17th century European army vs 100 AD Roman legion.
Who wins if they both have equal numbers, fight in plain terrain and have the average army composition of their day?
Delete your stupid thread.
>>1179835
wewlad
OP is a faggot
This isn't even a contest. 17th Century has better range in both melee and ranged combat, not to mention the average person and their horse was bigger, stronger and tougher. The Romans would run when the first canonshot tears a huge hole in their line.
Rome, now delete this shit thread dumbass.
Legion rushes into mêlée.
Slow loading guns won't hold them
A thread died for this
Rome > all in a pitched battle
who's commanding Rome?
>>1183208
the guy that runs when they shoot firearms at him
>>1183222
depends on the range at which they are shooting with arquebuses and whether or not the scutum could withstand such shot
strange loud noises are not unique to firearm combat
>>1183286
>depends on the range at which they are shooting with arquebuses
No it doesn't
>whether or not the scutum could withstand such shot
It couldn't
>strange loud noises are not unique to firearm combat
A gunshot is louder than anything in the premodern world.
Rome would be defeated.
>>1179831
If the 17th century army are spaniards like ones in the pic then 17th European army
Wouldn't Rome really have an edge?
Guns around that time were slow to load and the musketeers wouldn't stand a melee attack.
Plus the Romans could employ skirmishers with higher rate of fire than the musketeers.
The gun was pretty much adopted for training reasons not because it was a better weapon.
>>1184592
Good... Good... Let the memes run through you
