trained militia infantry, whose formations were easy to disrupt.
    2
  2. Stirrups were an advancement, not a revolution. All the stirrups did was to enhance the force the rider could hit with the spear/lance, but cavalry charges had never been stopped opposing a human body to the spear's tip. Cavalry charges were stopped targeting the horses (ditches, traps, palisades, various kinds of projectiles, spears...). Several times in Middle age (IE at Legnano) cavalry charges had been stopped by infantries less disciplined and armoured than the Romans were. Medieval knights have actually been fortunate that, most of the times, they encountered undisciplined militia infantry whose formations were easy to disrupt.
    2
  3. Stone age vs iron age. My bet is on the Celts.
    1
  4. Moreover, the legion was commanded from the rear, with the commander that had a clear vision of what was going on on all the front and that could tactically move his formations. Medieval armies were commanded from the front, with the commander that could'nt see what was happening more than few steps away. Medieval battles, from a Roman point of view, were just big brawls.
    1
  5. On the other end, a well put cloud of sling bullets would distrupt the cavalry charge first than the first lance would reach a scutum, like it did at Magnesia. Romans relied in their infantry to slaughter the enemy one, but they had cavalry too. When it was not possible to win the cavalry clash, it's task was to harras the enemy cavalry enough to not let them mount an organized charge. Obviously, without stirrups, Roman cavalry could not win a clash vs. a medieval one of similar size, but, not being medieval horses usually armoured, and not having the knights ranged weapons (while 1st century auxilia cavalryman usually had javelins, and sometimes a bow), the second task was still possible. Note that Roman era shock cavalry, the Cataphracts, armoured their horses much more than Crusade era knights. They lived at the peak of the era of organized infantry, and it was taken for granted that the enemy, infantry would have targeted the horses. Medieval knights were used to much softer targets.
    1
  6. Not only the scorpio and ballista, but even simple slings (that legionaries used to carry, since it was cheap, light and effective) would have been very effective against horses and lightly armoured infantrimen (infact slings disrupted the chariots charge at Magnesia).
    1
  7. The Roman chain of command was miles ahead everything seen in Europe until the 30 years war. Medieval armies were still led from the front, so that the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unexpecetd circumstances. the Roman commander could lead the battle from the start to the end. Infact tactical knowledge and execution would be a huge advantage for the Romans in this scenario. They knew and recognized the importance of tactic much more than the Medievals did. They knew works about tactic that didn't survived into the Middle age (IE the works of Pyrrhus of Epirus, on which even Hannibal studied), and those were common knowledge, since every Centurion was supposed to be able to read and write (and much of the legionaries did), while, in a Medieval army, the commander being able to read was not a given. Historically, medieval knights have been stopped several times (IE at Legnano) by infantrymen that were fare less disciplined and, on average, worse armed than ancient Romans. Regardless on how well armored their rider is, horses don't crash into tight formations of spear (or pila) bristling infantry. Frontal cavalry charges were usually effective in middle age only because knights usually faced ill-disciplined and ill-trained militia infantry, whose formations were easy to disrupt.
    1
  8. It's obvious that, when firearms (and modern repeating firearms in this case) are put into the equation, the result is fixed. The entire Roman army would be annihilated by few WWI heavy machineguns. Where Gate is dumb is when it shows modern soldiers to be more effective than Ancient Romans (or better, Ancient Roman lookalikes) in hand to hand combat (IE with bayonet vs sword and shield, or bare hand combat), like they were not even able to use their own weapons. It's not only a "Gate" thing. The entire "ancients didn't know modern day super-effective martial arts" reasoning is pure bullshit.
    1
  9. Economy. In Roman empire there were massively efficient communication lines, so there was a level of trade unrivaled until the industrial revolution. That way, different regions of the Empire could specialize for the production they were more apt for (Egypt and N.africa for grain, Gallia for wine, Spain and Greece for oil...) so having higher output for unit of land and of labour employed. For the same reason, there were big manifactures, to produce more efficiently industrial goods (weapons, ships, carriages, pottery...). That way the Empire could sustain a far higher number of people not employed in direct agricultural works and manifacture in respect to the Middle Age, where communication lines were uncertain, and so every neighboorood had to produce everything to sustain itself (a little of grain, a little of meat, a little of beans, agricultural tools....).
    1
  10. In the case of Alexander, it was more of a technological and tactical gap. The Oplite phalanx hat been the first heavy infantry in history, and the Persian wars demonstrated the huge advantage heavy infantry had over light infantry in pitched battles. Since the heavy infantry was relatively "new", light infantry armies had not yet developed tactics to counter it, but Greek city-states were small, and could deploy small armies that could be easily surrounded if used for an expansionistic war, so they didn't use that advantage to build an empire. Alexander's father perfectioned the phalanx. Alexander found the way to coordinate it with cavalry to avoid the risk of being encircled. They were kings of a rich state that could pay its soldiers (so Alexander could use them as he wants, he hadn't to convince the citizens of a democracy) so, at that point, Alexander, that was a gifted tactician too, was unstoppable. It was like the development of the "blitzkrieg" tactic. For some year, who had it, had a huge advantage over the others.
    1
  11. You are welcome!
    1
  12. That was actually the case. Most of the things we know about the Romans had been rediscovered after Crusades' age and, even when they had been rediscovered, their knowledge was very rescricted. Infact tactical knowledge and execution would be a huge advantage for the Romans in this scenario. They knew and recognized the importance of tactic much more than the Medievals did. They knew works about tactic that didn't survived into the Middle age (IE the works of Pyrrhus of Epirus, on which even Hannibal studied), and those were common knowledge, since every legionary was supposed to be able to read and write, while, in a Medieval army, the commander being able to read was not a given. Moroever, the Roman chain of command was miles ahead everything seen in Europe untile the 30 years war. Medieval armies were still led from the front, so that the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unexpecetd circumstances.
    1
  13. None wins every battle. In Middle age was not a given that a noble could read. Often they could only write a monogram. The battle of Teutoburg Forest is a particularly poor example. There the Romans were literally led by the enemy commander (infact Arminius, was in charge of the scouting). In those conditions is practically impossible to win. Infact I didn't speak about good or bad commanders, but of chain of command. Tactically, commanding the army from the rear is superior to commanding it from the front. If you command from the front, you have no real possibility to prove your tactical genius during the battle. You can prepare it, but, during the clash you are occupied to remain alive.
    1
  14. None said they were unbeatable, however the Romans repeatedly beaten the Germans in any kind of environment. Teutoburg had been an episode, not the norm, and it's not like Medieval armies usually fought in forests. The commanders of medieval armies, even late medieval armies, usually fought in first line. That was the case of the commanders of the first Crusade, and that was the case still at Agincourt, more than three centuries later. It's no wonder that they moved in "small tactical units", because a small tactical unit is the only thing you can lead in such conditions. It's when you need to coordinate those small tactical units in a battle that there come the problems. It had been seen even during the Mongols invasion of East Europe. European Kinghts tended to win small scale engagement, but to loose pitched battles, where the Mongols could rely on their more organised command structure. Large armies were a rarity in Medieval warfare, so the command structure had not evolved to coordinate them.
    1
  15. Actually "leading from the front" was a pretty poor way to lead an army, and the fact that medieval armes were generally led that way would have been one of the main advantages for the Romans.
    1