How effective would Marian-era Roman arms, armor, and tactics have been during the High Middle Ages in Europe? Assuming that we're using Catholic Mediterraneans as a reference.
probably pretty well
High middle ages were characterized by spearmen and heavy armored cav, which is nothing that the Romans haven't seen before.
>>893441
Wait, wasn't steel far more abundant in the middle ages than in Roman times?
Also, afaik medieval cav tactics were copied from Cataphracts, didn't the Romans often have difficulties dealing with those even?
Also, afaik not every legionary had a lorica hamata. IMHO, the romans would get raped pretty hard by longbowmen and heavy cav charges.
I think historians use the phrase "a roman legion would sort things out in area XYZ" to refer to the unorganized armies of the time, rivaling lords, and the miserable condition society was in as opposed to the roman empire. But in battlefield tactics alone, I don't think (Marian) Romans would stand a chance.
>>893408
Poorly.
We're talking about a literal thousand year tactics and weapons difference, here. Despite what the memes say, there was a bunch of advancements made during the middle ages, and the Roman Legionaries would be outclassed, especially in terms of metallurgy, armour, and weapons.
If Roman Legions could be beaten by its contemporaries: Germanic tribes, what makes you think they'd do better against there much more advanced, numerous, descendants?
>>893513
>If Roman Legions could be beaten by its contemporaries: Germanic tribes
But they couldn't.
They lost one battle outnumbered and on shitty terrain (literally a one man road in the woods). Lucky for the Germanic tribes it was the deceive battle.
Other than that they raped the Germanic tribes every time.
>>893408
Ironically, the Macedonians would've fared far better against Medieval Armies than the Romans. Especially because there was no response that the Europeans could give that Alexander hadn't gone through. The Roman army was designed to fight everything up until the introduction of Heavy cavalry, and I don't think the Legionaries could've witheld the charge with their short swords.
Which is why the schiltron happened and Scotland became free, because some crazy autist nerd scoured through a way to beat the English.
>Horse archers, however, dominated everything, up until the Polish and their Light Cavalry Lance/Pistol remix which BTFO of the the Horse Archers nearly every time.
Did the Romans have gambesons?
>>893540
They had mail
>>893529
>But they couldn't.
>Goes on to give example where they proved they could beat Rome.
Like I said, if contemporaries COULD beat the Romans, what makes you think they'd do better against there much more advanced, numerous, descendants?
>>893553
A bunch of orangutans can kill a squad of modern soldiers stuck in the jungle. I still wouldn't say orangutans can beat a modern army. I hope you can understand that.
In a pitched battle, the Germanic tribes lost 100 times out of 100.
>>893530
Macedonians would have still not faired too well. Unlike the Phalanx, the schlitron was only used in the case of cavalry attacks, the Scots still predominately used traditional tactics of the day. The Phalanx was the backbone of all Macedonian warfare, and it is not a very flexible form of warfare in the slightest. There is a reason why it died out: more versatile tactics outclassed it, and Medieval tactics differently classify as more versatile.
>>893561
The point is that the Romans would get their shit pushed in by a Medieval force, end of story.
>>893511
Jesus, please don't post.
>Also, AFAIK medieval cav tactics were copied from Cataphracts, didn't the Romans often have difficulties dealing with those even?
In that they routinely conquered the empires that used them, and then went on to spend centuries being an existential threat to the Persians and occasionally sacking their capital?
Sure.
So no. Not really.
>Also, afaik not every legionary had a lorica
hamata.
Wrong.
>Wait, wasn't steel far more abundant in the middle ages than in Roman times? In the sens that distinct steel was produced more oftne and steely iron less, yes.
In raw numbes? Not really. The empire produced and absurd amount of iron, and the idea of giving EVERY infantryman and medium or better cavalryman armor was not a thing anybody would consider possible in a high medieval force of any significant size.
>>893540
We don't know.
>>893530
>intorduction of heavy cavalry
Heavy cavalry predated the Macedonian phalanx. It goes back to the fucking assyrian empire.
>>893589
Why do you insist on being retarded?
>>893408
It depends enitrely on the army and who leads it.
I would NOT bet on the citizen armies of the great Italian cities against the Romans.
I would expect the HRE to do horrible things to a roman force as often as not.
The romans would fair horribly in sieges against anyone west of poland.
>>893589
It doesn't matter what point you make, but how you make it. Learn to use valid reasoning to arrive at valid conclusions.
>>893576
>There is a reason why it died out: more versatile tactics outclassed it
Not so much as people like to believe. At Asculum it defeated the Romans, at Cynoscephalae it lost because the terrain was hilly at the army communication failed.
Alexander used Hypaspists (basically Hoplites) as support troops for the Phalanx. The Macedon army under Alexander was very versatile and deadly, but it also needed an capable commander. The big advantage of Phalanx is that on even terrain nothing can take it on frontally. Medieval tactics was based on frontal heavy cav charges.
>>893576
Yes. But what versatile tactics would the Feudal European armies offer? Archery? Flanking attacks? I mean, the phalanx DID inevitably return back to Europe to displace the Heavy Cavalry dominated era. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the phalanx would be 'outclassed' when by definition the phalanx 'outclassed' the Knights.
Here's something people aren't willing to admit about Roman Legionaries. The Javelins were essential for the mobile kind of warfare they used to beat Phalanxes. Javelins though don't really have a place against a Medieval opponent, but Javelins were essential to warfare of that era.
>>893614
>Chariots
>Totally the same thing guys.
>>893614
>Why do you insist on being retarded?
Why do you insist on being an insufferable, name-calling, faggot?
>>893644
>Try cataphracts. Complete with horse armor and lances.
Medieval heavy cav had underarm-couched lances and stirrups. It's the whole momentum of the horse and rider compacted in one point. No amount of Roman Armour could absorb that.
>>893530
>>893627
Anyway. The Marian Legions would be seriously disadvantaged barring the use of extremely creative tactics.
>Fun Fact: We adopted the Heavy Cavalry process through Tours.
>>893644
The problem with horses was that they were originally too small to carry the weight and armor. We had to breed them large enough to do so which was why Chariots fell out of favor in the end.
Give us a source than of Assyrian "Cataphracts." Heavy Cavalry is more than just a guy riding a horse. It's about the momentum of the charge.
>>893655
A guy riding a horse does not a Cataphract make, but I doubt he'll acknowledge this.
>>893408
From what most military records say, the Byzantine Army was trained on a level very similar to their armies of centuries past, The Eastern Romans still had the legion, military tactics, and drilling that made the original roman legion an effective fighting force.
The only problem is that the knights and tactics of high middle ages western europe and the Byzantines rarely clashed.
best example of them clashing though would probably be the Norman invasions of the Byzantine Empire, where the Byzantines threw them back after 140 years of raiding and landings by the Norman knights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine%E2%80%93Norman_wars
It's probably safe to say that the Byzantine professionalism and the wealth to produce hundreds of thousands of troops gave the Eastern Romans an edge over the rest of Western Europe's forces until the age of Gunpowder, which the Byzantines were just unable to adapt to and counter.
>>893408
Arms and armor would be very ineffective, possibly to the point of uselessness. Metalleurgy, as well as just good old fashioned weapon and armor design had passed through quite a lot of improvement by the time of Marius until like 900 AD.
Tactics would have been generally behind, the Romans relied far more on infantry than any good medieval army would have, and that would put them at a serious disadvantage in most terrain types. Traditional Roman tactics often tried to make a break in the center, which is a bad idea against the sorts of enemies who pitch multiple, looser lines than what was seen in Marius's heyday; even if you can break through the center (it's hard) you'll open your advance up to a double envelopment, which is why in later eras, a break towards a side, or both sides if you're really good, was the norm.
What the Romans were good at are factors you're not mentioning. Organization would almost certainly be heavily in the Roman's favor. They actually worked things out like how much food and spare arrows and other supplies to bring, and how many carts you needed to bring them, and how many draft animals you'd need, and what roads to march them on. Medieval armies tended to be more slapdash about such things.
And at least if you believed what a lot of medieval sources wrote, troop training and discipline was better in a Marian legion than in a lot of medieval armies, even professional ones. Hard to measure something like that, unfortunately.
>>893689
I would say romans solely due to professionalism and a strong supply line, competent generals, and generally being a well-rounded fighting force. Now mind you, Romans would also employ auxiliaries so they would fare better than a bunch of feudal lords thrown together in an army.
>>893667
Wikishit actually has a very well cited article on the matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Neo-Assyrian_Empire#cite_note-Healy20-25
If you're the type of idiot who will ignore a wiki article when it's actually sourced, feel free to explain to me how Alexanders cavalry is no longer heavy, or somehow doesn't predate the medieval era.
Or the capathracts of the steppes. Or selucid empire. Or the sassanids. Or romans. All of whom were known to frontally assault infantry with lances.
>>893655
Oh wow.
>Medieval heavy cav had underarm-couched lances
Apparently the normans at Hastings are light cavalry, now. Or not medieval.
>and stirrups
Not the device which allows you to mount a charge with the couched lance. Helpful, not required.
>>893687
Byzantine forces differed considerably in tactics, composition, and professionalism over the course of the empires life, and aren't at all comparable to the "classic" imperial legion. Hell, a lot of their armes aren't even really easily compared to each other.
Fascinating as they are, they're not really relevant.
>>893689\
>Arms and armor would be very ineffective, possibly to the point of uselessness.
No. The only thing that is going to be significantly worse is their helmets. Chain continued to be iron well into the medieval period, and the gladius isn't going to stop cutting through cloth or flesh just because it's outdated.
>>893729
>Or the capathracts of the steppes
The correct answer to the first emergence of Cataphracts.
>>893729
The Gladius, however, is going to have trouble dealing with armored opponents, whom there are more of in 900 than in 50 B.C. The increased reliance of medieval armies on cavalry means that you'd really want something with more reach in case you have to hit someone on horseback. In fact, just more reach in general is usually pretty nice: Historically, the Gladius was used because in the infantry matches the Romans tended to get into, battles lasted quite a while, fatigue would start to set in, the lighter weapon meant you could keep going longer. For a number of reasons, medieval war shifted away from that direction, into one where you probably wanted a longer, heavier weapon, you wouldn't be fighting for as much time.
And I'm not an expert, but I thought there were significant differences between a hamata and say, a 10th century; at the very least, the later stuff is considerably thicker than what the Romans were using, and I believe the rivets were arranged differently, although, again, this is me half-remembering stuff I read a while back.
>>893757
>>893757
>The Gladius, however, is going to have trouble dealing with armored opponents, whom there are more of in 900 than in 50 B.C.
Except there aren't. Romans spent as much time killing Romans as they did anyone else, and Romans had armor. As did the absurd number of hellenes they had to kill.
>In fact, just more reach in general is usually pretty nice
This is true.
>the increased reliance of medieval armies on cavalry means that you'd really want something with more reach in case you have to hit someone on horseback
This is generally true, but not a requirement. once horsemen are stopped, approaching from the side means a man with a shield and helmet can get as close as he wants.
When they're moving, lancers almost always outreach anybody not armed with a pike.
>battles lasted quite a while, fatigue would start to set in, the lighter weapon meant you could keep going longer.
No, weapons of the day simply tended to be that size. It's also likely a consequence of needing to fight around the scutum, and killing men with similarly massive shield while getting so close you could deliver strikes to their feet with your shield rim.
The gladius isn't particularly light by any metric.
>And I'm not an expert, but I thought there were significant differences between a hamata and say, a 10th century; at the very least, the later stuff is considerably thicker than what the Romans were using
I've seen NOTHING to indicate the gauge of wire being used in hamatas. Rivet shape and arrangement does change, but this continues all through the lifetime of mail, and it's never the sort of the thing that is 100% make or break for how good the armor is.
An arming sword isn't going to hack through roman mail, just as the gladius won't hack through medieval mail.
High medieval infantry is going to lose to legions fairly consistently. Roman cavalry will lose to medival cavalry. How the winners will interact is very hard to determine.
>>893799
And if you're trying to claim that a force form 900ad is going to have more armor than a roman force from 50 ad... no.
A large army from 900ad would be FABULOUSLY well armed if they could assure everyone had a mail coif or iron skullcap, shield, spear, sidearm, and gambeson, and armor all their cavalry in mail shirts.
High medieval forces would be better armed, but this mans you're going from "A good amount of the infantry had gambesons "to, at the end of the period "they almost all have gambesons and helmets, a good portion have metal armor." Some of it is even going to be unarguably better than roman armor, but it still isn't universal, and you're still getting medievals stabbed or cut in the torso because they have cloth to defend them.
The armored cavalry would still be a distinct minority in their forces.
The balance tips farther and farther against the romans as time passes, but they'd likely shithouse a force from the beginning of the period. The cavalry simply wouldn't have the numbers to defeat the romans, and the infantry would absolutely melt.
>>893729
Why is there no statement about the equipment or gear these Assyrian "cataphracts" used?
>>894136
There is. A transition from bows to lances is clearly mentioned, as is the use of lamellar armor and cloth horse barding.
>>894148
I only see mention of scale-armor.
>>894158
>By the 7th century BC, mounted Assyrian warriors were well armed with a bow and a lance,[25] and armored with lamellar armour, while their mounts were equipped with fabric armour, providing limited yet useful protection in close combat and against missiles. Cavalry were to form the core of the later Assyrian armies.
It's in the same sentence.
Also, scale and lamellar are not the same things.
>>893408
They were all professional soldiers so although their equipment might have lacked some of the innovations developed in the centuries onwards they would have given any medieval army a lot of trouble in a pitched battle.
In economic terms though a legion is very expensive, an army marches on its stomach and a Roman legion would be very out of place in the medieval world with castles everywhere with crossbowmen, all their roads dilapidated and their supply lines constantly raided by superior cavalry.
At the same time an influential medieval noble could call upon their allies and mercenaries and easily raise an army of professionals of their own rather than rely on their local levies.
>>894170
You'd get a semi-professional army in the medieval period. Fully professional forces were still a long way off.
>>894163
Not him but all the sources even in the wiki article your linking more or less coin Assyrian cavalry as being "like" a prototype of actual cataphracts.
>>895777
Armored lancers on horses with even light protection ARE cataphracts. It would still qualify well into the medieval period.
>>893529
>Other than that they raped the Germanic tribes every time.
Lol sure they did Silvio
Sure they did
Just like that one time when germanic tribes literally invaded the very capital of the roman empire itself like it was a sunday stroll, causing its downfall
Decent enough, tactics would be their saving grace, the shield and armour was now common if not outclassed by the majority of medieval troops.
The thing about heavy infantry is, since the dawn of soldiers to the musket era, heavy infantry just got progressively heavier and heavier.
In the ancient middle east, you were heavy infantry if you just had a big shield, no armour or anything, just a shield and spear.
Later, such as the Greeks, you were heavy infantry if you had a cuirass, which doesn't weigh too much.
Later you become heavy infantry if you have mail armour. Then long full mail covering
Eventually this becomes plate armour.
And then the super heavy full plate.
And if guns didn't come along, i wonder how much heavier things would have gotten.
>>895954
>talking about Marian to Augustan-Era Roman Legions
>proceeds to talk about a period that happens 400 years later where literally everything about the organization of roman armies was completely different
>>895954
Thats the cause of the fall of Rome in the same way the assassination of Franz Ferdinand causes WW1...
>>895958
>Later, such as the Greeks, you were heavy infantry if you had a cuirass, which doesn't weigh too much.
That is not any lighter than a mail shirt. Additionally, greek forces had a mix of armor, with textile torso defense being more common than metal, and men with no torso armor at all being commonplace.
>Later you become heavy infantry if you have mail armour. Then long full mail covering
Except that''s wrong. Gauls trying ot kill Caesar didn't stop being heavy infantry when they only had a shield and helmet.
Anglo-saxon fyrdmen sis not stop being heavy infantry even when they lacked ANY armor at all, and relied solely on the shieldwall for protection.
Byzantines with long as fuck spears forming a spearwall did not stop being heavy infantry just because they relied on shields and padded armor for protection.
An englishman with a longbow, sword, helmet, and brigandine did not suddenly qualify as heavy infantry when he put his armor on, despite being better defended than most heavy infantry in history.
A man with a poleaxe, kettle hat, and gambeson did not qualify as light when standing in a dense block of similar men, even if that archer was 100 yards in front skirmishing.
Please learn what heavy infantry actually are.
>>893408
>Assuming that we're using Catholic Mediterraneans as a reference.
> High Middle Ages
That means both condotta and "normal" knights.
But overall?
I'll tell you this - Roman army wasn't really good at fighting cavalry, they depended on their own cavalarymen and auxiliary troops to do it and since cavalry in the antics wasn't that much of a game-changer it wasn't a problem. Now the problem is that both of them would be absolutely outdated by High Middle Ages and cavalry was dominating the battlefields.
The typical Roman infantry would probably do... not worse than levies. Worse than mentioned condotta or any other professional soldiers because those used bows and crossbows extensively while Romans could answer with javelins at relatively short range. Levies though, would be decimated.
As for how would entire Roman Empire fare when fighting some medieval country - it would probably win through the amount of resources it could pour on the enemy. However on tactical level they may have been drilled and trained well enough, but warfare evolved since they were a thing.
>>896172
>The typical Roman infantry would probably do... not worse than levies. Worse than mentioned condotta or any other professional soldiers because those used bows and crossbows extensively while Romans could answer with javelins at relatively short range. Levies though, would be decimated.
I'll expand a little bit.
The professional soldiers of high middle ages were better armed and armoured than Roman legionaries were which includes the use of weapons that could actually defeat armoured opponent and Romans wouldn't have those.
As I've said the drill and training were decent and that would give them upper hand over disorganised levies but the typical medieval infantry would simply beat them technologically.
>>896172
>High middle ages
>Cavalry dominance
The Early middle ages was the cavalry dominant period.
The high one saw the reemergence of professional infantry cunts that pretty much ended the all around dominance of cavalry.
In a protracted war, the Romans would do well. In a single battle, I am skeptical. Late Roman (and Eastern Roman in-general) armies with the hasta (spear) as primary weapon would perform much better as they would have the advantages of better reach as well as the advantage the Marian troops would have with regard to more widespread use of armor.
>>896199
You couldn't be more wrong.
While there were several battles where infantry defeated cavalry like it was nothing, the majority of them were still very cavalry-oriented, and while cavalry stopped being the sole battle-winner in early 16th century, they were still very important, important to the point where during 30-years war cavalry formed higher percentage of overall WE armies than during any other war in recorded history, that includes early middle ages.
What I forgot about were sieges which was the main point of every war during middle ages, and yes, Romans would do very well in those just because they've had professional army that didn't have to go back home on harvest.
>>893408
Chiefly worried about their sword use, I reckon it would come down to superior generalship of either side. Morale is everything.
>>896226
>overall WE armies
>mfw
>>896226
>army that didn't have to go back home on harvest.
Do you know of any post 1000 AD army that had to go back home for harvest?
>>896240
Every one that practised raising levies. That's why mercenaries were so common, they didn't go back for harvest.
>>896243
>Every one that practised raising levies
Well do you have an example of an army that fucked off to home during harvest time? I can't actually think of that many conflicts that were paused because it was harvest time. In fact the feudal levy thing had a maximum duration of 40 days anyways which meant it stopped being useful quite early on.
