Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "Late Medieval Army VS Roman Imperial Army" video.

The discipline and organization of post Marian Reform Roman Armies were on an entirely different level in respect to what could be seen in medieval, even late medieval, times. In medieval times there was someone whose job was to fight. The Romans already industrialised warfare. Their ability in building fortification and field traps out of nothing was unparalleled. Their literacy level was unparalleled. Middle age armies (and that''s the case of Agincourt) were often led from the front. This way the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unforeseen situations. The Roman chain of command was miles ahead anything seen in Europe until the 30 Years war. Every Roman officer was very likely to have read treaties on strategy and tactic (those written by Pyrrhus of Epirus were available and popular in Roman time). The medieval army's commander to be able to read was not a given.
8
It was a completely different attitude towards war. In late middle age there was someone whose job was to fight. Romans already industrialized warfare. To build miles over miles of fortifications and field traps was not a smart move, was the ABC.
4
@martintieber7756 "horses in plate armor"? How many "horses in plate armor" do you think had ever been? In CONTEMPORARY (not the 19th century stuff) depictions of medieval battles is rare to see them even wearing simple saddlecloths. Medieval war-horses usually didn't wear ANY form of armor.
2
The plains of Eastern Europe were the Mongols' ideal battleground, yet they won some battle, but lost several others. They tended to win bigger pitched battles, thanks to better organization (European Armies at that time tended to be "lead from the front"), but lost minor engagements, where the full armoured knights didn't need much strategy, and had the upper hand, so the eastern European Princes learned to reinforce their cavalry units and use guerrilla tactics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Mongol_invasion_of_Poland
2
Romans would have been baffled by seeing all those cataphracts that had so little armoured horses. Then would have proceded to kill the horses (Roman time cataphracts lived at the peak of the organized infantry warfare, so they armored their horses much more than the average medieval knight did, since they knew enemy infantrymen would have targeted the horses). Almogavars, that were usually armed with a pair of javelins, a short spear and a knife, repeatedly beaten the French cavalry that way.
1
Actually there had not even been a real battle at Masada. All the Romans did was to build a siege ramp, then the defenders killed themself.
1
The construction of the siege ramp required some month, but the Zealots did not attempt to counterattack the builders (differently to what they did at Gerusalem), and committed mass suicide first than beginning to fight. That's what Roman records say.
1
You said "according to the Roman records". There are no other records. Romans usually reliably reported their losses and the tactics used by them and their enemies. They did in that war too. Why this siege should be different from the rest of the war? For the Romans it had been a small scale engagement, hardly worth of note. Moreover, a Roman commander couldn't hide his losses.
1
And what are the jewish records?
1
He specified the period. 11th century Byzantine armies were much different from 1st century Roman legions.
1
A 1st century 9000 men (to keep the numbers even with the English at Agincourt, even it it would have been a very little army for Roman standards) strong Roman army would have been equipped with 90 carroballiste, capable to throw a 132cm long projectile to 650m, so they would have had the range advantage even vs the English longbows. Almost every legionary would have been equipped with a 400m range (so on par with a longbow) capable sling. The 1st century lorica segmentata was a very good protection against projectiles (it had been said that it had been deeloped to cope with Parthian composite bows), much better than anything the average English longbowman had (they were not unarmored, but the quality of protectioon varied wildly). Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Horses doesn't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations less disciplined than the Romans, and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Mind too that most depended on the time too. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (field traps for cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized.
1
Romans had ranged weapons. Ballistas and slings had longer range than even longbows.
1
Many countries had access to ballistas, but the Romans used as field weapons ballistas that medievals only would have used as siege weapons. It was an effect of the different logistic capability. Slings had been rended obsolete by the disappearance of the societies that produced the best slingers, while naval warfare produced the Genoese crossbowmen. It had been a rather common occurrence. Almogavars had been as much effective vs. heavy cavalry than Swiss pikemen, but, while the Swiss society was set to produce pikemen (so much that, when the warfare changed making them obsolete, the Swiss failed to adapt), Almogavars became no more acceptable among the Spanish one. A sling bullet would have been more effective vs an helmet and padded vest than a hand held crossbow dart vs a shield and lorica segmentata at any range, hovever, the best effect would have been vs the horses.
1
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Regardless how armored their rider is, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations, less disciplined than the Romans and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Mind too that most depended on the timing also. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed to cope with cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized before the first knight reached a scutum. Late medieval armors were not impenetrable. A knight on foot was difficult to cope with, but for how long? For how many minutes a fully enclosed knight could keep his guard high and swing his weapon against the scuti? At Agincourt the French were killed by their own fatigue. Switching lines, legionaries could fight for hours.
1
1st century legionaries simply were professional soldiers with standardized training perfectioned over centuries. Average early 15th century infantrymen mostly weren't. The Roman chain of command was miles ahead anything seen in europe until the 30 Years War. In late middle age (and that's still the case at Agincourt) armies were still led from the front. A situation were the commander can't see what happens more than few steps away, let alone reacts to unforeseen situations. The average Roman officer (not to say the commander) had a theoretical knowledge about tactical deployment, camp placement, fortification building and lines of supplies estabilishing far deeper than the average medieval army commander. IE the writings of Pyrrhus about strategy were well known in Roman times, but had been lost during the dark ages. The simple legionary was required to be able to read and write, since he had to be able to understand written orders, and write reports. The medieval army commader to be capable to read was not a given. The slaves' armies won vs the legions only when they had an exceptional numerical advantage. That would never be the case with medieval armies, that tended to be very small compared to what the Romans usually fielded.
1
It's different. In 1st century Rome, only a professional officer could be a politician. To serve as an officer with distinction was the base of a political career. Moreover, a Roman officer would have had much more theoretical knowledge about tactics, fortifications, camp placement and supply lines, than the average medieval commander.
1
The Roman Army had been the only European army that had minimum height and fitness standards until modern times.
1
At Agincourt a lot of dismounted knights had been killed by english longbowmen, whose usual hand to hand weapons were a falchion, and a roundel dagger. Really not better to cope with plate armors than a pilum, a shield, a gladium and a pugio. Almogavars repeatedly beaten French knights, and their weapons were a pair of javelins, a short spear and a knife. No armor covered all the body. More, many knights at Agincourt literally died of fatigue. You can fight well in full armor, but you can't fight for long. Switching lines, Roman legionaries could fight for hours.
1
At Teutoburg the main cause of the defeat was that they were really led by the commander of the enemies (Arminius was in charge of the Roman scouts).
1
It was designed to penetrate shields and mail armor. Plate armors are rather impervious to anything that could be throw by hand (not only the pilum, but arrows, sling bullets, hand held crossbows...) But the Romans could use them as spears, and use the rather small tip to aim for the gates between the plates (estocks and spetums were used the same way, and were rather effective).
1
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Regardless how armored their rider is, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations, less disciplined than the Romans and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Mind too that most depended on the timing also. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed to cope with cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized before the first knight reached a scutum.
1
As already said, multiple times medieval cavalry charges had been stopped by infantry that had not long pikes and was much less disciplined than the Roman one. Bayonets are worse spears than pila, and yet cavalry charges had been stopped by the bayonet squares. As already said, regardless how armored their rider is, or if he have stirrups, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. 1st century Roman armors were very good vs projectiles, surely better than what an average late medieval infantryman and longbowman had. A first century Roman Army would have had a ballista for centuria, giving a range advantage over longbows and field crossbows. Almost every logionary would have been armed with a sling, that had about the same range of a longbow and was effective vs lightly armored men and horses. Middle age armies (and that''s the case of Agincourt) were often led from the front. This way the commander couldn't even see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unforeseen situations. The Roman chain of command was miles ahead anything seen in Europe until the 30 Years war. Every Roman officer was very likely to have read treaties on strategy and tactic (those written by Pyrrhus of Epirus were available and popular in Roman time). The medieval army's commander to be able to read was not a given.
1
Historically they did. As already said, multiple times medieval cavalry charges had been stopped by infantry that had not long pikes and was much less disciplined than the Roman one. A pilum used as a spear is a spear. Anti-cavalry square musketeer worked vs. cavalry charges because horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry, regardless how armored or armed their rider is. Horses don't care if their rider is well protected or not, or what kind of weapon is wielding. At the time of the battle of Agincourt, brigandines were not common (they had just been invented). "common" means little anyway, in late medieval armies the quality of the protective gearing varied wildly. Many English longbowmen only had some sort of padded vest and an helmet ( https://78.media.tumblr.com/1306ef25e5adce23a62dc270f899fba9/tumblr_nwsa530hAp1qbrih3o1_1280.jpg ). Moreover Projectiles tend to came from above, and even good quality brigandines are not that well protected from that direction, the lorica hamata had a double layer on the shoulder, and the segmentata was much better protected than any brigandine. Brigandines' protection is, at best, at the level of that of the Lorica squamata, that was more a flashy garement for parades than a battle armor, and longbowmen didn't had shields. Ist century Roman armies had balista. Sige engines and gunpowder guns and cannons had not been used at Agincourt. Not that siege engines are so decisive in a pitched battle. A sling bullet can achieve ranges in excess of 400 metres. Their range was on par with longbows for any realistic use. Legionaries carried and used them, because slings were lightweight, cheap and effective. The cursus honorum was different. For the Romans to serve as an officer in the legion was not a meant to have a political career, a political career was something that only a successful officer could have. To be a good commander was the base of the political career. 1st centuries Roman armies were exceptionally well commanded. They were the peak of centuries of development in organised formation battles. From a Roman point of view, wedieval battles were only disorganized brawls. The first of the "couple of loose things" is incomprehensible, sorry. As already said, multiple times medieval cavalry charges had been stopped by infantry that had not long pikes and was much less disciplined than the Roman one. Cataphracts charged with spears, and their horses were better protected than average medieval ones. Stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution.
1
I already said the only times when knights beaten infantry was when the infantry was very undisciplined, chosen an unfavourable position, was bad led, etc. Dude, read about horses. They don't don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry, infact dense packs of spears bristling infantry stopped them many times. Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Square musketeers worked because horses dont crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Sorry, they have a range of 400m. Slings outrange bows for purely physical reasons (bullets, even when they are simple stones, loose less energy than arrows during flight, are less influenced by wind too, and Romans often used lead bullets, far more energy efficient) . Denegate uncomfortable truths is not going to bring you anywere. Slings had been used in war well into medieval times. They stopped being only with the diffusion of crossbows. " I have slyngs smort and goode The best archer of ilk one I durst meet him with a stone And gif him lefe to shoot There is no bow that shall laste To draw to my slynges cast" ("King Edward and the Shepherd" 14th century poem) Sorry dude, but I know the difference between strategy, tactics and micro tactics, and I think that you simply don't recognise the difference between ancient and medieval battles. In Roman battle accounts you know the tactics they and their enemies used, because tactic was important for the Romans, and so they described them. In Medieval battle accounts, tactic was rarely described and, when it was, almost everything seemed to happen by chance, because tactic was not considered important (and infact armies were "led from the front" even in late medieval times). Roman officers were supposed to have been trained in tactic, medieval commanders weren't, and, again, medieval cavalry had problems even with medieval militia infantries, worse armored, commanded, and less disciplined than the Romans were. I already took Legnano as a sample. You said: "without them you can't charge with lance.". That's simply not true. Cataphracts charged with spears, and their horses were better protected than average medieval ones (because they were in ancient times, and they know organized infantries would have targeted the horses). Stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution. With stirrups the knight could charge having more hitting power for his lance, but that's an advancement, not a revolution, because cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse.
1
You can write it some more time. It doesn't make it real. More, it can be reversed. It seems that Cavalry could win only when the enemy infantry chose an unfavourable position, chose to fight in loose formation, wasn't trained, didn't prepare the terrain or themself at all, even with simple tricks like grouping around a symbol (the Romans did, their insigna). You don't like Legnano? How about golden spurs? There the secret weapon was a 90-150 cm long spear-club that had not been particularly successful before or after? Humans are afraid, but humans can chose to act in a way that overcome fear, especially if they know that break the formation and flee will more easily led to their death. Discipline works this way, and Romans were disciplined. Infantries that medieval knights usually fought weren't. Sorry, but your whole reasoning about sling is just rubbish both from physical and real stand point. Arrows have a much larger drag coefficient due to the large surface area of the arrow shaft and feathers. This is reflected in the very low ballistic coefficient for an arrow compared to bullets. Moreover, sling bullets naturally spin in air, Arrows does not spin significatively during flight, so they loose speed first. Both ancient accounts and modern test states the longer range of the sling. Legionaries using slings in mass shooting is asserted both by ancient sources and modern archaeological findings, IE at Burnswark Hill. I didn't say medievals didn't use any tactic. I said that the importance of tactic vas less stressed in mediaval times, both in accounts, training, and method of command. Romans using tactic is not exactly a secret. Almost every account of Roman battles of contemporary authors described the tactic used. The tactic used in most medieval battles is not described, and often had to be guessed. Cavalry charges had been stopped/disrupted by short spears and simple ranged weapons. Infact the medieval chain of command wasn't apt to direct large battles. The larger the battle, the more the Roman advantage. You have not to "develop" the charge with lance under arm. It's fairly natural to use it that way on a horse. As already said stirrups had been ad advancement, but not a revolution. With stirrups the knight could charge having more hitting power for his lance, but cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse. Actually the greater advantage of the stirrups came confronting with other riders, not infantrymen. I talked about PROTECTION FOR HORSES. The Cataphracts, on average armoured their horses much more than even late medieval 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
"But this is untrue." Only it's true. Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. The rare times disciplined (not Roman-level disciplined, only a little more disciplined than hastly formed militias) infantries showed up, they won. When disciplined infantries became the norm, it had been the end of the shock cavalry. "I just wrote that legnano prove my point." You can write it, that doesn't make it true. The Lombard league infantry was just barely more trained and motivated than the usual medieval infantry (it was a citizen's militia anyway), used the easiest trick one can think of to mantain the unity of the formation, and that had been enough. "You meant battle of when Flemish..."...were just barely more trained, motivated and armored than the usual medieval infantry (citizen's militia anyway), chose to not fight in the ideal cavalry's playground, and that had been enough. "Sorry but this is just theory" Sorry, but that's reality. That's how training and discipline works, and Legionaries were more trained and disciplined (and even better armored) than any medieval infantry. Cavalry charges were not stopped targeting the knights, but targetting the horses. "Just BS whole of it." You can ignore reality if you want, that doesn't change it. Arrows have a much larger drag coefficient due to the large surface area of the arrow shaft and feathers. This is reflected in the very low ballistic coefficient for an arrow compared to bullets. Moreover, sling bullets naturally spin in air, Arrows does not spin significatively during flight (a dozen revolutions a second means little), so they loose speed first. Both ancient accounts and modern test states the longer range of the sling. The shape of the arrow tip head has very little effect at subsonic speed. The form of the tail is more important, and unfortunately, due to the feathers, the arrow is very poor. The calculated drag coefficient under 100ms for arrows is around 2.0 (1.6 for modern day competition arrows with streamlined point and tail), while for bullets is between 0.2 and 0.3, and is around 0.5 for a sphere. The actual world record for sling throwing is 431m with a stone and 471m with a metallic bullet. "Im almost certain they meant auxilary slingers not main legionares." The ability of the Balearic slingers was legendary, but many bullets found had latin inscriptions on them and, again, the practice of the sling by legionaries had been reported. "You know this is logical error - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" You know this is a logical error. You can'd adfirm something existed because there isn't any proof of it, and "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". We KNOW because there are evidences of that, that tactic was important for the Romans. We know specialized works on tactic existed and were renown in Roman times. We know how Roman generals prepared the battle and reacted to the development of them. The importance of tactic vas less stressed in medieval times, both in accounts, training, and method of command, because the method of command used couldn't sustain any complex tactic. "Again give me some evidence of that" Already did. "Not true, in Medieval times there were no one rule" The "one rule" was that the medieval chain of command was too simple to effectively coordinate large armies. Still in late medieval times, and that's the case of Agincourt, the armies were led from the front. "you cant charge with lance under arms without stirrups, becasue you fall from horse." Falling or not from horse is only a question of how much force you impart to the hit. Thanks to the stirrups, Medieval knights could impart more force to their hits, even more than what a single arm could sustain, so they developed the lance rest (late 14th century). But, as already said, cavalry charges are not stopped opposing a human body to the tip of the lance but opposing a spear, an obstacle, or both, to the horse. Actually the greater advantage of the stirrups came confronting with other riders, not infantrymen. "Depend of the time, and knigts money." The time is that of the battle of Agincourt, and we can say that Cataphracts, ON AVERAGE (on average means that we are not confronting the richest and more armoured knight vs the poorest and less armoured cataphract, but what they used ON AVERAGE in battle) armoured their horses much more than even late medieval knights. "Tell how late pikemen in Brigandine..." Why should I? Late pikemen in brigandines were not even medievals, let alone the usual targets of medieval knights.
1
"Funny beacuse you can say the same about romans" Really not. Romans lived at the peak of centuries of development of organized infantry battles, and usually won. "Give me one example of that," Already did. You only don't like them. Want more? Almogavars repeatedly beaten the French Cavalry, and all they generally had were a pair of javelins (with wich they targeted the horses), a short spear and a knife. "Partialy true." Heavy cavalry disappeared in short time. Light cavalry survived employing new tactics (like that of the Stradiots) that closely resembled those used by the Cavalry in Roman Times. "never discypline infantry with short sword ans shield defend against charge." Romans not only had short swords and shield. "From what I found they were good train and armored. And fact that you think that city militia was bad trains meant you dont know nothing." Unfortunately this reasoning shows that You know nothing. The infantry of the Lombard Legue, like the Flemish one, were barely at the level of the pre-Marian reform Roman Army (an army of non-professional, yet motivated, citizens. Barely because Romans had however a form of organized training since childhood). Professional Legionaries were completely different beasts. They were the ones that build 31km of fortifications (the Caesar's side) vs 28km (Pompey's side) at Dyrrhachium. War was not only their job. They already industrialized it. In middle age there had not been anything remotely comparable. "Sorry so you say that romans never run? never panicked?" Please, spare the straw men for someone else. "Yes, but must have posibility to target horse, with so short weapons you cant that. You only can attack horse after lanc hit first row and most of this row is dead." Horses don't crash into tight formations of spear bristling infantry. "You know that why people uses polearm and pikes?" Because that way to resist to charges is easier. Even Romans knew that. The "anti cavalry circle" was an emergency formation. At Pharsalus, foreseeing that Pompey would have tried to use his strong cavalry to break trough his right flank, Caesar prepared a line of spearmen. Having a little more time (few hours, not more) Romans could make any field completely impervious to cavalry. As already said, they already industrialised warfare. "Bla bla show me some proof" The Guinness book of records is not proof enough to you? Despite a much wider base of archers rehenactors none came close to 400m employing a longbow reproduction, while amateur slingers can exceed that distance even throwing simple stones. the drag coefficient of arrows had been calculated many times (IE H. O. Meyer "Applications of Physics to Archery", Physics Department, Indiana University, obtained 1.94 ± 0.14), that of bullets and spheres is available even on wikipedia. "Again proof." Again, it had been reported, and archaeological findings confirms it. "Again not all armiers were led from the front," Cavalry heavy armies usually were, unless the commander was too old for it. In this case often another, younger, one was chosen to lead the army from the front anyway. When the army was not led from the front, the command chain was however no notably different. The commander could see better, but not command better. And that's why those armies kept on being commanded from the front until late middle age. In Roman times a Tribune could take the initiative (and they often did, IE at Cynoscephalae), because he saw a good occasion, or a danger. In Medieval times each small group had the initiative because there was no way to coordinate them anyway. It was the only possibility. Please, do not invent "logic errors". Are you that are confusing simple or complex chain of command, with winning or losing at Agincourt. It's obvious that, even in a brawl, someone wins in the end. "Because importance of tactic was less stressed in medieval times dont meant that they dont use tactics and that individuals could not be great with command." But we are not talking about individuals. We are talking about a social and military system that valued tactic, described tactic, and produced specific works about tactic that the commanders were able to read and appreciated, with a social and military system that didn't. "That funny and show that you know nothing." That's funny and show that you know nothing. The lance rest was not used to simply hold the weight of the lance, but to arrest the rearward movement of the weapon.
1
1 I already did you all the infos. It simply seems that you refuse to read them, or your brain refuses to process them after you read. Physics is exactly the reason why longbows have shorter range than slings (compound bows outrange slings, but they weren't available at the time) 1,1 bows and crossbows HAD advantages over the sling, simply the range wasn't among them. Slings requires more training than bows to be used accurately (and crossbows requires even less training), so bows had an advantage for hunting and, once a society formed bowmen for hunting, it's easier to go further and train them for war than to replace the weapon entirely. Bows and crossbows can be used on ships and horses (slings requires space). Bowmen formations can be more packed (and so more easily protected by fences and trenches). But, in a confrontation between Romans and medievals, this has little meaning, because the Roman slingers were already trained. 2 You simply ignored all the examples given saying that they werent valid because the cavalry wasn't in it's ideal conditions, or because you didn't know them. Yeah. Romans used makeshift anti cavalry weapons. Or accurately prepared anti cavalry weapons. It was because they know what cavalry was and how to cope with it. That's exactly why cavalry is not a "win it all" weapon against them. 2,2 I already did actually. An armor is not some sort of impenetrable forcefield. Heavy armored late medieval knights had been killed by a lot of weapons that were not better at coping specifically with armors than those the Romans had. Falchions, daggers, short spears, and so on, even agricultural tools killed knights. 3 And, with those better charge techniques, longer lances, bigger horses ect. they had been stopped multiple times by infantry formations, less disciplined and trained than the Romans and without Swiss pikes. 4,1 Again, that's a straw men you built and continue to answer to. I never told of specific cases of bad leadership. I told of chain of command, literacy level, consideration for the tactic, education to it. "Yea, but in middle age there had been some gifted commander anyway" is not an answer like isn't "Romans lost this battle, so they were shit".
1
1 I gave you the info and the references. You simply decided to ignore them. Besides, YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS 1.1 Sorry, but bows requires less training to be used accurately for hunting (where no super strong bows are required). Once your society has formed bowmen for hunting, it requires less time to obtain bowmen for war simply training them to use bows with heavier draw weight than to replace the weapon entirely. But, in a confrontation between Romans and medievals, this has little meaning, because the Roman slingers were already trained. 2 err... no. In neither of those battles the infantry was armed with "long poleweapons". In one they had normal spears no different from the ones the same Romans used (yeah, Romans knew spears and used them even if they weren't their primary weapon), in another they had short spears-clubs. As already said, Almogavars repeatedly beaten the French Cavalry, and all they generally had were a pair of javelins (with wich they targeted the horses), a short spear and a knife. They didn't search a terrain that was ideal for the cavalry to fight. Why should they had? Mind that Legnano was an "encounter battle", so the infantry prepared its line in haste. They didn't had the time to find any particular terrain. 2.2 You are so wrong. Plate armors are full of gaps to target. "half swording" infact was needed to be accurate enough to target them with a longsword. But to have knigtly weapons was no needed to kill a knight. Heavy armored late medieval knights had been killed by a lot of weapons that were not better at coping specifically with armors than those the Romans had. Falchions, daggers, short spears, and so on, even agricultural tools killed knights. 3 To call "idiotic" and "stupid" what you don't like, or understand, is not making you any favor. You are not particularly impressive, and the use of insults doesn't enhance the level of your arguments. Besides, "discipline is everything" is just another straw man of you. I never said it. If it's idiotic, it's only thank to you, because YOU wrote it. Yeah, medieval cavalry often won. But medieval cavalry NEVER faced a an infantry disciplined, trained, and tactically deployed at Roman level. When medieval cavalry faced an infantry that was barely above the level of "hastly formed militia" they were used to fight, the medieval cavalry often lost, and without the infantry having to use superweapons. Cavalry existed in Roman times. it's not like they didn't know horses. 4.1 To lie is not doing you any favor. I never told of specific cases of bad leadership. I told of chain of command, literacy level, consideration for the tactic, education to it. You simply didn't demonstrate "late medieval combine arms" having any superiority actually. Romans combined: ENGINEERING, heavy infantry, light infantry, heavy ranged weapons, light ranged weapons, cavalry, elephants sometimes, allied troops using their specific weapons and so on, deploying them in complex formations and purposedly tactically moving them during the fight at any level (from the single legionaries switching lines to entire legions moving). In many medieval battles it didn't seem there was any "coordination" actually, the troops only were there, and it's not suprising, since medieval armies were usually led from the front, where the commander couldn't coordinate anything.
1
Infact Many medieval armies, and Agincourt is an example, were led from the front, that seems glorious, but is poor tactic, since the commander in first line doesn't know wnat's happening more than few steps away from him. Roman command chain is much superior than anything seen in Europe until the 30 Years War.
1
A battle between an even number of heavy infantry and heavy cavalry is not "fair". Medieval knights were an exceptionally expensive weapon, and so they were supposed to be effective vs infantry formations several times bigger.
1
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (only it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations less disciplined than the Romans, and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Mind too that most depended on the timing too. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed for cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized first to reach their scutii.
1
Roman slingers vs English archers even more. It didn't happen often to the bowmen to be outranged.
1
Romans used several times the anti cavalry "square" formation (it was round in their case) using the pila as spears. Regardless how armored their rider is, horses don't crush into dense packs of spears bristling infantry. Long pikes obviously were an advantage but, in medieval history, several times infantry formations, less disciplined than the Romans and without Swiss pikes, resisted to cavalry charges (IE at Legnano). Medieval knights had the advantage that usually they fought vs. very undisciplined militias, whose formations were very easy to disrupt. Mind too that most depended on the timing also. Had the Romans some hour to build even very simple fortifications, even only the stimuli and campus liliorum (the field traps they developed to cope with cavalry), the cavalry charge would have been complitely neutralized before the first knight reached a scutum. 1st century Roman armor was very good against projectiles, and was on average better than what a late medieval infantrymen could afford. As for ranged weapons, a 1st century Roman army would have had a ballista for centuria, with a longer range than a 15th century field crossbow, and almost every legionary would have had a sling, that had about the same range than a longbow and was effective vs. horses and lightly armored enemies.
1
They probably wouldn't even waste the pila. IE at Magnesia they disrupted the charge of the chariots and prevented that of the elephants using slings. Slings were a favorite of Roman legionaries, since they were light to carry and inexpensive (and a long sling had about the same range than a longbow).
1
A 9000 men strong Roman army would have been equipped with 90 carroballiste, capable of throwing a 132cm long dart at 650m distance. So, contrary to what one could think, the Romans would have had the advantage of the range over the English.
1
A 1st century army would have had a ballista for centuria, that had higher range than a longbow, then almost any legionary had a sling, that had about the same range. Mind that the 1st century Roman equipment was very good vs projectiles, the longbowmen one, on average, much less.
1
Slings were effective vs horses, and a scarce minority of a 15th century army had plate armors (longbowmen surely hadn't).
1
How much their water will last? Modern armies tend to be much less efficient when they are plagued with dysentery.
1
Actually the average 1st century Roman legionary was stronger than any European opponent until WWII, and Viking era swords were practically useless vs armoured opponents (they were exceptional cutting swords, but no cutting sword will cut trough a Roman chainmail or striped armor, or helmet.
1
Late medieval is the best medieval army scenario first than the introduction of firearms (that obviously would have changed anything). Obviously Romans had good and bad commanders, but ON AVERAGE a Roman commander was much more prepared than a medieval one. Literacy level was way higher in Roman times, tactic was walued, and works about tactic were written (a medieval commander being able to read was not a given). The Roman chain of command was superior to anything seen in Europe until the 30 years war. Late medieval armies were still led from the front. a situation were the commander couldn't see what was happening more than few steps away, let alone react to unexpected situations.
1
Byzantine army was a product of the Migration Age exactly like western armies were.
1
Teutoburg forest is way overcited. Arminius simply betrayed the Romans. It doesn't happen often than an army is literally led by the enemy commander. Romans only had two legions at Rhandeia
1
It had been specified "1st century Roman army", not Byzantine Army.
1
Romans tend to loose the first battles before the Marian reform, when legions were citizen's armies, and so the first battles were fought by newbies. Post Marian reform legionaries were completely different beasts. An average 1st century Roman commander knew about tactic much more than an average 14th century western european commander. Tactic was valued in Roman times, the tactic used in battles battles was reported in contemporary accounts, and there were specific works about the topic. A medieval commander being able to read was not a given.
1
Because , to put it simply, a professional 1st century Roman Army would have barely noticed to be walking over the corpses of an earlier, militia-heavy, medieval army, while an early modern age army would have been too advantaged by the use of firearms. Late medieval armies are the only fair comparison.
1