How would the roman legion fare against an 11th century crusading army?
Crusaders lost to arab goatfuckers
they'd lose to the romans too
>>667768
What kind of Roman legion? A principate army wouldn't have a real counter to crusader heavy cavalry combined with heavy infantry.
>>667768
A roman legion would be fucked, because smaller numbers and no combined arms.
A roman army would probably fuck them, given same quality of leadership.
>>667847
>A principate army wouldn't have a real counter to crusader heavy cavalry combined with heavy infantry.
A principate army would be conposed of a spine of much better quality heavy infantry (the legion) combined with just as heavy cavalry (the clibanarii) and other auxiliaries like archers. They weren't that different in forces composition.
>>667871
so romans would win? I thought their cavalry was crap compared to crusading knights.
>>667768
The legions from the days of the early emperors or those from 460?
The crusading army probably has both a numerical and quality advantage in cavalry. Early imperial Rome and republican Rome were notoriously bad at providing native cavalry so they quickly had mercenaries fill that role.
In one corner you got say, a cavalryman on a 14 hands high horse with a four horned saddle. The guy himself would wear a short mail shirt.
In the other corner you got a mail clad Frank or Norman, on a slightly bigger horse, with stirrups, a high cantle and pommel saddle and a couched lance.
Aside from numerical superiority that is going to end up bad for the Roman side.
To be honest it's going to boil down to what type of terrain the battle takes place and what the morale of the troops is. The leader is quite important in this regard and a good or bad leader will make or break the battle.
>>667925
>I thought their cavalry was crap
Meme as fuck. Roman cavalry always performed ok to great throughout their history, the only issue was that it was never available in quantity because the social class they came from was the officer class, and Rome could use auxiliaries for cavalry but not for officer positions.
Roman (as in, properly roman) cavalry however pretty much stopped existing during the principate, so it's a moot point anyway. It was replaced by auxiliaries like the numidian light cavalry,premier light cavalry of the period, and persian (ethnically not geographically, so eastern anatolians and middle easterners mostly) clibanarii/cataphractarii, also best heavy cavalry of the period. The clibanarii were pretty much identical to crusading knights as far as armor and tactics go, whereas the cataphtactarii were just slighly lighter but had ranged weaponry.
>so romans would win?
Probably yeah.
>>667938
>The guy himself would wear a short mail shirt.
Imperial Rome had heavy cavalry with heavier armor than the crusaders, and they used the same shock tactics too.
>>667871
Clibanarii would be a rarity before late empire armies, and even then, they wouldn't do too well against 11th century knights.
>>667957
Sarmatians and cataphracts?
OP has yet to define what type of army he meant.
>>667957
>Meme as fuck.
>no stirrups
yea ok senpai
>The clibanarii were pretty much identical to crusading knights as far as armor and tactics go,
youre a fucking idiot
their whole style was different
no way at all could a person without stirrups match up to the couched lance crusaders
its just total bullshit
The only thing i can think that the crusaders hade that the romans didedent have is the gambeson along with some small peices of plate (depending on what era pls for the love of god say a fucking era asshole the roman empire/republic existed for over a thousand years)
romans probably hade better training
>>667975
Well they could hold it with two hands but without stirrups you can't really push your butt into the cantle.
>>667967
>OP has yet to define what type of army he meant.
Yes well does it matter? Let's just take the best from both factions, otherwise it's pointless.
It's not like anyone cares about who would win between monarchic Rome and the people's crusade.
>>667975
>no stirrups
No one had stirrups back then so it's irrelevant.
>their whole style was different
No you retard. Just because the crusaders relied on the couched lance and the clibanarii on the horse charge doesn't mean the tactics were different. They both formed lines or wedges and charged at the enemy's flanks.
>>667985
Infantry on both sides would be more or less similarly armed. Perhaps a bit more mail coverage on the crusader side plus a somewhat smaller 'norman' kite shield.
At this point though the 11th century cavalry is going to ravage the Roman cavalry which would qualify as light cavalry by this point.
If the Crusader general is good he's going to only fight on terrain of his choosing. If the Roman general is good he's only going to fight on terrain of his choosing.
>>667995
The best of 11th century crusades is going to yield a really short list...
>>667768
Assuming equal numbers, the Legion has the advantage.
Ofc, Crusading armies aren't the best quality of army, so it's not really a fair comparison. Professional Legionnaires vs some full-time, some part-time, and some downright peasant-tier troops. Pit the Legion against a Crusading Order like the Templars, and with even numbers the advantage swings well to the Knights.
>>668022
>peasant-tier troops
When will the mememing end?
Wouldn't Arrians tactics work really well against a Crusading army?
>>668039
Could you give a tl;dr for me? I only read the Byzantine stuff and Vegetius.
>>668035
Some of the men who took the Cross were not professional warriors. Problems with poor discipline plagued crusader armies, often harming relations with the local Christians, who sometimes preferred Muslim rule to the rapacity of crusaders.
>>668012
>Infantry on both sides would be more or less similarly armed
no
the footsoldiers of the first crusade were very poorly armed in comparison
remember that even for knights mail armour was extremely expensive
>>668044
As far as I can tell the vast majority of the first Crusade were soldiers with armor to begin with. Harassing the local population sure but the leaders of the first crusade didn't take along useless mouths to feed. In fact many nearly bankrupted themselves going on crusade.
As for the second bit, during the siege of Antioch Crusaders were supposed to recognize each other by their Frankish mustache (as opposed to full beards). What haperend of course was that local Christians and Jews were also killed when Bohemond openend the gates.
That said once things started to settle down a bit relations became better.
>>668056
>the first Crusade
Well sure, but there were a whole bunch of other crusades, and OP didn't specify. Most crusading armies were a mixed bag of quality, at least when they first set out. A few years crusading would probably iron out a lot of kinks, but the Legion is nothing but professional soldiers right from the start.
But the crusaders do have the technological advantage, not just stirrups and lances but also larger and more aggressive horses. An army of full-time Knights should beat an equal army of Legionaries most of the time.
>>668055
>the footsoldiers of the first crusade were very poorly armed in comparison
Well they had more mail and their numbers were constantly augmented by cavalrymen who had lost their horse.
While the third crusade was nearly a century later a particular quote from then might illustrate it. You probably heard of Saladins scribe or confidant talk about how the infantry resembled pin cushions by the end of a days march.
>>668070
He did sort of
>against an 11th century crusading army?
There were only two crusades in the 11th century to my knowledge. The first real crusade and the peoples crusade.
>>668071
Not that faggot, but mail was the usual form of armor for the Legions, and every man would have a set. On the other hand, Crusaders would wear more mail (those who had any, that is) which is helpful against archers... but the Romans don't have shit for bows anyway, so that's not going to help them. On foot, the Legion would win quite handily, but the Crusader cavalry would be like nothing they had faced.
>>668075
So at least 50% peasants, then?
>>667979
what the fuck are you saying
>>668071
>Well they had more mail
this is a roman legion and an 11th century crusading army were talking about
legionaries would either be in mail, scale or plate
first crusade was more of an armed movement, the average soldier would be very lightly armoured, if armoured at all
the later crusades such as the third were military expeditions, not comparable
>>667768
>How would the roman legion fare against an 11th century crusading army?
Are we History Channel now?
>>668085
>>667979
>mfw an illiterate asks another illiterate to write more clearly
English sentences always begin with a capitalised word and end with a punctuation symbol. There is no "e" in "had".
>>668081
Am I reading this wrong or are you implying mail is only good against arrows? First off I would have to say that is wrong and second why would Romans bother with mail if it only stopped arrows seeing how they had a positively gigantic shield?
Mail is good against a lot of battlefield threats which is why it was used for so long.
>>668084
The peoples crusade is more of a mob that set one foot in Asia minor before getting stompted. Probably killed more Jews in Europe than muslims.
>>668087
In 30 bc - 100 AD. Mail would still have been the most common among the serving legionaries.
I don't see why the first and third crusade can't be compared. Both were led by aristocrats who brought along soldiers, these weren't guys just tagging along with an old shovel.
>>667768
The legion would tear it a new asshole is this a joke? Crusader armies were notoriously shit.
>>668112
Please point out the lost battles of the first crusade to which the OP is referring.
>>668085
What the fuck does it look like i am saying?
read the words and puzzle it out faggot, just because i cant form coherent sentences dosent mean you should be a retard.
>>668042
Combined arms. Heavy cavalry, heavy infantry, archers and catapults.
Heavy cavalry protecting the flanks. Archers and heavy infantry (4 men deep, shields, pilum and spear) in the center.
Silent until the enemy is in range. When enemy is in range, they would shout as loud as they can and concentrate missile fire (arrows, stones and pilum).
If for some reason the cavalry still charged, heavy infantry holds the ground with locked shields and spears the horses. 3 first ranks stop the charge, 4th rank throws their pilum. 1st rank spears the horse, continuously.
>>668154
I'd really say it depends on quality of the cavalry and infantry in question.
I for one can't really think of any situation where missile fire alone managed to stop charging cavalry until the 19th century.
It all depends on whether the cavalry is still willing to keep charging and whether or not the Roman infantry is willing to take more charges.
Are these the tactics meant to be used against the Alans? I never knew those guys just did frontal charges.
>>668185
a barrage of pilum could fuck up a cavalry charge
ofc they could still reach what ever they where charging but they would lose alot men and horses and the charge would be slowed since if a horse drops in the front then the rest have to get over it,
and even if they dont die javelins/pilum (pilum especially) would stick to the armor/shields and encumber the enemy the same applies to horses, dont forget that a pilum is a rather hefty peice of metal and wood and could be throw rather hard
but if you dont have infantry that can brace the charge then you just sacrificed alot of men since you have to get real close to be able to hit with javelins/pilum good thing legionares where heavy infantry equipped with pilum
>>668209
I realize that but even javelins won't stop a cavalry charge dead in it's tracks. At least I don't know of any battle in which it did.
Another thing is that you're going to only carry one or two at most. Honestly I and I think a lot of people still wonder why javelins fell out of favor during the late Roman Empire and pretty much everywhere after that. Cavalry and naval use of javelins continued for a long time but it seems infantry use stopped by the High middle ages.
mounted armored knights with stirrups and lances would crush them
>>668185
It is more of a morale thing than a "physically stop them" thing.
>>668216
I wasent arguing that it would stop the charge dead in its tracks (it migth have happend a few times against small forces of light cavalry who just said "fuck no i aint running into that again")
>Another thing is that you're going to only carry one or two at most.
this is true but breaking up a cavalry charge and makeing it less effective could literally turn the tide of battle
> I and I think a lot of people still wonder why javelins fell out of favor during the late Roman Empire and pretty much everywhere after that.
well the romans replaced the pilum with plumbata pic related
as for why it everyone stopped using it alltogether is simply (imo) because its lack of range it just wasent viable anymore, combat is constantly evolving, if you tried to send a skirmishing force of javelinmen (wich was the most common use for them) they would most likely get cut down by archers or cavlary before they even got to toss their javelins
>but it seems infantry use stopped by the High middle ages.
This i would account to the fact that armor was getting alot better and javelins just wherent doing alot of damage anymore also they are cumbersome to carry (like bring two extra spears with you) and only good when used enmass
>>668235
ofc i forgot the pic
>>668231
Well yes if the cavalry was found to be lacking enthusiasm, the more motivated folks would accept causalities and keep going.
>>668235
I reckon that is true, though a second, third or even fourth charge wouldn't have to deal with javelins would they?
That dart looks ridiculous though, or that might just be me. Wouldn't want to get it by it.
>>668252
>I reckon that is true, though a second, third or even fourth charge wouldn't have to deal with javelins would they?
yeah thats true hopefully the enemy wouldent want to even attempt a third charge
>That dart looks ridiculous though
yeah i think so to, but i wouldent underestimate it, it probably wouldent look silly once theres 200 flying your way :^)
also it allowed the individual to carry up to 5 plumbata instead of 2 pilum, they also hade carried them on the shields making them easy to reach in the heat of battle
also the smaller size allowed them to be tossed with ease in compact formations
>>668268
forgot the pic again
>>668268
I can already envision late roman battles with legionaries throwing those darts like it's dodgeball. Barging through a city gate just throwing those darts like a god damn call of duty game.
FUND IT.
No but seriously it seems historical truth is often stranger than fiction, though I say this mostly from a medieval point of view.
>>667835
Those arab goatfuckers buttdevastated the romans repeatedly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Yarmouk
Heavy Cavalry would rape the Legions.
>>668338
Isn't it very uncommon for heavy Cavalry t charge against heavy infantry that was not routing and destroying them?
>>668345
Nah, medieval cavalry would frontal charge just about anything and succeed more often than not.
>>668345
Their purpose was to make the enemy rout. If you want to chase fleeing enemies there isn't really any purpose to heavy armor and big expensive horses is there?
>>667835
>implying they didn't lose because of the asymmetrical nature of jihad
>>668348
Uh? Most cases of frontal charges against disciplined infantry failed. I can't think of many cases where it worked, if any.
>>668358
>I can't think of many cases where it worked, if any.
How about Patay?
>>668358
Not the guy you are replying too (and he's wrong about frontal charges all day erryday) but there are examples of charges on fully formed infantry being successful.
Battle of Dyrrhachium is probably the closest to our time frame.
>>668362
The level of discipline amongst the English for that battle is questionable. They were strung out and the leading echelons had been arsed about a lot so were presumably confused and low on morale. After that it was a cohesive French cavalry force mopping up isolated elements.
>>668358
If you are English you probably know of the charge of the Unions Brigade at waterloo.
>>668365
Not the guy you where replying to but there are many factors in battle so basically anything tactic can work given the right circumstances, but in general heavy cavalry against heavy infantry in formation would usually end with alot of dead people, more so on the cavalry side
>>668386
Well the thing is that I cannot think of many cases in which the battle was openend with a cavalry charge against infantry to begin with. Except for say Patay.
From the time Alexander more or less invented heavy cavalry until WWI they were always held in reserve or deployed on the flanks. A few exceptions here and there. And if they did try to charge units that hadn't fought until then they usually went for the flanks like sane people.
>>668279
>I can already envision late roman battles with legionaries throwing those darts like it's dodgeball.
Yeah romans always liked to have that extra little edge over their enemy
>No but seriously it seems historical truth is often stranger than fiction,
Yeah, its a shame more people arent intressted in history, humans are and always have been pretty fucking fascinating
imo military history will always be most intressting since battle breeds inovation
>>667768
This question is silly. Where is each army getting its supplies from? One of the key advantages of the Romans was their logistical capabilities. Does the 11th century army suddenly pop into Roman territory and get slaughtered? Or does the Roman legion pop into the 11th century and suddenly have to figure out how to feed themselves?
>>668252
>Well yes if the cavalry was found to be lacking enthusiasm, the more motivated folks would accept causalities and keep going.
mabey it was more ment to scare the horses then the men, think about it they charge up to silence then all of the sudden a bunch of shouting and well you know a hail storm of arrows, rocks and pilum, i would say thats enough to scare most horses, unless they where very well trained
>>668399
the crusaders made it all the way to turkey then they all of the sudden popped up right infront of a roman legion just about to start their formation practice, and for some reason they tougth the romans where muslim
there does that make it more logical?
>>668412
In the (mentioned) Battle of Dyrrhachium, they stopped the charge with missiles.
Unfortunately for the Byzantine, part of their army were Anglos.
Eternal Anglo, like in Hastings decided to pursue fleeing enemies and ended up losing the battle in doing so.
These questions are fucking bad
>>668412
Training is the thing yeah. But that's why warhorses were so expensive, you're looking at a horse worth between 100.000 and 200.000 dollars with a maintenance price tag that's quite high.
>>668429
But ask yourself, did they stop the charge or did they feign a retreat?
Charging and reforming was the bread and butter of cavalry since the dawn of time.
>>668437
That was not a feigned retreat.
